Talk:Boudica

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 January 2021 and 6 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Obfuscatiion. Peer reviewers: SpencerPaddock.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Head of Nero
This edit removed a passage suggesting that a bronze head of Nero was removed from its statue during the insurrection, pointing out that: "theory unsupported". Yet the reference, also deleted, reads: "[…]the balance of probability is that this provincial bronze statue of Rome’s fifth emperor was toppled and decapitated during the Boudiccan Revolt of 60/61.". Surely that's enough to sustain it in the article, albeit with some qualification, if that's thought necessary. I'm minded to reinstate this--AntientNestor (talk) 11:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree, go for it. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:15, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. Also at Boudican revolt.--AntientNestor (talk) 07:17, 17 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The full version of your quote is: “Whatever its original location, context and significance, the balance of probability is that this provincial bronze statue of Rome’s fifth emperor was toppled and decapitated during the Boudiccan Revolt of 60/61.” This does not appear to be either an endorsement of the theory that the bronze came from Colchester, or of the theory that it is an image of the head of Claudius. I would question whether balance of probability is a valid reason for keeping this in.


 * The head was first displayed at the Society of Antiquaries in 1908. In 1914, it was “supposed” that the “large bronze head, closely resembling Claudius”, had probably been “torn from the Temple of Claudius … by British pillagers” during the Boudiccan Revolt. This would appear to be where the dot-joining began. A study by Russell and Manley in 2013 concluded that, on the contrary, the head looked nothing like Claudius and probably had no connection with Colchester.


 * Russell & Manley, whose words I quoted in the edit summary, said in 2015: “The previously commonly-accepted idea that the bronze head of Claudius, found in 1907 near Saxmundham, was ripped from a statue in Colchester during the Boudican uprising is now classified as a theory unsupported by any evidence. (British Museum artefact notice; see also Russell, 2006; Russell and Manley, 2014).”


 * I think these are good enough reasons to cast this story overboard, if you have no further objections. 194.81.226.132 (talk) 15:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * To spell that out a little more, our article's "which had probably stood in front of the temple was decapitated and its head taken as a trophy" isn't supported by the source. Russell and Manley consider whether it might have come from Colchester (plausible locations within which include in or in front of the temple of Claudius) along with other possibilities, but conclude only that "the balance of probability is that this provincial bronze statue of Rome’s fifth emperor was toppled and decapitated during the Boudiccan Revolt of 60/61" without saying where that happened or that the head was taken as a trophy. We could say that a bronze head found in Suffolk may have been struck from a statue of Nero at this time, or that it probably was, but not that the statue was in Colchester, which would be implied if we left a corrected sentence in the paragraph about Colchester without qualification. NebY (talk) 17:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Not "cast the story overboard" but "retain it with qualification", then.--AntientNestor (talk) 20:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * But where? In this article, it doesn't fit into the linear narrative but could perhaps be added to the 21st-century part of the Legacy section, saying that the British Museum has a head found in Suffolk, probably struck from a statue of Nero during the revolt. Boudican revolt is also a linear narrative and doesn't seem to offer such an opportunity. NebY (talk) 21:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

The article is very much a linear narrative but the "head of Nero" sentence could still remain with "Colchester", where it's the best fit, but enlarging on the possibility that it could have come from some other stage or location of the uprising.--AntientNestor (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Fitting it into the Colchester narrative implies that that's the probable story of the head. I recommend reading the entire source to understand how unsafe that conjecture is and that it is not one which we as Wikipedians are justified in following contrary to our source. Besides, we don't even need it to describe the progress of the revolt; that's amply clear without it. The most we need to do is to describe it under Legacy as a likely relic of the revolt. NebY (talk) 15:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree that the source, taken as a whole, expresses doubt about the original location (my original post only quoted from the summary). It's an important artefact from the rebellion so I suppose that it wouldn't be out of place as legacy in ===21st Century===, with some context included. Although I brought this up, I'm reluctant to do it myself: it needs a fresh take now.--AntientNestor (talk) 16:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Afterthought: It's more relevant on Boudican revolt than here: in the context of this account of her whole life it's not significant.--AntientNestor (talk) 06:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:08, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Good point! OK, I've removed it from this article. In Boudican revolt, I've moved rephrased mention of it to a new section "Relics", titled in the hope that we might have more relics we can mention but in preference to "Legacy" which really might promise more than we're delivering; indeed, offering one bronze head as the sole legacy might even seem contemptuous. NebY (talk) 19:04, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. AntientNestor (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Battle location
A recent edit states: "The last known location of the Roman army was north Wales whilst Boudica's army's last known location was Hertfordshire and so according to a historian, the final battle place of Boudica could have taken place anywhere between these locations."

These statements are not correct. The last known location of the Roman army was Londinium, not north Wales. Tacitus stated that, when Suetonius on Mona (Anglesey) heard of the uprising, he "went through the midst of the enemy to Londinium". ("At Suetonius ... inter hostis Londinium perrexit.") "Suetonius went to Londinium" meant "Suetonius with his army went to Londinium". It did not mean "Suetonius leapt on to a horse and galloped off to see what was happening, leaving his army behind to catch up later." (In the same way that "Caesar conquered Gaul" obviously meant that Caesar conquered Gaul with his army.) So when Suetonius arrived at Londinium, it was with his entire army, other than the men who were left to garrison Mona, and when he withdrew from Londonium it was with his army.

It may also not be stated as fact that "Boudica's army's last known location was Hertfordshire," by which Verulamium is presumably intended. Suetonius would have had no need to march his army back up Watling Street, and it would not have been sensible to do so. This assumption appears to be based on a combination of misreading of the Latin text, which is admittedly vague, and on previously expressed opinions that because Verulamium is mentioned third in a list, it must have therefore been Boudica's third target. There is no evidence whatsoever to support this assumption. Tacitus gives only a brief summary of events, which are not necessarily in chronological sequence, and he does not say that Boudica's army was responsible for destroying Verulamium, only that it happened. If the rebellion was spreading, the attackers at Verulamium could equally have been local tribes. So it appears not to be correct to state that the final battle "could have taken place anywhere between" north Wales and London.

I offer these thoughts for discussion and consensus. The author may also wish to contribute further comments. 194.81.226.132 (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)


 * It's not up to us to interpret Tacitus, dismiss Dio, or judge what would be sensible strategy. See below. NebY (talk) 21:29, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Sources, points of view
"We strive for articles in an impartial tone that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight for their prominence. [] All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources." (Five pillars) Consequences for this article, Boudican revolt and Defeat of Boudica include
 * Shortcuts to relevant policies and guidelines include WP:V, WP:RS, WP:SPS and WP:FRINGE.
 * In short, we don't use self-published books, blogs and websites (WP:SPS). We try to avoid relying on primary sources and Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves (WP:SCHOLARSHIP). We prefer newer secondary and tertiary sources to older - see WP:AGE MATTERS - and Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics. (WP:RSEDITORIAL)
 * We should look to modern scholars writing reliable sources to track the movements of Sertorius Suetonius and Boudica.
 * We should not prioritise an archaeolgist's off-the-cuff remarks for a news report, pouring scorn on a local councillor's idea that relics of the battle will be found in a Birmingham construction site, either.
 * We should treat the postulations of Richard Williams Morgan and Owen "Morien" Morgan as unsupported WP:FRINGE. They're interesting to a historiographer such as Martha Vandrei, writing in "Queen Boudica and Historical Culture in Britain: An Image of Truth" about representations and uses of Boudica (see also her short History Today article Queen Boudica, A Life in Legend and her discussion of them could have a place in our Boudica section, but they are not reliable sources for Wikipedia. I recommend reading our articles about them for further background on their motivations and inspirations and on their current reputation, or Prys Morgan's "From a Death to a View: The Hunt for the Welsh Past in the Romantic Period" in The Invention of Tradition (ed Eric Hobsbawm & Terence Ranger) for an engaging introduction to the preceding movement.
 * We must not insert our own assessments into aticles in Wikipedia's voice ("although from reading Tacitus it seems unlikely", "plausible suggestions") - that too requires a WP:RS.
 * We should remain mindful of the reader; if we present a dense paragraph describing a main theory followed by bullet points of the claims advanced in the magazines of local historical societies, many readers will jump to the bullet points. NebY (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2022 (UTC) corrected 12:46, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this thoughtful critique of the way the article is developing. The piece seems no longer to comply with WP:UNDUE and it needs someone with a sound, balanced knowledge of the topic to put it right.--AntientNestor (talk) 21:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I wanted to start on the talk page, but there's a lot we can do to improve this as a Wikipedia article by following Wikipedia's principles and practices. NebY (talk) 22:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Modern Boudicca pronunciation
I know the Boudica pronunciation took over some time ago, but at a certain point, the modern pronunciation for Boudicca with the soft 'c' was used. Can someone add this in the IPA bit?Halbared (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

North East Wales theory
The source supporting the deleted text was a BBC radio news report concerning Roman remains found in Birmingham. An archaeologist was quoted as saying "We know the Roman Army was coming down from Wales." It therefore appears that the last-known location of the Roman army was not thought to have been north Wales. The archaeologist was also said to have commented that the battle could have taken place anywhere in between. An off-the-cuff comment in this context would not appear to qualify as quotable information from a published source. 194.81.226.131 (talk) 15:18, 15 August 2022 (UTC) (Minor reword 194.81.226.132 (talk) 15:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC) ) (Minor revision 194.81.226.132 (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2022 (UTC))


 * Yes. (It's also disturbing that a Birmingham councillor assumed Roman remains = Boudica's last battle, and that he had the PR clout to get it on the BBC.) As the only WP:RSs in that para didn't support it, I've pulled it, allowing us to lose the subheads. NebY (talk) 23:38, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Bioligy
This is stupid 2A02:C7F:9B35:5800:E851:2A60:2B10:AF06 (talk) 12:26, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Revolt article
There is a separate article about the revolt, so I'm unclear why there is so much overlap between this article and the other one. It looks as if the level of detail here needs to be moved across to the other article if it is not already there. Comments? Amitchell125 (talk) 08:29, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree; keep the salient points only here. There's also lavish treatment at Defeat of Boudica.--AntientNestor (talk) 08:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It's tedious work keeping the two articles in step and some editors might not realise there are two, so improvements, corrections and clarifications may not appear in both. 's diplomatic to say "lavish"; we have eg problematic duplications and variations about the place of the final battle and Boudica's burial in Defeat of Boudica. Should that be merged into Boudican revolt? NebY (talk) 16:50, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Great idea! Do want to be bold go ahead with the merge yourself? Amitchell125 (talk) 18:42, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * We'd need a proper merge discussion. NebY (talk) 18:50, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that's what I meant. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Great, long overdue for a merge and delete IMHO. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:41, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Speculation
I was shocked to read that "It is likely [Prasutagus and Boudica] considered themselves to have Roman citizenship; an indication of this was that Prasutagus made a will, behaviour that was typical of a Roman citizen." Will-making was not exclusive to Roman citizens; indeed leaving part or all of one's kingdom to Rome was a gambit used by some rulers who didn't want an heir to have a motive to kill them (the will could be rewritten in old age to omit Rome). Attalus III, for example, did not consider himself a Roman citizen but famously left Pergamon to Rome in 133 BC, greatly enriching the republic. While this calls the source into doubt, it also raises a wider issue for the article. The source first; it's by a journalist, it's described as "an evocatively told story", "a gripping and enlightening recreation". I'd like to see an academic review of it. What I've seen quoted here suggests that it sets out to engage the reader with a great deal of speculative colour. The article's been expanded by including such speculation from various sources. We should certainly not put such speculation forward in Wikipedia's voice, but more than that, we need an indication of a degree of academic consensus to include it at all. NebY (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, reading through a lot of Collingridge's book recently, I am coming to the conclusion that it is rather speculative in places, and might have passages that need careful checking before they are used. I'll look for an academic review as you suggest. She was the last of the authors I turned to when working on improving this article, and so if necessary she can be 'unpicked', so to speak, quite easily.


 * I don't know which other parts of the article (or which sources) you regard as speculative. Could you provide more information? Amitchell125 (talk) 18:16, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's another example, which i deleted after starting this talk-page section:
 * His position as a client king benefitted both his people and the Romans, who profited from being occupiers whilst permitting a local king to continue ruling on their behalf. Prasutagus and Boudica would have led comfortable lives, partly as a result of increased contact with Roman tastes and styles.
 * It doesn't have any direct foundation in sources or archaeology. It seems to be making a more general assumption that clientship was beneficial to the clients, which is highly arguable especially in the light of frequent revolts by clients and Roman expansion of the empire, let alone the idea that contact with Roman tastes would make their lives more comfortable. I glanced at Waite's bio on Amazon, presumably provided by himself or his publisher, which tells us about his previous army and police career, his talks to local history groups etc, his social media presence and so on, but not about his academic credentials.
 * We are currently also citing him for the banal truism
 * If the uprising had not been recorded by the ancient sources, little more than a name—and perhaps not even that—would now be known.
 * We also have a statement about Dio's style that could be sourced to more established historians, even to specialists in historiography or on Cassius Dio himself. It's not clear why we'd want to elevate Waite to being our authority on him.
 * According to the historian John Waite, Dio wrote in a flamboyant style that was "reliant on sensationalistic impact". His account is known from an epitome of his works by John Xiphilinus, an 11th century Byzantine monk.
 * Is that statement about the epitome from Waite? It reads as very close paraphrasing of Vandrei. Waite is also provided as the source for
 * the terms of the treaty compelled the Iceni to be neutral during the conquest of Britain
 * which is apparently banal and unarguable, except that we don't know how Waite knows the treaty prevented the Iceni from joining with the Romans in conquest, lacked a breach clause, or laid out that the Roman agenda was to conquer Britain.
 * I don't have the book to hand but I cannot, on this evidence, regard it as a WP:RS and I don't see that it's necessary to fill the article out with such speculation. We are editors, and one of the most important decisions editors make is to leave it out.
 * This is just a brief look at some uses of one source. I haven't tried to review the whole article; you asked for more information so I expanded on my previous deletion and just followed that thread. NebY (talk) 19:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking at today's edits, I see more speculation:
 * No details of Boudica's background exist, but she probably originated from an important local family.
 * I'm curious about
 * The Iceni emerged in c. 30, the earliest united British tribe capable of minting its own coinage. The exact boundaries of the Iceni lands are not known.
 * "Emerged" is an odd term when unqualified - it presumably means when they first appear in the archaeological record rather than when they formed or when they came out of the forest. It's not stated whether 30 is AD or BC, and does Davies say they were the first capable of minting or the weaker statement that theirs are the oldest British coins we have? NebY (talk) 20:33, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Plenty to work on here! Many thanks for taking the time. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments
Article is beautifully done, complete, and should pass GA. My only critique is that the gallery images will be stumbling blocks for persons with disabilities, and while alt text is not a GA requirement, it would be welcome. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:09, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I can easily do the alt texts. Many thanks for the heads up, Amitchell125 (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Redundant citations for "Hingley & Unwin 2006"
It seems unnecessarily redundant to repeat the full citation for "Hingley & Unwin 2006" 15 times. This is why sfn & harvnb were created. In the next day or so, I will work on fixing this. It also looks like there are a couple of other sources that can get the same treatment.

To see a this in operation in a good article, please see John C. Young (college president). For its use in a feature article, please see Ezra Meeker.

I usually do not add a Citations subheading, but usually put full citations for repeated references in the Sources subheading, under References. Peaceray (talk) 03:00, 7 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Looks like I need to proceed carefully footnote by footnote. The very first footnote that I checked had a pagination error. Peaceray (talk) 06:52, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Still in progress ... Peaceray (talk) 15:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ Peaceray (talk) 00:31, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Lead image
Which image should be used in the infobox?

Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 20:13, 8 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I think the left image is more engaging. Peaceray (talk) 23:56, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I think that it is too low-res, too pixelated and has an unattractive patch of reflected light. The right image is higher-quality and easier to read, in my opinion. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 07:33, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The B&W engraving is certainly of better resolution, but the process has allowed some moiré, which is distracting. Disclosure: I originally substituted the current colour image for the engraving, but I'm less certain now after reading Tim's comments.--AntientNestor (talk) 08:27, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * While the full-blown image may be two low-res & pixelated, we are discussing essentially a thumbnail size image for the Infobox. The color version is certainly more eye-catching than the monochrome image, which looks not much better than a grey smudge at the thumbnail resolution.
 * If you wanted something with better resolution for a thumbnail, I would suggest using the cropped version of B, File:Boadicea Haranguing the Britons (called Boudicca, or Boadicea) by John Opie - cropped.jpg.
 * I have done a preview of all three. I would be fine with A or the cropped version of B, but not B itself. Peaceray (talk) 20:17, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, there is an image here that the copyright holder has published in the public domain. Could this be uploaded to the Commons? If so, that would be ideal. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I tried, but Commons gave me the following message:
 * Copy uploads are not available from this domain.
 * Peaceray (talk) 20:49, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There is also this version File:Queen Boudica by John Opiecrop.jpg Peaceray (talk) 20:53, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The version there seems to run into the same issues, resolution, reflection, albeit to a much lesser extent. It is slightly better, but I do think I'd still prefer the engraving. However, we could of course choose a third alternative, such as this image. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 21:16, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Well done! Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 22:58, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Dio's Roman History
There are three different citations for Dio's Roman History. I plan to consolidate them with one that matches the text in the quotation & place the full citation in the Sources section.

There are a many citations for the same text. One name which was used in the article was Cassius Dio Cocceianus, which redirects to Cassius Dio. Some Worldcat records use the former, some the latter. I will use the latter to avoid confusion.

This is the citation that I will use: I will include links to the pages in the harvnb template. Peaceray (talk) 00:13, 9 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Cassius Dio is not an English-style name, so citing it as "Dio, Cassius" is incorrect. See Roman naming conventions. His full name was probably Lucius Cassius Dio, with "Lucius" being his praenomen, the equivalent of an English given name, and his nomen "Cassius" and cognomen "Dio" both being inherited family names. It would be better cited simply as "Cassius Dio". --Nicknack009 (talk) 21:01, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If you change cites please make sure to fix the refs that rely on them. See Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors for details. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:57, 10 November 2022 (UTC)