Talk:Cassivellaunus

First British Historical Individual
I've removed the reference to Cassivellaunus as the "first British individual known to history". A paragraph down it talks about Mandubracius, the son of the king that Cassivellaunus defeated, and in Mandubracius's article it discusses his father Imanuentius. Imanuentius has been mentioned in some manuscripts of De Bello Gallico. At the very least, the title probably belongs to Imanuentius, though that's certainly open to debate. In any case, I think the categorization of Cassivellaunus as such is simply incorrect. -- Pyran (talk) 20:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Reversion: Name etymology and tribal affiliation
I added a potential etymology for his name provided by Miles Russell, who also suggested his tribal association. Both are interpretations of historical information by a respected (if diversive) archaeologist. This was removed as "Fringe". Why is removing it justified? Surely calling it "fringe" without further discussion or justification is wrong? Are alternative viewpoints not welcome? (and by the way, I don't necessarily ascribe to Russell's views, but still see them as valid interpretations)Razumukhin (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * In the History section after the unsourced statement (which is presented as fact without justification or references) "...but his territory, north of the River Thames, corresponds with that inhabited by the tribe named the Catuvellauni at the time of the later invasion under Claudius." I want to add the following lines:


 * An attempt has been made by archaeologist Miles Russell to associate Cassivellaunus with the Cassi tribe of Caesars account, postulating that they may have been the Catuvellauni of later history, deriving their later name from "Catu" (meaning warriors) and "Vellaunus" (meaning excellent).


 * It is a revised version of what I originally wrote, which was removed as "fringe nonsense" without discussion or justification. If anyone can justify why this is not acceptable to add then I will be happy to leave it out. I have made it clear that it is an interpretation, and have included the name of the author who proposed it. I have not written it in such a way as to suggest that it is immutable fact. I believe that it comes from a reliable source (an archaeologist with decades of experience with major archaeological units in Britain, a senior university lecturer with a PhD, and an author of many peer-reviewed books and articles). Personnally I don't think Russell is right, but that's not the point - it is a valid suggestion that perhaps should be included. Razumukhin (talk) 21:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Miles Russell is neither a Celticist nor a linguist and his musings on the etymology of the name (assuming you represented them accurately) and entirely without merit. As a general rule, we shouldn't be posting fringe theories (and that's what this is) to Wikipedia articles; just because someone has published something, doesn't mean it has any intrinsic value. Cagwinn (talk) 23:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * But that's only your own opinion of him/his work (which you're entitled to of course), not really an objective justification for calling it unworthy of mention. It's a theory proposed by an archaeologist who has worked/lectured on the period for several decades (which doesn't make him right, I know). As for "fringe", it's hardly as if he's claimed that Cassivellaunus was an alien who built Stonehenge as a place to park his UFO. It's an informed interpretation of the very meagre historical evidence which exists for Cassivellaunus. There is no explicit mention in Caesar's Gallic Wars of Cassivellaunus' tribal affiliation or even location (bar some vague, garbled references to the Thames and to tribes which have names which sound a bit like those encountered in later history), let alone the origins of his name (assuming Caesar got it right) - it's all modern interpretations of evidence. Why is this interpretation less valid? Razumukhin (talk) 18:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but if you can't recognize why Russell's comments regarding Cassiuellaunus and the Catuuellauni should be considered fringe, you have no business editing this article. I suggest you do some serious research on ancient Celtic historical linguistics and Gallo-Brittonic naming practices (I have been studying these subjects for about 30 years now). Catuuellauni means "Battle Sovereigns" (or "Sovereigns of Battle"), not "The Warriors of Uellaunos", as Russell ridiculously speculates. The exact meaning of the root *cassi- is a matter of debate; in fact there may be multiple homophonic roots to choose from: 1) tin, bronze, brass (found in the Gaulish title cassidanos "magistrate of the tin/bronze/brass"); "curly/twisted hair" (perhaps referring to a hair style worn by warriors); 3) "passion; hate". See Xavier Delamarre, Dictionnaire de la langue gauloise, Editions Errance, 2003, p. 108-110 (Delamarre proposes that Cassiuellaunos should be translated as "Chief of Brass"). Note the related name Uercassiuellaunos, the name of a cousin of Vercingetorix in Gaul, with no connection to the Catuuellauni or Cassi tribes (he was an Arvernian nobleman). I have skimmed through Russell's book on Google Books and I have to say that many of his etymologies are absolutely idiotic. This guy has no idea what he's talking about. Cagwinn (talk) 08:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Some issues with the general approach to this article at present
, based on some of your actions with regard to both the content of the article and edit summaries, as well as your comments in discussion here, I'm highly recommending you make a review of WP:V, WP:NPOV and especially WP:OWN, because you seem to have adopted an attitude of proprietorship with regard to this article (and the related subject-matter broadly). It's not really appropriate to label particular perspectives as "outlandish" in the article text itself unless an overwhelming amount of other sources in the field have used that label in response to that claim -- and even then, that particular wording is not really consistent with encyclopedic tone. Likewise, it's not really useful to parsing matters in terms of our policies and verification standards to dismiss the stance of a particular academic as "idiotic" based on your personal subjective assessment; you should rather be providing evidence, if it exists, that demonstrates unambiguously that existing reliable sources have overwhelmingly refuted the position (or at least expanding upon your effort to show that the trend in the relevant fields goes strongly counter to the claim, but without personal speculation).

Most especially it is not acceptable to tell another editor that they have no place editing this article because they don't have a command of the subject that meets your standard of approval. This is considered uncivil and a non-productive line of reasoning under our behavioral policies; please keep your comments directed to the policy and sourcing matter at hand and avoid making comments representing what you have assessed to be the capabilities of the editor your are discussing matters with -- argue points, not qualifications. It is in fact those who have a strong background or interest in a given subject that are advised to show the most caution when editing in that area, since this is often the context in which people are most inclined towards WP:IKNOWITSTRUE perspectives.

Lastly, there's a small but undeniable tendency in the current reading of the article towards original research. This exists in generally non-neutral wording that prejudices the reader unduly with regard to certain sources and also in more overt conflicts with verification. For example, at present the article uses Dio as a citation of the claim that the story of an elephant in Ceasar's second British campaign is probably a historical confusion with Claudius' elephants. This is a pretty clear-cut case of synthesis, since Dio doesn't make this claim, but only mentions the latter elephants; the connection between Caesar's elephants and Claudius' elephants is completely unsourced speculation on your (or another editor's) part, which isn't appropriate to a Wikipedia article unless you can find a reliable source that posits this connection. These kind of subjective assessments are sprinkled throughout the article, though they are not all as obvious as the above example.

I'm not raising these issues just to dress you down -- you seem to be a very productive editor in the area of ancient British history and lore -- but, especially in light of your comments to another editor above, I think it's worth bearing in mind that sometimes issues that give rise to content disagreements are more about a lack of understanding about Wikipedia policy than they are a lack of understanding of the content area.  S n o w  talk 10:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * LOL, nothing like a self-righteous Wikipedia bureaucrat; people like you are killing Wikipedia. If you want to edit the "elephant" bit, go ahead - I was more concerned with undoing your unnecessary rewording that also contained a typo.Cagwinn (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Again, please keep your commentary focused on the matters at hand at avoid making the discussion personal; comments like the above are not civil nor are they in any sense helpful. I'm once again removing "outlandish" from the text; it's clearly non-neutral and non-encyclopedic wording and, in any event, is your subjective opinion based on your WP:original research.  Frankly the entire sentence represents cut-and-dry WP:SYNTHESIS and I ought to be insisting on removing it altogether.  You may find the application of our community consensus on matter of verification to represent "bureaucracy", that's "killing" Wikipedia, but it remains the method by which we collaborate in a collegial fashion on this project and assure the quality of content.  Your perception of your command of this subject matter and your stance that your perspective on it is unimpeachable do not free you from keeping your edits consistent with that broad and long-standing community consensus.   Frankly, the vast majority of experienced editors would have removed that claim in it's entirety, since it's unsourced and clearly your (or another editor's) personal theory.  I've opted only to remove the most non-neutral and non-encyclopedic elements from the statement, but if I have to RfC the issue or otherwise solicit broader community input on the matter, I can almost guarantee that not only will the entire statement be removed but other elements of the current wording of the article will be changed for consistency with WP:NPOV -- but broader input can't hurt in any event, so if you feel that discussion is necessary, we should by all means have it.


 * If we do have such a conversation, however, I would strongly advise you A) keep your comments away from the perceived shortcomings of those who disagree with you and focused solely on the content and the policies that relate to it, B) that you be less outright dismissive of the concerns of your fellow editors in general, and C) that you be more mindful of our standards on original research and remember that you aren't allowed to add just any claim or pet theory that seems reasonable to you, even if you're really certain it's the truth. Because the kinds of broadly experienced editors an RfC is likely to bring here probably won't have much patience with any of those behaviours, nor with being called "self-righteous" simply because they insist community standards are applicable to this article, regardless of your confidence in your command over the subject matter.  Best regards.  S n o w  talk 02:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Cool story! Cagwinn (talk) 05:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cassivellaunus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051108045201/http://romans-in-britain.org.uk/clb_tribe_catuvellauni.htm to http://www.romans-in-britain.org.uk/clb_tribe_catuvellauni.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:28, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cassivellaunus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060811111511/http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/orosius6.html to http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/orosius6.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:23, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Read your own wiki
I suggest that readers actually go read their history of Emperor Claudius on here, to know that he, in fact, does begin the next Roman Invasion of Britain in 43 AD, and perhaps cite that themselves; instead of continuously putting "source needed" or "original research?" tags on any sentence mentioning Claudius's later campaign after Caesar, on this article; or perhaps remove the references to Emperor Claudius altogether, as he has little to do with the article subject.