Talk:Julius Caesar/Archive 5

Proposed minor edit to "Early Life and Career" paragraphs 3 and 4
Hello, my previous request to edit was removed without a response so I am resposting - I am not sure whether to tag this with a template or not.

I suggest a minor edit to the following (part of paragraph 3 and 4):

Following Sulla's final victory, though, Caesar's connections to the old regime made him a target for the new one. He was stripped of his inheritance, his wife's dowry, and his priesthood, but he refused to divorce Cornelia and was forced to go into hiding.[19] The threat against him was lifted by the intervention of his mother's family, which included supporters of Sulla, and the Vestal Virgins. Sulla gave in reluctantly and is said to have declared that he saw many a Marius in Caesar.[14]

Caesar felt that it would be much safer far away from Sulla should the Dictator change his mind, so he left Rome and joined the army, serving under Marcus Minucius Thermus in Asia and Servilius Isauricus in Cilicia. He served with distinction, winning the Civic Crown for his part in the Siege of Mytilene. He went on a mission to Bithynia to secure the assistance of King Nicomedes's fleet, but he spent so long at Nicomedes' court that rumours arose of an affair with the king, which Caesar vehemently denied for the rest of his life.[20] Ironically, the loss of his priesthood had allowed him to pursue a military career, as the high priest of Jupiter was not permitted to touch a horse, sleep three nights outside his own bed or one night outside Rome, or look upon an army.[21]

The following is structured more clearly and logically:

Following Sulla's final victory, though, Caesar's connections to the old regime made him a target for the new one. He was stripped of his inheritance, his wife's dowry, and his priesthood, but he refused to divorce Cornelia and was forced to go into hiding.[19] The threat against him was lifted by the intervention of his mother's family, which included supporters of Sulla, and the Vestal Virgins. Sulla gave in reluctantly and is said to have declared that he saw many a Marius in Caesar.[14] Ironically, the loss of his priesthood had allowed him to pursue a military career, as the high priest of Jupiter was not permitted to touch a horse, sleep three nights outside his own bed or one night outside Rome, or look upon an army.[21]

Caesar felt that it would be much safer far away from Sulla should the Dictator change his mind, so he left Rome and joined the army, serving under Marcus Minucius Thermus in Asia and Servilius Isauricus in Cilicia. He served with distinction, winning the Civic Crown for his part in the Siege of Mytilene. He went on a mission to Bithynia to secure the assistance of King Nicomedes's fleet, but he spent so long at Nicomedes' court that rumours arose of an affair with the king, which Caesar vehemently denied for the rest of his life.[20]

Because: The sentence "Ironically, the loss of his priesthood had allowed him to pursue a military career, as the high priest of Jupiter was not permitted to touch a horse, sleep three nights outside his own bed or one night outside Rome, or look upon an army.[21]" is relevant to Caesar's relationship with Marius; not his supposed affair with King Nicomedes. Fantasticawesome (talk) 16:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That seems like a reasonable change to me. Furius (talk) 00:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Caesars birth
https://www.jstor.org/stable/295588?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

An interesting article making the case for whether Caesar was born in 102,101 or 100BC PrinceofFrancia (talk) 02:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

FAC nomination
I noticed recently that you added an open template for nominating Julius Caesar as a Featured Article candidate. Honestly, though, is it ready for FA status? It was delisted back in 2007 and, although it has seen significant improvement since then, I'm not sure if it is ready for a grilling by reviewers. Julius Caesar is one of the most important figures in world history and his article deserves to be well-written, but I don't think the current article is FA quality. It has a varied, if not schizophrenic citation method and cites too many primary sources without secondary-source consultation and interpretation. I think it would get hammered in an FAC review, to be honest. There are entire paragraphs without a single inline citation from a scholarly source and there are even "citation needed" tags in the article. I would imagine that reviewers would vote to oppose it right away. You might want to rethink this one, or attempt to resolve all of these issues before filling out an FAC form and properly submitting it as a candidate. Pericles of Athens Talk 03:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * a better idea would be to achieve "Good Article" status first, as a test for how to improve the article and to show FAC reviewers that you are serious about nominating this as an FAC. Pericles of Athens  Talk 03:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll nominate it as a good article instead. Векочел (talk) 11:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * hello. Are you going to edit and improve the page, though? Nominators are expected to be significantly involved in the editing process, or at the very least to have collaborated with previous editors before nomination. This is outlined in Good article nominations/Instructions, which you should certainly read before nominating an article for "Good" status. Have you read any of the sources cited in the article? What is your plan for providing inline citations to whole paragraphs that lack them? Do you have access to a wide variety of academic sources, either online or available in physical copy at a local library? Pericles of Athens  Talk 23:44, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The nomination should be postponed. Векочел (talk) 23:45, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2018
{hf#465758} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.170.72.66 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 17:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

BC should be changed to BCE
this is the academic standard: AD to CD; BC to BCE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.67.53.123 (talk) 22:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

It has become the academic standard and is starting to get some traction in the outside world, although still far from universally recognized. For my part, shouldn't it be AD to CE? What is "CD"? Or did you mean "CE"? Random noter (talk) 18:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


 * WP:ERA. Policy is either style is acceptable, but don't go arbitrarily changing one to the other just because you prefer it. --Nicknack009 (talk) 18:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Caesar's constitutional reforms and those of Augustus
This passage needs some sourcing, even if it's to that cited in preceding or following text: "Caesar even took steps to transform Italy into a province, and to link more tightly the other provinces of the empire into a single cohesive unit. This addressed the underlying problem that had caused the Social War decades earlier, where individuals outside Rome and Italy were not considered "Roman", thus were not given full citizenship rights. This process, of fusing the entire Roman Empire into a single unit, rather than maintaining it as a network of unequal principalities, would ultimately be completed by Caesar's successor, the emperor Augustus."

Reason 1- Italia remained distinct from and differently organized from the provinces after Caesar and even after Augustus, organized as a confederation of Roman territories and colonia with other cities, albeit all having Roman citizenship after the Social War. It appears to have maintained a distinct status for centuries. The next truly fundamental changes would haven been the Constitution Antoniniana [sp] of Caracalla universalizing Roman citizenship in 212, and the constitutional reforms of Diocletian creating the Praetorian prefectures, dioceses, and provinces which created an empire-wide administrative structure in which Italy was treated the same as anywhere else. If first Caesar and then Augustus started the move in this direction, that's fine, but what they did should be laid out because it was still well short of standardizing the place of Italy with the provinces.

Reason 2- The provinces themselves for centuries still contained a mixture of Roman territories and Roman citizens in colonia, with Latin Rights peoples, existing city-states, and existing kingdoms or tribal polities who enjoyed various levels of citizenship/subjecthood but also had their own leaders. Indeed, such polities continues to exist even after Caracalla standardized citizenship. One thinks of Odenathus of Palmyra, as a very high profile and late example, but countless cities and tribes could have made similar claims. Random noter (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Missing Word?
In the phrase "the aristocracy tried to limit his future power by allotting the woods and pastures of Italy", should the word "him" appear as I have it below?

"the aristocracy tried to limit his future power by allotting him the woods and pastures of Italy".

If so, can someone add it? If not, I find the current wording a bit vague -- "allotting the woods and pastures" to whom?

Thanks,

--Skb8721 (talk) 14:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Caesarism
There may or may not have been a political philosophy known to his contemporaries as Caesarism, but the hyperlink in this article to Caesarism should be removed or redirected to a suitable article. Anonymous clint (talk) 23:40, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Julius Caesar was NOT the first Roman Emperor - he was a Dictator
Many incorrectly think that Julius Caesar was the 1st Roman Emperor; he was not. He was a dictator and Caesar Augustus is considered the first Roman Emperor. 73.85.207.8 (talk) 17:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Already covered in both the article and its infobox. Why don't you read them? Dimadick (talk) 18:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Error
His name was Gaius Julius, he was Never a Caesar and made that perfectly clear he never wanted to be. Shakespeare wrote a play named Julius Caesar but everyone mistakes that to be his real name and the status of a Caesar.

Because of the article's "semi-protected" status, I also cannot correct this error myself. This will have to be done by somebody who has the required privileged status. --Murmillo123 (talk) 18:56, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You appear to be confused. The title Caesar derives from Gaius Julius Caesar's name (and that of Augustus). So yes, he most definitely was a Caesar.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

The bust in Berlin is not made of "bronze" (as the article says) but of green Egyptian stone.

Because of the article's "semi-protected" status, I cannot correct this error myself. This will have to be done by somebody who has the required privileged status. --2001:A61:360A:F501:B0CF:55B9:6773:4D95 (talk) 02:50, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing this out. I have edited the article accordingly.Flickyard (talk) 13:17, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

His age is incorrect in the page, it’s listed as 66 but he died at 55 which can also be counted by the correct dates of birth (well it’s somewhat in disbute but 100BC is most agreed) and the date of death. For some reason when you use google the correct agecis listed in the Wikipedia link but not after opening the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinoiserie91 (talk • contribs) 11:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Age fixed. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2019
Remove the paragraph: "During his early career, Caesar had seen how chaotic and dysfunctional the Roman Republic had become. The republican machinery had broken down under the weight of imperialism, the central government had become powerless, the provinces had been transformed into independent principalities under the absolute control of their governors, and the army had replaced the constitution as the means of accomplishing political goals. With a weak central government, political corruption had spiralled out of control, and the status quo had been maintained by a corrupt aristocracy, which saw no need to change a system that had made its members rich.[citation needed]"

Non-historical, unsubstantiated historical information that has overt and inductive partisanship to current american ideologies. Examples of such would be: Bias towards strong centralized government, incorrect use of "republican" as adjective, bias against federalist style of government, bias toward upper class, assuming motives of this upper class. 204.78.172.254 (talk) 19:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done NiciVampire<b style="color:black">Heart</b> 19:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Julius Caesar for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Julius Caesar is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Julius Caesar until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 11:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Category:Slave owners
Could someone please add Category:Slave owners? - 2600:1702:31B0:9CE0:B17D:1077:68C8:A57F (talk) 15:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2019
I request to change the featured image for Gaius Julius Caesar from the current image of the Tusculum Bust to that of the Arles bust. The Arles is a true image of Caesar, and was found in Gaul in the river rhone. If you compare it to the bust of his son, Caesarion, or the side view to images of coins featuring his likeness it is clear to be authentic. I provided sources on the other thread and received no response.GaiusJuliusCaesar777 (talk) 22:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Phil  roc  (c) 23:39, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Punctuation Errors
In Consulship and military campaigns, subsection civil war, much of the punctuation don't have spaces after them. I'm new to wikipedia so I can't change it as the article is protected, can someone please change it? Thanks! AwesomestUser (talk) 23:47, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the headsup! And apologies for the inconvenience: most can be edited by anyone, but some articles are unfortunately so attractive for vandals (the modern kind, I mean ;D) that we're forced to restrict editing on them for new users. You'll be able to edit such articles after, iirc, 500 edits (your account will be automatically added to the "autoconfirmed" group), and in the meanwhile do feel free to ask for changes on talk pages.I've fixed those I found, but I only found two instanes of missing space after punctuation in that section. Are there more that I didn't notice? --Xover (talk) 07:14, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe all of them have been fixed! Also, is there any way for the notifications to be sent to my email, since I'm not usually logged in?AwesomestUser (talk) 19:06, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Shahryar
At the moment, the article lead claims that this title is descended from 'Caesar'. There's no citation. Are we confident about it? I would have thought that the title derived from Shah... Furius (talk) 23:22, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * In fact, the Shahryar article says that it is derived from Shah. I've removed it.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I see nothing in the Shahryar article about Caesar. And I think you both have it backwards. His actual name was Caius Julius Caesar (see first page of chapter II Caesar's childhood in Caesar: Life of a Colossus by Adrian Goldsworthy) and the Caesar part of his name was taken by later Roman Emperors, first by Augustus who was adopted by Caesar and hence claimed to be his son and later as just a title equivalent to Emperor. And the words Czar (I'm certain) and Shah (I think) were both based on "Caesar" not the other way around. It makes no sense to say that Caesar took his name from Shah which was a Persian title. The Persians were mostly rivals and enemies of Rome and the Romans viewed them (along with the Egyptians, Gauls, and just about everyone else except the Greeks) as inferiors. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 00:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Primary Sources Tag?
I noticed that someone put a tag at the top of the article that says it relies too much on Primary Sources. The definition of Primary Sources is: "original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history" In this case I would take Primary Sources to mean things written by Caesar himself and anyone else who was involved in the political world of Rome during Caesar's life such as Cicero. When I look at the list of references I only see 4 references that use Caesar's Commentaries on the Gallic Wars and 2 references to Cicero (6 out of 159). That hardly seems excessive to me. The other ancient writers such as Plutarch, Cassius Dio, etc. lived after Caesar. Unless someone can provide some justification that I'm missing for why that tag is merited (and what needs to be done to address it) I'm going to delete the tag. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 22:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , in the world of classical studies, even later writers such as Plutarch, Cassius Dio, etc are considered primary sources. Anything not written by a modern author, essentially, is a primary source for the purposes of this article.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter how classical studies use the term, what matters (at least in regard to whether the tag is justified) is how the term is defined by Wikipedia. By the Wikipedia definition, there are very few primary sources in this article. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Someone like Cassius Dio is considered "close to the event" and offer's an "insider's perspective" by the standards of classical scholarship. They are, after all, much closer to the event than we are.--Ermenrich (talk) 01:09, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * In the section How to classify a source it gives as an example of a secondary source: "a book written 150 years later, that analyzes the proclamation" (where "the proclamation" is an example of a primary source). Dio wrote around 220 AD which was more than 200 years after Caesar's death. There is also just a question of common sense. If you read modern histories they are all going to end up referencing a small number of classical histories such as Dio and Plutarch anyway. There just aren't that many sources for ancient history. I think an encyclopedic article on ancient historical topics should have a good balance of modern sources as well as ancient (but still secondary as defined by Wikipedia) sources which I think this article has. If there are specific issues where you think a claim is not reliably supported because of a bias by Dio or some other ancient author then that's another question and by all means document those. But I don't see any justification for the tag and I think it would not only be a waste of time to go through and replace all the ancient references with modern ones but I think it would decrease rather than increase the quality of the article. Modern authors have bias as much as ancient ones do. A good historical article should have a balance of ancient and modern references which this article currently has. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 01:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * who added the tag and restored it earlier.--Ermenrich (talk) 02:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * We should use terms as they are commonly used, and, in ancient history, all ancient historical accounts are termed "primary sources". They are the raw material which secondary sources use. In the example discussed above, the proclamation is 200 years ago; it is not ancient history. I think the concern here is that we the readers don't know if modern scholars accept this version of Caesar's life. Yes, modern scholars have biases and make mistakes, but we can correct for that by citing more than one scholar.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

"IVLIUS CAESAR" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect IVLIUS CAESAR. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 09:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

"Julias caesar" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Julias caesar. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 09:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2020
In the caption below the denarius, please change "dated February–March 44 BC" to "minted in February–March 44 BC" or "struck in February–March 44 BC." The term "dated" implies that "44 BC" appears somewhere on the coin, and that would be impossible for reasons that I hope are obvious. DLinSF (talk) 11:06, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: I change the caption for File:RSC 0022 - transparent background.png from "dated" which implies a date is struck on the piece, to "dated to", which states when experts place the time of its creation. "Minted" or "struck" would be more appropriate for pieces where the date of creation is known with certainty.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:37, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Infobox
T8612, I saw your edits regarding the infobox and I'd like to know why you removed all the offices. In my view, the previous version was far better and clearer. -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:55, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Because they are already detailed in the "Political offices" template at the bottom of the page. There is no need to tell again who are the predecessors and successors to each office in such a small place. T8612  (talk) 19:56, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, but even in articles about modern politicians, they are detailed both in the infobox and in the bottom of the articles and no one has ever contested this layout :) -- Nick.mon (talk) 14:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

If we don't want to make the infobox too long, let's include only time in office: -- Nick.mon (talk) 14:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that could work. You removed one consulship in 45 though. Caesar was consul five times. I would also list the consulships chronologically. T8612  (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes, I'm not a great expert in Roman history, so could you insert the correct date? Ok, generally offices in the infoboxes are listed from the most recent to the oldest one, however we can order them in any way. -- Nick.mon (talk) 07:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Why was this changed? The previous model was far better: it already displayed the relevant years and didn't take up meaningless space with "In office" labels, overprecise dates and office colleagues. As said already, the colleague is already shown in the bottom of the page, which is where people who are interested in it should look. Avis11 (talk) 22:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2020
Caesar rarely, if ever, gave citizenship to those in ‘far Roman provinces’; the main recipients of his citizenship program were ex-legionnaires from cisalpine-Gaul, a border region of Italy. 85.255.232.200 (talk) 14:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. -   <sup style="text-align:center;padding:1.5px;color:black">t • c 15:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Children
In the list of his children in the table at the top it should include Caesarion, his child with Cleopatra N160JG (talk) 11:48, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Family Tree
The family diagram does not contain Caesarion.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:343:300:e11d:cad:6de5:e82e:4a41 (talk • contribs) 11:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

"Julius Seizer" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Julius Seizer. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 20 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 18:13, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2020
change Awards :Civic Crown to Awards :triumph 2001:EE0:4880:5460:B5AD:68C2:797C:9134 (talk) 06:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: both of those templates you linked to are red links - which templates do you mean? <b style="background:#304747;color:#BED6D6"> Seagull123 </b><b style="color:#304747"> Φ </b> 17:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

jules cesar
jules cesar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.206.231.221 (talk) 14:39, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Needs link
Section - "Conquest of Gaul" mentions his invasion of Britain but does not have a link to "Julius Caesar's invasions of Britain". I think it should be added.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by FatSheeep (talk • contribs) 12:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Battle Record
That table seems rather incomplete.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

GA nomination
Just a note to whoever reviews this article, I am more than willing to do large copyediting and to add more or less info from sources currently used, but I believe that most the research here is large and thorough enough to make it a GA again. Jay Tee  🐦  22:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but the nomination should be closed down. The article is far from ready, and you have not made a single edit on it from what I can see. The article also contains many template tags as well as many unreferenced sentences and paragraphs that haven't been addressed. The GA nomination is not to improve the article; the article should already have been improved, and the GAN is just to see if the article passes the criteria for GA. Please make sure you read and understand the GA criteria. Cheers. Wretchskull (talk) 09:13, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , I understand. I'll work on fixing those unrefs and do a lot of copyediting before re-nomination. Jay  Tee  🕊️  🇺🇸  13:37, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Citation Needed for Caesar's "high-pitched voice"?
The Article states:

"[Caesar] turned to legal advocacy and became known for his exceptional oratory accompanied by impassioned gestures and a high-pitched voice, and ruthless prosecution of former governors notorious for extortion and corruption."

I found this detail interesting, so I googled it hoping for more information, but I couldn't find any sources that comment on the pitch of Caesar's speaking voice.

Does anyone have sources that confirm that info?

Wermking (talk) 16:36, 25 July 2021 (UTC)


 * The source is Suetonius: . I guess you should bear in mind that Suetonius never met Caesar. I previously made the comment that this article was too reliant on primary sources. The tag that I placed on the article has been removed after specious arguments about the meaning of "primary sources". I am tempted to place a "refimprove" tag on the article because there are so many sentences citing primary sources and some with no citation at all. It would be good to hear what a modern historian has to say about this. Are there other sources which refer to Caesar's high-pitched voice? Etc.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:37, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

it's July 13
Every article says July 13, so for Wikipedia to say July 12 doesn't make sense. Even history.com says July 13. Uglydoodoo (talk) 20:21, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * History.com is not a reliable source. ~ HAL  333  20:36, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, we have the same birthday in that case if it's July 12 so could you wish me? my bday is July 12, 1999 😅 Uglydoodoo (talk) 21:19, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Happy birthday. 🎂 ~  HAL  333  21:22, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, long time no see 🙈 uh so I found dozens of articles that say July 13 as opposed to those that say July 12. Obviously you don't have to change it but every other website or article says July 13. Is it keeping me up at night? Yes. I will find them and send them 'cause I found a lot. Uglydoodoo (talk) 22:42, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Article on Shilha Wikipedia
I translated this into Shilha; see. However, it won't let me link it to this article. Please help! Mesijanski Judje (talk) 20:04, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2021
I have done extreme research and i feel that i can contribute to the wikipedia page of julius caesar The d4wg12392u49u9290231 (talk) 05:10, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Cannolis (talk) 05:12, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Loanwords
In mentioning Kaiser and all of the other languages in which the name “Caesar” was borrowed, not including the Russian Tsar’ is a notable omission. Lauretano (talk) 22:30, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Request article be adjusted for balance
Some important facts need to be added to provide context to the civil war and events leading up to it:

1) Caesar's term as governor hadn't actually expired yet, whereas this article seems to suggest it had. In fact that was still a few months away. As such Caesar was legally entitled to keep his imperium until it did. Particularly since the law that granted him his 5 year governorship specifically forbade the Senate adjusting his term or even discussing it. So while it was about to expire, and a conflict was coming if the different sides couldn't resolve things before then, it had not actually done so.

2) Caesar made a number of offers to reach a political settlement, both before and after crossing the rubicon. Cicero is among those anti-Caesar sources who writes about them in his letters. The characterization of Caesar being set on a war or set on becoming dictator is misleading.

3) The Senate's order for Caesar to disband his army was illegal and declaring him a outlaw was illegal, mainly because of the pro-Caesar tribunes Antony and L.Cassius being driven from the Senate. It's a little slanted a presentation of facts to call Caesar's crossing the Rubicon illegal, yet not mention the illegal actions of the other side (e.g. kicking the tribunes out of the Senate so they couldn't veto, the consul Marcellus giving Pompey a sword and having him recruit legions in Italy illegally for months, trying to cancel Caesar's imperium before they were allowed to under the terms of the 5 year law, etc).

4) If you consult the sources, both Caesar record and others, Pompey actually had 100 cohorts of soldiers in Italy when Caesar marched (equivalent to 10 legions). These are listed in break downs in Caesar's writings: 'Thermus was holding Iguvium with five cohorts and fortifying the town...Lentulus Spinther, who was holding that town with ten cohorts...Lucilius Hirrus, flying from Camerinum with six cohorts which he had there in garrison...Domitius Ahenobarbus at Corfinium and reports the arrival of Caesar with two legions. Domitius by himself had collected and brought from Alba about twenty cohorts, consisting of Marsi and Peligni, drawn from the neighbouring districts.'

That is the initial 41 cohorts. 9 more are listed as including 'L. Manlius the praetor flies from Alba with six cohorts, Rutilius Lupus the praetor from Tarracina with three.' We're then told he managed to bring the rest of the men he had, comprising 5 legions, to Greece from Italy. This seems important context, even if Pompey thought his men were too green and didn't want to engage.

5) Pompey himself had a career riddled with illegal actions. He should not read as the hero and champion of legality. There should at least be some mention of how what Caesar was asking for was actually a mere fraction of what Pompey himself had already been granted.

6) In 66 BC, Julius Caesar became the curator of the Appian Way and, to gain crucial electoral votes, borrowed significant sums to restore the ancient highway.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:1d19:b301:2c79:3fb9:bf65:acab (talk) 19:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sign your posts with four tildas: ~ ~ ~ ~; provide sources for your claims. Otherwise, this is just personal POV and/or Original Research. 50.111.19.34 (talk) 02:43, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Request on changing the article's main image
There is a much better bust of Caesar in the Vatican Museums. 1st Duke of Wellington (talk) 05:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)


 * The Tusculum portrait, which is the current version, is the only surviving portrait of Caesar which is generally accepted to have been made while Caesar was still alive. We should prefer imagery which is historically accurate. Ifly6 (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

wiki app
not sure if this is the right place but when i watch this article in the wiki app it's very short and only about 1 page long? 178.14.98.165 (talk) 23:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Could you clarify? I don't see such an issue on my phone. Of course, one needs to expand the sections, which are (on mobile) auto-collapsed. Ifly6 (talk) 17:04, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Can't see an issue when I try? Has this resolved now? 80.107.116.114 (talk) 16:04, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Policies
Why is there barely any mention of the socioeconomic policies he wanted to institute? He was a populist but the article doesn't explain how or why 2A00:23C4:BA8F:7300:85A8:FAA1:4791:AAD6 (talk) 13:27, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Appian Way suggestion
''This was inserted into another IP's 2021 suggestion. I've moved it here so it may be seen.'' NebY (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

6) In 66 BC, Julius Caesar became the curator of the Appian Way and, to gain crucial electoral votes, borrowed significant sums to restore the ancient highway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.77.108.153 (talk) 04:55, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

How old was Cesar?!
Every single time I check this article it says Cesar dies at a different age. Was it 52, 53 or 55? If no one knows, then it shouldn't be in the Infobox at all. -- Sleyece (talk) 04:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2022
Change "Julii Caesaris quae exstant (1678)" to "Julii Cæsaris quae exstant (1678)" 77.68.240.109 (talk) 12:39, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: per MOS:LIGATURE and consistency: the typographic convention on this 17th-century page is not the norm in current-day English, in Latin now or early inscriptions, in this article or even in this edit request proposing "Cæsaris" but "quae". NebY (talk) 13:09, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Infobox name as just Julius Caesar
In accordance with the page name, the infobox title could be "Julius Caesar" rather than including his given name Gaius. What would the consensus for this be? Gaelicbow (talk) 18:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see why readers should be prevented from seeing his full name in that highly visible spot. Only article titles are supposed to match the subject's common name; the article itself needs to present the information in full, without omissions. Avilich (talk) 19:10, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Its pretty standard for the main infobox name to reflect the article title.★Trekker (talk) 20:19, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I would prefer to keep it as is. Due to the common use of "Julius" as a personal name in English, calling him this gives people the impression that this was his personal name, rather than his family name.  People didn't walk down the street calling out, "hey, Jules!" whenever they saw him.  Keeping his praenomen in the infobox helps alert people to the fact that this isn't the case.  I'm all for consistency when it helps keep good order in articles, but this isn't a case where it helps anything.  P Aculeius (talk) 20:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough; I happen to agree. Gaelicbow (talk) 22:31, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Junia Tertia
A request to remove Junia Tertia from "Suspected children".

The current version says: "Junia Tertia (born ca. 60s BC), the daughter of Caesar's lover Servilia was believed by Cicero among other contemporaries, to be Caesar's natural daughter."

No ancient source implies such a thing.

1. There are only two mentions of Junia Tertia in Caesar's story: Suetonius and Macrobius.

Suetonius (Iul. 50. 2): "But beyond all others Caesar loved Servilia, the mother of Marcus Brutus, for whom in his first consulship he bought a pearl costing six million sesterces. During the civil war, too, besides other presents, he knocked down some fine estates to her in a public auction at a nominal price, and when some expressed their surprise at the low figure, Cicero wittily remarked: "It's a better bargain than you think, for there is a third off." And in fact it was thought that Servilia was prostituting her own daughter Tertia to Caesar."

Macrobius (Sat. II. 2. 5): "Symmachus deinde: Mater M. Bruti, Servilia, cum pretiosum aere parvo fundum abstulisset a Caesare subiciente hastae bona civium, non effugit dictum tale Ciceronis: Equidem, quo melius emptum sciatis, conparavit Servilia hunc fundum tertia deducta. Filia autem Serviliae erat Iunia Tertia eademque C. Cassii uxor, lasciviente dictatore tam in matrem quam in puellam. Tunc luxuriam senis adulteri civitas subinde rumoribus iocisque carpebat, ut mala non tantum seria forent."

I couldn't find an official English translation, so I'm gonna make my own from the Russian one:

"Then Symmachus spoke out: Since the mother of Marcus Brutus, Servilia, received an expensive estate for a small amount of money from Caesar who put the goods of convicted citizens up for an auction, she did not escape this witty remark from Cicero: 'So that you are better aware about what was bought: Servilia bought this estate, even though only a third (tertia) of its value was given.' For you need to know that Servilia had a daughter, Junia Tertia, the wife of Gaius Cassius, and at that time the dictator had as much fun with a mother as with her daughter. In gossip and ridicule, the public condemned the unbridledness of the old adulterer, so that the evil would not become so significant."

As you can see, neither Suetonius nor Macrobius imply a blood relation between Tertia and Caesar. Both clearly state that she was rumored to be his lover.

2. Tertia married c. 59 BC. She couldn't have been born in 60s BC because that would make her too young for marriage. She was born c. 74 BC.

3. Junia Tertia's article uses Suetonius as a source for "rumored to be his daughter", even though Suetonius never implied that.

4. A few years ago the influence of Colleen McCullough's novels was huge on wikipedia. And this is one of the remnants of it. In McCullough's novels, Tertia is born in 63 BC and Cicero's remark is said to be a reference to Tertia being Caesar's child. None of this is supported by the sources. CJC-DI (talk) 22:28, 18 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I think it's a reasonable argument, especially chronologically, for removal. I checked Zmeskal, Adfinitas (2009) vol 1 p 156 for any additional information: Zmeskal marks "Iunia Tertia (206)" only as the daughter of Servilia and Decimus Junius Silanus (cos 62). The explanatory note on pp 344–45 is silent on the matter. I've made an according edit on Junia Tertia. Ifly6 (talk) 04:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The mention here was added without comment in 2015, an IP's sole edit. The mention in Servilia (mother of Brutus) or that Tertia was Caesar's own illegitimate child was added by  in 2020, so I'm hopeful they can help, but that was without the ref to Flowers, which was added in 2021 by Ifly6! I can't check that ref to the online 2021 4th edn OCD, but can say the online 2012 4th edn doesn't mention Tertia, and the 2nd and 3rd don't either.
 * If this rumor was going around, Suetonius has really disappointed me. NebY (talk) 20:31, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The genealogy stuff must have passed without comment for me when making the edit. I can't say I did much source comparison for it. If you have access to Wikipedia Library, you can access the new OCD article in full here: https://oxfordre-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/classics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199381135.001.0001/acrefore-9780199381135-e-5854. In it, Flower does say that it was rumoured: Servilia was rumoured to have offered Caesar her daughter Iunia Tertia as a lover. Alternatively, this same Iunia was said to be Caesar’s daughter, which would suggest his affair with Servilia had already begun in the late 70s BCE. She cites, however, no source for the claim. She cites RE, which has fortunately already digitised the article, but it says nothing on Tertia being Caesar's daughter. Of the other sources, I checked Drogula's Cato (2019) which says nothing and Tempest's Brutus (2017) which also says nothing. I also checked Treggiari's Servilia (2019) which also says nothing. The only mention in Treggiari is that Colleen McCullough's novels have her as Caesar's child, which I think is the point CJC-DI is trying to make. Ifly6 (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for the working link, now I've a chance of figuring out what I'm doing wrong. I've just checked Brennan Perceptions of Women's Power in the Late Republic, another of Flower's sources; he mentions Tertia but neither rumour. I'm beginning to wonder if it's time to exercise editorial discretion over what to include in WP articles.. NebY (talk) 22:48, 20 December 2022 (UTC)