Talk:Siege of Oricum

Untitled
Honestly I looked everywhere, and I could not find any more mentions or details relating to the siege, if anyone has more info they're welcome to message me, I'm curious.Lillzon (talk) 22:50, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Reverted edits, May 8, 2022
Wikipedia's deletion policy not only allows, but encourages editors to improve articles that have been nominated for deletion. A logical method of doing this is to address the concerns raised by the nominator or other contributors to a deletion discussion. Among the concerns raised about this article are: 1) the events described in the article do not constitute a "siege"; 2) there is not enough detail about the topic to support a stand-alone article; 3) this is a content fork that ought to be part of a longer article. Properly speaking the first one is not an argument for deletion, but for renaming the article—if it is correct.

However, as shown by primary and secondary sources that I cited in the deleted edits, there was a siege, and that siege followed immediately upon and as a direct consequence of the Oricum's capitulation to Caesar, was made possible by Caesar's rapid departure from Oricum following said surrender, and was contested by the legate whom Caesar left in charge of the city. Can these be described as "separate events" as you contend? Perhaps, in the same way that Caesar landing his troops a short distance away and then marching them through narrow defiles to reach the city can be described as "separate events"—but it makes no sense to do so.

This is all the more so if the contention is that there is not enough detail to support a stand-alone article. In the deletion discussion you contend that the only relevant detail is that Pompeius' commander surrendered the city without a fight. This ignores Caesar bringing his troops over from Brundisium for the purpose of attacking Oricum and its neighbors, being driven by the winds to a stretch of beach behind the mountains, and marching his soldiers through the mountains via multiple paths, leaving them vulnerable to attack, but arriving at daybreak and re-assembling into an army before the walls of the city. If these were not sufficient details to warrant inclusion, then surely the fact that Pompeius filius then brought his fleet around to retake Oricum as soon as Caesar departed with the bulk of his army, then besieged and successfully took the city by storm, in the manner described by the various sources, adds such detail.

The argument that the article should be deleted as a content fork makes no sense if you are going to delete all discussion of related and interconnected events, such as the aforementioned siege and recapture of the city by Pompeius, because clearly these matters belong in a single article, not spread out across multiple articles. The idea that the article ought to be regarded as a fork from the article about the commander who surrendered to Caesar—and that for this reason there cannot be a separate article about it, is equally absurd. Why should readers be expected to look for information about Oricum and its capture by Caesar, and subsequent recapture by Pompeius, under an article about a relatively obscure lieutenant? I am not arguing that he does not deserve an article, or that his actions ought not to be mentioned in it—merely that doing so should not preclude a thorough and independent discussion of the events here or anywhere else.

Your edit summary says that the article should not be "repurposed" while its deletion remains under discussion. I'm not aware of any policy or guideline about "repurposing" articles, whether or not they are under discussion for deletion or anything else. I assume that by "repurposing" the article, you mean including information about the actions in this sequence that actually matched the article's title, since that, along with all related edits made by me today, is what you deleted with this edit summary. In other words, if the article originally focused only on the city's initial surrender, then it has to be limited to that focus until it is either kept or deleted—editors are not permitted to add information about the topic that would clearly justify the title, and potentially stave off its deletion—although as I previously mentioned, a bad title would not be grounds for deletion anyway.

Now you say that I'm not allowed to put this in the article until I justify it on the talk page—I note that you felt no need to initiate a discussion before deleting it, nor after deleting it, nor after deleting it for a second time, although on both occasions you knew that your reversions would be contested. I think that I have more than justified my edits: the events clearly arise out of and constitute a single set of facts; indeed the article would be incomplete if it did not mention the fact that Oricum was almost immediately recaptured once Caesar departed the neighborhood, even if you choose to regard that as a separate event. Deleting relevant, necessary, and verifiable facts, relating to the topic of an article and properly cited to authority, is what requires justification; and here there is none, because these facts need to be mentioned and included whether or not you treat the city's initial surrender and subsequent recapture as separate events.

But it is utterly disingenuous to insist that these things be treated as separate events that need to be discussed separately, at the same time as you are advocating for the deletion of the article on the grounds that it is insufficiently detailed and ought to be part of a longer article. You cannot demand the deletion of articles for failing to meet certain benchmarks, then use your editorial powers to ensure that they are not improved to the point at which they would satisfy your standards. That would be appointing yourself the gatekeeper for the article by determining the outcome of your own nomination, and forbidding anyone from interfering with that outcome.

Because the siege and capture of Oricum by Pompeius clearly forms part of the same sequence of events as its capture by Caesar, and because it would have to be mentioned or discussed even if it did not; because Wikipedia deletion policy encourages the improvement of articles that have been nominated for deletion, rather than forbidding it under the vague notion of "repurposing an article while it is under discussion", and because including related and connected information is what editors are supposed to do in order to improve articles; and because the only obvious reason for excluding the material added today from the article is to bolster the arguments that the article contains too little detail to justify its existence, and that the title is a misnomer because no siege occurred—again, not a valid argument for deletion—the material should be re-added to the article, and the revisions considered before the deletion discussion is closed. P Aculeius (talk) 02:54, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The article should not be radically repurposed during a discussion for the same reason as it should not be moved or merged during that same period: improving is obviousy encouraged, but editors will be opining about the article's current scope, not your radically revised scope, and doing these premature revisions ignores the consensus that will be formed. With regards to the content itself -- this wasn't merely a procedural reversion -- I disagree that it needs to be added here, because it groups two separate actions into a single 'siege of Oricum', an equation that is not supported by any source. It is entirely appropriate to mention these two actions together but only as a part of Caesar's Balkan campaign of spring 48 BC, not due to their both happening at Oricum. So I think you should add it to Caesar's civil war and the background section of Battle of Dyrrhachium (48 BC), and only then propose an article split if you think it's necessary. The sole sentence here about the pseudo-siege of Oricum, you should merge to Torquatus's article, where it's already mentioned with only slightly less detail. In my opinion, neither of the two engagements, Caesar's 'siege' and Pompey's recapture, are notable enough to be listed in a separate article; mentioning them together as you did would generate enough content for that, but then you're unduly grouping two separate engagements based on the sole fact of their identical location, rather than on the authority of a reliable source. Avilich (talk) 12:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Your actions are absurd. You have nominated the page for deletion on the grounds that it is too narrow and non-notable, and now oppose any attempt to make the scope of the article wider and more acceptable.  If you don't like the way the article is going why don't you just says so at the AFD and add it as an additional reason to delete.  If information belongs on Wikipedia, and I don't see you arguing that this information doesn't belong, we should be trying to find a better home for it rather than mindlessly reverting. SpinningSpark 09:14, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "we should be trying to find a better home for it" -- that's precisely what I just did in both the immediately preceding comment and in the AfD. Take the time to actually read it or just shut up. Avilich (talk) 14:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I could accept that criticism if you had actually moved the material somewhere instead of just deleting it. But you haven't, and you have absolutely no right to tell another user to shut up, so yes I did and no I won't. SpinningSpark 15:47, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "just shut up"? really?  WP:CIVIL Anaxagoras17 (talk) 02:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Right, well, this discussion isn't going anywhere, and seems to have been a pointless stalling tactic—you insist that the content can't go in the article without being discussed on the talk page—and on the talk page you say that it shouldn't go in the article while there's a deletion discussion ongoing because it won't improve the article, and in the deletion discussion you say it can't be added because there's a talk page discussion—which you demanded, but which just amounts to circular attempts to block the edits procedurally. I'm re-adding the content, because it's clearly relevant to this specific topic, not just to larger articles about Caesar's campaign in Illyricum or to the Civil War in general, and not just to individual persons who played a role in the events.  P Aculeius (talk) 11:42, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * And I reverted it again, because, 1, your comment is a disingenuous strawman; 2, the result of the article is a WP:SYNTH of two events that no source puts together; and 3, you failed WP:ONUS, that is, to demonstrate why it needs to be written here and not in the other articles that have been suggested. Avilich (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You need to undo this right now. This is the fourth time you've reverted the same edits without justification, making bogus arguments about editing being prohibited during a deletion discussion, disallowed until there's a talk page discussion (which you insisted I initiate before you'd accept them), and now wikilawyering two new random and unsupported arguments along with a personal insult.  This is not collaborative, but disruptive; you have appointed yourself the sole arbiter of what happens with this article, what is allowed to be added, and when—with the sole purpose of seeing to it that it gets deleted.  If it continues, I will file an edit warring report at ANI.  P Aculeius (talk) 21:44, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree that an article should not be edited during a deletion discussion, because perhaps those edits will illuminate why the the article is merited. I also do not understand why anyone would want to delete this article about a documented historical event. Anaxagoras17 (talk) 01:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * you're misrepresenting the reasons for the content removal; the edits do not illuminate why the article is merited, whence I'm removing them. If you read the entire discussion you'll notice I proposed other places to put the information. Please do not revert again until you're fully informed of what's going on. Avilich (talk) 02:02, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have read the thread above and agree with the arguments made by Spinning Spark and P Aculeius. I will revert and at this point there are three editors who disagree with you.  I believe in WP:ATD. Anaxagoras17 (talk) 02:10, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I just proposed several ATDs here, do you have any opinions on them? Avilich (talk) 02:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If you actually made one of them perhaps it would help your argument. Telling other users to "shut up" does not.   Anaxagoras17 (talk) 02:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 16 May 2022
Change "The Siege of Oricum" to "The siege of Oricum", since most sources don't cap siege on this one (see books). Dicklyon (talk) 15:26, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Full-protection-unlocked.svg Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)