User talk:Ifly6

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

		The Original Barnstar
		For all your contributions relating to the topic of Rome, commendable for both their quality and quantity. Avilich (talk) 22:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Ifly6 (talk) 00:06, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That was quick, congrats on the GA for Catilinarian consp. Avilich (talk) 03:41, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Ifly6 (talk) 14:20, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Writer's Barnstar
	For bringing Catilinarian conspiracy to GA, at long-last. Great work! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:47, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Here is the award you deserve for doing the most detailed GAN review by a new reviewer in the last month, in my view, at Talk:Battle of New Carthage/GA1. (t · c) buidhe 22:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like work with you on this article. What are the best first steps? Bearian (talk) 18:53, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It took a while for print-on-demand, but at last I've finished Julius Caesar and the Roman People and it's a delight and a masterclass. If not for your citations and that discussion I'd have missed it, so thank you! NebY (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a great book, especially when it gets into the details of what's going on in the procedural and political contexts of Caesar's first consulship and the opening of the civil war. I think MM's got the much stronger side of both arguments there. That said, I'm not as sanguine as MM is when it comes to Caesar's death. That many people (obviously not all) saw Caesar as a tyrant is, I think, unavoidable. MM's semi-apologism that citizens could distinguish freedom for people and for senators even if true isn't that relevant. I think the backlash had to do with the act rather than the aim. Ifly6 (talk) 18:37, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting; I was receiving a picture of Caesar as very much failing, while hurrying to make arrangements for his departure, to appreciate how badly he was managing his popular perception, and such attempts as he did make backfiring - rather reminding me of modern politicians who flourish in opposition but stumble in government. (I'd often been thinking how relevant How Democracies Die was, so that long discussion of it was very satisfying.) I didn't always follow MM's arguments, such as that the Senate forced Caesar's incursion, but I might on re-reading and I'm certainly totally open to blaming Cato for pretty much anything. Meanwhile MM's quite transformed my understanding of the People's role in the constitution of the late Republic, generally and in specifics like contiones. Ah, I could go on - but having appreciated MM's ateleogical rigour, I have Hindsight in Greek and Roman History[1] lined up! NebY (talk) 17:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re MM and 49, see App'x 4, which discusses an essentially game-theoretic approach for why nobody was willing to give in. Frankly I think it's the most convincing explanation of the start of the war. Though, I wouldn't say it was "the senate" or "Caesar" which was to blame. They were stuck in a cycle of mistrust. Even Caesar's realisation that his position was essentially military intimidation and his following adjustment late in the crisis (Pompey should withdraw to Spain and Caesar keeps one legion in Illyricum) doesn't feel entirely sufficient.

If you're Cato et al: this rogue governor has been trying to militarily intimidate you and rabble-rouse at Rome for the last year. Can you really believe him when he says he's going to give up all but one legion? Will he actually do it while you send away your only hope to defend Italy through his territory? You don't trust Caesar; assume bad faith and this turns from an offer into a ploy. "It's one of those ploys he's been playing on Gauls, Germans, and Britons for the last decade. Does he think we're stupid enough to fall for traps like those barbarians?" Ifly6 (talk) 22:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also about Hindsight. I think the fact that the republic fell in ... some year between 49 BC and AD 14 has hugely coloured historians' perspectives on it. Imagine a world where the republic did not fall from, say, the time of Cicero. What kind of things would have had to have happened? Certainly the middle and late 50s BC were not a great time for the republic but after 52 and the restoration of order these problems may have been on their way out. The new law on provincial assignments were just coming into effect and probably would have helped to stabilise politics.

Part of the weakness of the Sullan republic was the death of essentially the entire real political elite in the Social and Sullan wars. Another decade and there would finally be enough ex-consuls to return to a state of normalcy and an end to the state of affairs where the darling of the senate is an ex-praetor (Cato lost his only bid for the consulship). Actually assigning someone to the forests and country lanes of Italy (derided in Caesar's first consulship as a ploy) really was something that was necessary given the mobs of bandits patrolling the peninsula; time enough would have aged such men out.

The republic's fall was within the context of the disruptions of the Social and Sullan wars. If it had had more time for those disruptions to ease, if there weren't a Caesarian civil war, or maybe even if Antony had just bit it like Hirtius and Pansa during the Mutina war, we would probably be talking of a very different course for Roman history. Maybe the republic would even have fallen in the third century (amid plague and climate change) instead of in this last half century BC. Nobody knows. Ifly6 (talk) 23:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Prisoner's Dilemma appendix is very good, and the overall picture of escalating mistrust and inventive gambits (Cato, Bibulus) - so reminiscent of How Democracies Die. I wasn't fully persuaded in the main chapters that the preservation of Caesar's dignitas was so vital as to necessitate marching into Italy with legions but that might be my failure to read MM thoughtfully enough or to grasp Roman psychology, or reflect some pusillanimous mildness of my own. I don't really mind, because I can just be enthralled without having to make my mind up (cf Brian May "astronomy's much more fun when you're not an astronomer").

And yes, that mistrust and gambiting was in part the product of the losses of the Social and Sullan wars, wiping out many of the gatekeepers and fatally interrupting the maintenance of the norms that are (HDD again) as or more important than the constitution. MM keeps his thought experiment brief, but if Caesar had survived to fight the Parthian campaign and Rome had experienced three years of not even fighting elections, we might be looking back on his clementia as a key component of the republic's recovery.

I blame the meddling time-travellers. Octavian's survival is just taking the piss. NebY (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again on Hindsight. The chapter by Powell, "Anticipating Octavian's failure: from Tauromenium to the death of Cleopatra", is some rather interesting reading. I think I would have wanted to see some chapters on the republic (like what if Lepidus had won in 79, Pompey was victorious in 48, etc) but of course there's probably insufficient information for a compelling counterfactual. Ifly6 (talk) 00:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cicero Minor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Liberators.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Unreferenced articles | November 2024 Backlog Drive
There is a substantial backlog of unsourced articles on Wikipedia, and we need your help! The purpose of this drive is to add sources to these unsourced articles and make a meaningful impact. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles cited. Remember to tag your edit summary with #NOV24, both to advertise the event and tally the points later using Hashtag Summary Search. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you have subscribed to the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of common misconceptions on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I see that you added a hatnote on this page. I reverted this, because of the guidelines present at WP:NAMB. It is generally not recommended to include a hatnote when there is a clear distinction in the article title, and given that George Floyd does not redirect to this article, it does not belong on here. I just wanted to let you know that I reverted it as a courtesy, since I saw you add this hatnote, and I am positive you did this in good faith. Thank you. JeffSpaceman (talk) 11:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Just a question, can you actually read Latin or Greek? I'm noticing you seem to overly rely on secondary sources, and seem antagonistic towards the use and interpretation of primaries. Your opinions and narratives come off as incredibly forceful for ancient history with this in mind, modern social historian like really. It's a little jarring considering from what I can tell you have little background beyond being a hobbyist. 2600:4040:2C9D:3000:B10E:8A5E:5EA3:9C1A (talk) 22:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My main positions with regard to the primary sources emerge from Wikipedia policy: WP:PRIMARY is foremost, which essentially makes it impossible for someone to overly rely on secondary sources. The core question is what should be added and it is not whatever some random person says or interprets [some source or whatever] to say. Although I can read Latin (and don't read Greek) – such as when I read PIR, CIL, or pre-1990s OCT prefaces, all of which are secondary sources in terms of commentary, – language skills are irrelevant as to what Wikipedia sourcing policies require. (This is orthogonal to the language skills needed to understand what, say, PIR is saying about Cicero Minor, since Wikipedia does not discriminate against sources in other languages.)

Re antagonistic towards... interpretation of primaries, doing that is proscribed original research. If you are interested in doing interpretation of primary sources and putting them on Wikipedia, get them published first. Debating what Livy means when he discusses a praetor maximus and the like is suitable for Historia. Wikipedia is here only to report on what others have said on it with due weight (itself debatable) for what those authors have said. Ifly6 (talk) 00:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea whether you'd know about this particular aspect of this particular period, but I'm curious whether you have any insight whether the characterization of the Severans as Berber is (1) mainstream, and (2) potentially worth a mention at all on Septimus's and Geta's articles, as an editor would like to add them and my feeling is no to both but I'm unsure. Thanks in advance! Remsense ‥ 论 14:05, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If by Berber you mean Punic or North African, that's certainly mainstream. See OCD^Online https://oxfordre.com/classics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199381135.001.0001/acrefore-9780199381135-e-5836, first sentence. As to the details of imperial biography, however, I lose interest just as the memory of the republic fades. Ifly6 (talk) 14:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind reposting this for posterity at Talk:Geta (emperor)? Much appreciated in any case! Remsense ‥ 论 14:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've almost finished a rewrite of the page. Have you written anything yet? T8612 (talk) 08:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've not even started beyond putting in a few ILL requests for some background reading. If you're done already, then I suppose there's very little for me to do! Ifly6 (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Sabiha Gökçen on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the article on Cicero, I recently changed the clause "where more of his writings survived than any other Latin author" to "where more of his writings survived than any other Latin author's." Within a few days, you changed it back. I'm writing to revisit that revision / reversion with you. Let's see whether I can win you over to my revision.

The question that the sentence at issue aims to answer is, Which was there more of? Cicero's surviving writings or any other Latin author's surviving writings?

The question that it actually answers, by contrast, is, Which was there more of? Cicero's surviving writings or any other Latin author?

The present locution's syntactic illogic might be easier to recognize if you substitute a specific Latin author for the hypothetical one. It would make sense to compare Cicero's surviving writings to, for example, Virgil's surviving writings, and to say which one's surviving writings outnumber the other's. But it makes no sense to compare Cicero's surviving writings to Virgil himself, or, as the locution you have restored does, to "any other Latin author."

Forgive me, but I enjoy this sort of thing. Just as you have a hankering to share your insight into ancient Rome (Bravo, by the way!), I get fidgety about incorrect grammar, syntax, and usage.

If I've persuaded you, please say so. I will then joyously restore my revision. But if I haven't persuaded you, I promise to shut up and go away. 2603:6010:100:6E85:20E2:4920:8804:978C (talk) 23:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Restore your revision. Ifly6 (talk) 02:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]