Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:09, 1 June 2011

Brutus coin and the issue of his name

Hi there. The current text on the Brutus page runs "Brutus also later used the name officially on at least one occasion after Caesar's death though it appears this was to honour his adoptive father as he also issued coins in his original name at this time". This last assertion is refed with a link to the famous EID MAR coin. The trouble is, the EID MAR coin bears only BRVT IMP, so this means nothing either way. Note also that Cicero refers to Brutus by his adoptive name in a couple of his letters. Thus "Caepio Brutus" in Ad Att. II.24.2 (Aug 59) and "Q. Caepio" in Ad Fam. VII.21 (June 44). Cheers! Catiline63 (talk) 06:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice one Catiline, good work! Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 21:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!! 8o) Catiline63 (talk) 04:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Agincourt

Very good edits! Bravo! Trilobitealive (talk) 16:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Awarded on October 25, 2009 to User:Gaius Octavius Princeps for their work on Battle of Agincourt.Trilobitealive (talk) 16:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your defence of the Battle of Agincourt page while a couple of us who have it on our watch page were away. As I imagine you've realised, the NY Times piece simply repeated the controversy, there was nothing new here (and even that piece quotes an American historian who disagrees with Curry). Occasionally Curry's theory gets another run in the newspapers, this is the third time that I recall. The biggest problem with it (as touched on in the Times piece) is whether the surviving administrative records are an accurate reflection of who was at the battle.

We've started a couple of discussions on the talk page about the changes which have been made; would you be able to contribute? Thanks, merlin --Merlinme (talk) 13:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you please contribute to a discussion on the talk page of Battle of Agincourt? You've reverted my edits on the numbers to use Barker; Barker's numbers are probably even more wrong than Curry. You don't seem to have taken in that I've based my recent edits on Mortimer, i.e. the most recent research by someone who's had a chance to evaluate what Curry has done, and broadly supports her conclusions. You've made the "Numbers" section harder to read with little justification that I can see other than to give the impression that Curry is against all other historians, when in fact the majority of recent work I've seen has been closer to her position than Barker's. To be honest I'm quite annoyed that you've not made any entry on the talk page, even after I specifically asked you to a month ago. In the meantime I'm reverting the Barker numbers to use Mortimer's numbers. Note, not Curry's numbers. --Merlinme (talk) 11:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

This is the fourth time I've asked you to contribute to a discussion on the numbers at Agincourt. I'd prefer to have it on the Talk:Battle_of_Agincourt page so others can contribute, but we can have it here or on my talk page if you prefer. We're not going to get anywhere if we keep reverting each other's edits. I'm happy to be persuaded that Curry is in a tiny minority, but you have so far offered no evidence of this, and until you do, I will keep reverting. I have never got into a revert edit war with anyone, in years of active editing on Misplaced Pages. But you are making it very difficult if you won't engage in a discussion. --Merlinme (talk) 09:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

What exactly would you prefer? Do you want an article solely based on Curries work? The most recent edit I made simply toned down the curry centric slant of the article, her numbers are still included as are her arguments.

Looking at the edit history of the article, you have been pushing curry as a definitive guide to numbers involved for quite a long time. Her views are not supported by the vast majority of historians, as I'm sure you are aware, therefore the majority view (of a large French force V's a small English force) is represented too, along with supporting refs.Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 21:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I still don't think you understand what my position is, although I've tried on several occasions to explain it. See further up this page for where I thanked you for removing the Curry bias after the Glanz article appeared. I supported the Barker figures until very recently, as less contentious than Curry, even though I thought the methodology to produce the 36,000 figure was dubious. I have consistently supported the inclusion of a section addressing Curry's work, discussing the controversy, representing her as a minority view, because Curry is a recognised expert in the field, and because she's written one of the most recent books on the subject. Very recently (i.e. since I got hold of a copy of Mortimer's book) I have started supporting his figures, as he has had an opportunity to assess Curry's work, and has come down much closer to her version than to Barker's. You keep stating that Curry is not representative of "the vast majority of historians", but which historians do you mean, exactly? The only one I am aware of who has considered Curry's research in detail, at book length, is Mortimer. He finds her guilty of exaggeration of a few hundreds for the English, and a few thousands for the French, which is where we get figures of eight to nine thousand for the English and twelve to fifteen thousand for the French (not 9,000 and 12,000, as Curry has it). You keep saying that I support Curry's figures, but I don't. As I've tried to say several times, I support Mortimer's figures, as the only historian to have written a book length work which critically assesses Curry's figures.

If there were lots of other historians who had in the last four years said that Curry's figures were rubbish, even outside of a book, I would be more cautious. However I'm only aware of a short note in Barker (written without any research, although she makes valid points), and Rogers, in a newspaper article. His figures for the French (where he includes a "gros valet" per man-at-arms) are arguably the same as Mortimer's.

You keep saying "the vast majority of historians", but who, exactly? Especially among modern historians. Please could you provide some references.

Thanks for finally having a discussion, anyway.--Merlinme (talk) 13:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Curry/Mortimer's numbers are noted in the article alongside the traditional view that the French heavily outnumbered the English with refs. I don't understand what your complaint is. Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 21:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

My problem is your unsupported claims that "the vast majority" of historians support Barker's figures, which are now given the most prominent position in the Info box. The Info box is currently a mess; I'm not aware of any other which gives the figures as an "Or", as if it's a binary position, either 12 to 15 thousand, or 36,000. If we must present them like this, they should be presented as a range, e.g. "modern historians' estimates range from ~12,000 (ref) to ~36,000 (ref). See Numbers at Agincourt." --Merlinme (talk) 09:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Isandlwana lede

Most of your edits to this article are quite helpful however the changes made to the lede paragraphs are not supported by the refs you gave and are found in none of the major histories of the battle or eyewitness accounts. Please do not revert to 'thousands of rifles' or 'checked invasion' until you can make this case in the discussion page of the article further reverts are edit warring see WP:EW.Tttom1 (talk) 18:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Ian Knight is mostly alone in this, the minority viewm and British Battles website is not a source and follows Knight. Knight does not document the capture of thousands of firearms after the war or during the battle, nor does anyone else, but even if they have them they don't appear to be used at Isandlwana. Based on most sources, Zulu gunfire is barely mentioned beyond occassional sniping. The British military establishment has all sorts of weaponry available that is not documented at this battle from gatling guns to dreadnoughts and they are not mentioned - so too thousands of Zulu guns.World history source is clear that the Zulus are equipped with spears and rifle are anecdotal and incidental.Please discuss on article discussion page and await consensus before revert.Tttom1 (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

English people

Hi. Regarding this edit you made to English people, I explained my removal of that material on the article's talk page. Could you discuss the issue there rather than simply reintroducing it? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Rorke's Drift

Moved my responses to article talk page.Tttom1 (talk) 01:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Lt. Col. John Williams.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Lt. Col. John Williams.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Misplaced Pages uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Misplaced Pages.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Mau Mau

Glad to see someone who is keen to stop pro-Mau Mau loons from hijacking the MM article! I reverted it way back to get rid of the terrible edits made by that Mau Mau lover, so I might have lost some of your additions. I saw your Ogot quote in the discussion section, so I've slapped it in a quote box to balance the by Elkins mentioning British atrocities. I'm going through sourcing the parts which haven't been, expanding certain sections, and will sort out the random collection of sections which the other editor Sh33pl0re seems to have given up finishing. I'll try and go through and rescue other bits you may have added but which wer lost by my reversion too. Suggestions and help welcome! Iloveandrea (talk) 20:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey! Saw your reversion. OK, rather than revert to mine and then re-add what you did, I'll keep yours stuff and add in mine, if that make sense!
Iloveandrea (talk) 13:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. And Happy Christmas!Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 14:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

OK! Off to work now, I've made what alterations I'm going to for today, so feel to check it over, change it about or whatever. Happy Christmas to you too =D
Iloveandrea (talk) 14:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Richard I

I saw your edit of the Sexuality section in the Richard I of England article and reverted it, because (1) it was too reductionistic and (2) it is Flori that rebuts Gillingham, not the other way around. That is, early authors did not say much about Richard's alleged homosexuality, then it became common to say that he was homosexual, then Gillingham contested that, then Flori analyzed what others (including Gillingham) had said and went back to the original source accounts to formulate his synthesis. There has been a lot of discussion on the talk pages regarding how best to reflect this in the article. I would invite you to comment there, so that we can reach a consensus, before making changes.--Gautier lebon (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The Eagle

You added that 70% of Rotten Tomatoes 'top critics' gave the film a positive review. The number is actually 37% (I assume you were basing that number from memory of old information). Since the 'top critics' score doesn't show any particular disconnect between 'top critics' and 'all critics', I don't think it's necessary to include and I've removed it. Just letting you know. I won't protest further if you feel strongly and want to add it, but I don't think it's necessary. Regards, Swarm 03:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

--Nope, it is 70%. Click the 'Top Critics' bit. It looks like this: All Critics|Top Critics.
You cannot link directly to it, as you have to go to the films page and click here /\.

'All critics' is 41% and is the aggregate score from literally all critic ratings.
'Top Critics' only takes the aggregate of those critics considered to be at the top of their field. To quote the Rotten Tomatoes wikipedia entry "In addition, major film reviewers like Roger Ebert, Desson Thomson, Stephen Hunter, and Lisa Schwarzbaum (etc), are listed in a sub-listing called 'Top Critics'".

The Eagle has a 70% approval rating on it representing a positive reaction from the top critics. This is worth including in my opinion. I will re-add it for now, as I presume you have did not see the 70% Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 04:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting that you're seeing that. I'm seeing 37%

Average Rating: 5.2/10

Critic Reviews: 30

Fresh: 11 | Rotten: 19

How is that different from what you're seeing? Swarm 16:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Now that is strange.
I'm intrigued.

Here is a printscreen of the page as I see it, with the 'Top Critics' score 70%:

http://img863.imageshack.us/i/91009024.jpg/

And here is the 'All Critics' score of 41%:

http://img25.imageshack.us/i/28343758.jpg/

Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 01:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow. I've never encountered anything like that before. Here's mine for comparison.

I'm seeing the exact same "all critics" page. My best guess as to why we're seeing such differences in 'top critic' scores would be that Rotten Tomatoes uses your IP address to detect what country you're in and loads the scores for that nation or region. If you scroll down, you can see the top critics' reviews. The top critics I'm all seeing are from U.S. and Canadian sources. Could you take a look to see if this theory is correct? Swarm 01:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Very bizarre!

As to the critics being regional, I'm guessing mine are similar to yours as I have the likes of Ebert, NY Times, LA Times as well as British ones like Empire and The Daily Telegraph.

Look here for a screen of some of the Top Critics: http://img26.imageshack.us/i/cccpr.jpg/

Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 02:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

My revert of your edit to Royal Navy

Sorry about that, I had completely misunderstood what you had done and reverted it. My apologies, happy editing. :) G.R. Allison (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem. :D Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 16:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

BNP

There is a discussion open on the British National Party in relation to the fascist label, i can see you have made comment on this before and wouls appreciate your input, thanks.U6j65 (talk) 23:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)