Talk:Pompey

Theater

Hi, I am new to wikipedia. I did not see any inclusion of Pompey's theater in this article. Is this something that would be good to include? -Sarahh317 (talk) 12:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. I had a crack at it. Added a section about the theatre and a link to the main article.-LuciusHistoricus (talk) 13:21, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Infobox

This article, along with several other articles about ancient Romans, was changed to use a different infobox, {{infobox officeholder}}. In consequence, there's discussion about which infobox to use and how at Talk:Julius Caesar#Infobox and then at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome#Infoboxes for Roman office-holders as a more central location. NebY (talk) 19:47, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Article length (and other) issues

As we seem to have started a discussion of sorts in the edit summaries, I thought it would be useful to open a thread on what this article needs, in terms of cutting and pruning (and whatever else), with a view to making a sort of to-do list.

Tagging in @T8612: and @Robinvp11:, who have been involved in the same 'conversation'.

For my money, the main 'problem' is in the military-history sections: they're both overly-long (especially as most are, in theory, only summaries of main articles) and more or less straightforwardly paraphrase the primary sources. The most obvious contenders for some work would seem to be:

• Sertorian War
• Civil War
• Third Mithriditic War

The big 'missing link' is an article on Pompey's Campaign against the Pirates, but as that section's currently much shorter than the others, I'm not sure it's a hugely urgent priority.

I agree with User:T8612 that the lede is, for now, one of the better parts of the article, and that we'd be much better off focusing our efforts further down. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:59, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

The Lead may be "one of the better parts of the article", but that doesn't invalidate edits made to it. I haven't taken out anything that alters the sense (except for the claim made in the original that Pompey's war with Caesar necessarily led to the Empire).

I will make edits to the Sertorian War as a start;

"BCE" is commonly used by modern historians and I think we should standardise on that throughout the article. Robinvp11 (talk) 19:05, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

There's a Wikipedia policy on CE/AD (MOS:ERA): essentially, he encyclopaedia doesn't take a view either way, so you can use either one when writing a new article but shouldn't change an existing article from one to the other if it's already established. For what it's worth, I have a fairly strong preference towards BCE as well, and have used it whenever I've written an article.

You're absolutely right that edits to the lead are, in principle, fine (there was a good one a few days ago which corrected the IPA) - I'm not trying to say that they shouldn't be made. My thinking was that you seemed to be looking to do something about the article's length issues: having come in and pointed out an edit that didn't help, it only seemed right to be constructive and suggest some that would. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:23, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Having seen the recent edits to lead, the major issues discussed in my previous edit summary remain. I've restored the factual material cut out, while making some changes to address the problems raised (in particular, the term "student of Sulla" was neither clear nor particularly accurate - I've had a go at supplying something different, and I'm not sure that "ardent supporter of the Optimates" could claim any evidence for Pompey's genuine thoughts and feelings).

In the interests of giving a detailed explanation, here's my edit summary:

Lead reworked (largely reverted), with some of the positive recent changes built back in. Per MOS:LEAD, the lead should be able to stand on its own as a mini-article, so cutting significant material like Pompey's status as nobility and his unorthodox cursus honorum is inappropriate. For an article of this length, MOS:LEAD advises 3-4 paragraphs, so it is already on the short side - cutting out factual material is not the right approach here.

There's a difference between concision and simple brevity: it's certainly good to make sure that the lead says what it needs to in the most concise way possible, but that is not the same as reducing the lead so that it says as little as possible. Most notably, any treatment of Pompey's involvement in the Crisis of the Republic needs to be clear that Caesar's Civil War was only the final step: the Republic was well into crisis by (at least) 81, when Pompey — a teenage general who effectively inherited an army — is going around threatening a barely-constitutional military strongman into giving him an extra-legal triumph. Caesar's civil war was still over three decades away at that point.

We're coming close to the Three-Revert Rule here, so I'd suggest that it would be wise to establish consensus for any major changes to the lead before making them. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:23, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

(a) "Most notably, any treatment of Pompey's involvement in the Crisis of the Republic needs to be clear that Caesar's Civil War was only the final step: the Republic was well into crisis by (at least) 81, when Pompey — a teenage general who effectively inherited an army — is going around threatening a barely-constitutional military strongman into giving him an extra-legal triumph. Caesar's civil war was still over three decades away at that point."

If this is your point (and I'm not disagreeing), then it is not clearly reflected in the current wording. Nor do I get any sense of what distinguishes Pompey from any number of ruthlessly ambitious thugs who sought to take advantage of the general instability of the late Roman Republic.

(b) Leads are also supposed to be accessible for the general reader, a point many editors miss because we tend to edit articles or periods we already know. Listing his triumphs, the wars he fought in etc - so what? The point (presumably) is he was a successful and experienced military strongman - why not simply say that?

(c) This is a problem throughout Wikipedia and it matters because 60% of Wikipedia users only ever look at the Lead. Yes, as someone who designs online and mobile learning for a living, shorter is better. But my main objections to the Lead are not length per se, but lack of clarity (see above), and pointless verbiage.

Why do I need to know as a key fact Pompey was referred to as a "teenage butcher?" Presumably because he was known as ruthless - not unusual for successful Roman politicians - so why not just say so?

Yes, we need to get the body of the article right but unless the Lead is both accessible and clear, its like building a house without a front door.

To summarise; The Lead as currently written both assumes expert knowledge, but also fails to clearly state what made Pompey different, and why he was so significant.Robinvp11 (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@Robinvp11 Do we have concensus on replacing all the BCs in this article with BCEs? I am willing to do it, but we need concensus. LuciusHistoricus (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think so Robinvp11 (talk) 09:19, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

'Popular' references

Bare lists of popular references are no longer welcome on Wikipedia, per the style guideline MOS:CULTURALREFS. In view of this, and the discussion above on article length, I'm challenging the section as without WP:RS and largely off-topic and will delete it next month. Sweetpool50 (talk) 09:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Era

There appears to be a dispute over whether the established era style used in this article ought to be changed from BC to BCE. As this threatens to become an edit war, one of the editors involved in the dispute brought it to the attention of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome for outside assistance or opinions. WP:ERA says to seek consensus on the talk page first (applying Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Retaining existing styles) by opening a discussion under a heading using the word era, and briefly stating why the style should be changed. Having been involved in several similar discussions before, I cannot think of an alternative, because this is a legitimate dispute between editors who have worked on this article. I'll summarize my own opinion below, so as not to confuse the discussion. P Aculeius (talk) 23:29, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Warning, wall of text follows! Per the above guideline, the established era should not be changed unless there is a consensus for doing so related to the content of this article. The Manual of Style specifies that both eras are acceptable generally speaking; for this reason I do not think we can accept at face value the argument that "all or nearly all modern historians" prefer "BCE/CE". If we followed that logic, then we would need to convert all history articles using "BC" or "AD" to "BCE" and "CE", and one of the most contentious issues in all of Wikipedia would suddenly be settled, to the great surprise of most editors. We cannot accept a blanket statement that BC/AD is unacceptable without involving the entire encyclopedia—and I very much doubt there would be a consensus for doing so.

I cannot see anything to do with Pompeius that would require a change of eras. This is a history topic, not a religious one, and there are no strong reasons for or against either era style related to the subject. The only reason I can see for doing so is the personal preference of the editor, and in general we do not change era styles for this reason, because that would encourage constant edit warring. The editor wishing to make the change has said that he has spent several days revising the article, and that therefore it has been substantially rewritten and can be in the style of his choosing.

But this is a very substantial article on a major topic, and has had hundreds of editors over more than twenty years. I do not think that any quantity of rewriting or replacement of the text should give one editor the right to decide an issue as contentious as the era without a consensus from others. If nobody cared enough to contest it, then it could be allowed to pass, but clearly people do care, and contentious changes ought not to be made without achieving a consensus. That would need to be done here, before the change is implemented.

There is a tendency among some editors to use only the most recent sources available for any topic, and dismiss all others as hopelessly outdated. But this is not a valid position in the field of Roman history, except in the rare exceptions where new evidence has come to light. New interpretations may be perfectly reasonable, and may stand the test of time. Or they may not. Historical analysis is no more immune to social trends today than it was in the past. When it comes to Roman biography, the opinions of scholars from Roman times to the present are all worth describing, citing, and considering; excluding sources merely because they're old, as if writers living before the present weren't equally educated or entitled to their opinions, is absurd.

The idea that "BCE/CE" reflects an enlightened evolution of thought concerning bias in historical writing appears shallow and superficial to me; an era based on the date that Dionysius Exiguus calculated as the birth of Christ is no more offensive because it is labeled as such than it is when the abbreviation for it is replaced by letters that supposedly mean something else—although "Christian Era" and "Before the Christian Era" is also a common understanding of these abbreviations, alongside "common" era, so it's not even clear that changing the abbreviations actually removes the word "Christ". Does taking the steeple off the church or disguising a church as a bank change what it is? If the era is still based on the birth of Christ, then hiding that behind an innocuous phrase seems more insidious than simply acknowledging what it is in plain language.

For the record, I'm not advocating keeping the established era out of religious zeal. I'm not a Christian, and never have been. I'm a secular Jew interested in history, particularly Roman history. Most extant historical writing uses BC and AD, and I never feel excluded or insulted by it. Historians have always written from their own perspective, and that hasn't changed. Those who wrote about this topic or other related topics weren't imposing a religious agenda by using the established era of their time, and I don't feel the need or the desire to have history rewritten to address an offense I don't feel. It's patronizing to take offense on the behalf of other people, and tell them how they ought to feel if they're not offended. My opinion isn't better than anyone else's, even if it takes more words to express. But for my part I prefer to keep the established style than impose something that I think is rather absurd and pointless. P Aculeius (talk) 00:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Having been one of the people who responded to the call on WT:CGR, I want to note that I concur with P Aculeius with some reservations – the fourth paragraph – that aren't entirely relevant to this issue. Ifly6 (talk) 03:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

@Robinvp11, P Aculeius, Iazyges, and NebY: (Pinging involved users.) Please don't restore your version of the article contra consensus. Ifly6 (talk) 17:57, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Very much agree; BC/AD is by far the most widely used system, with the Muslim AH system forming the only other calendar that is actually broadly used, both based on religious events. If BCE/CE wanted to find a new Year 0 to form a Kelvin-esque neutral third dating system, there might be more use for it, but it's really just a retouching of being based on the birth of Jesus (ish). I personally use BC/AD, but don't have an issue with those who use BCE/CE so long as they abide by WP:ERA. With that, I very much stand by our usage of WP:ERA; that a primary author can pick whichever they like, and it should not be changed unless there is strong consensus for it. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:24, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, as a long-time editor I am prepared to abide by the WP ruling. But on a personal level I always use B/CE in the articles I create. I find the concept AD ("in the year of our Lord") insulting to all those of other faiths for whom that is not true, as well as beside the point in contexts where Christian figures and ideology do not fit. If there is a growing scholarly preference for B/CE usage, it may be time for WP policy-makers to review the rule more sensitively. Sweetpool50 (talk) 06:40, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Using CE in the articles you write is your prerogative, and I won't get in your way. However, almost no one understands AD to be "Anno Domini" anymore, to be honest. It simply is AD for them. And again, regardless of what it's called, it's based on the same thing. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:10, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

That's why I made a point of saying that BC/AD don't offend me in the least. I understand what they mean, and I think most other people know too, but their use just isn't offensive. I find the drive to replace them with CE/BCE patronizing because they pretend to mean something else, even though they're based on the same thing—and I note that many people use or understand the "C" to mean "Christian" rather than "Common". Plus, calling it the "common" era implies that everyone agrees with it, including the very people who are supposedly excluded by counting years from the birth of Christ. That's also extremely patronizing. At least the older era style has the benefit of centuries of usage. It's become innocuous, unlike CE/BCE, used without any intention of using it to spread the gospel, as it were. I don't need people to decide what I'm offended by for me, and erase it wherever it occurs to spare me some imaginary trauma. As a historian, that's antithetical to all of my instincts and training. P Aculeius (talk) 14:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:ERA serves us well as a truce. Without it, there are passionate, forthright and principled editors who would remove every BCE/CE from every article they worked on and some who would seek out any other uses too, restricted only by the equally passionate, forthright and principled editors busily removing BC/AD. Thus also WP:ENGVAR for spelling and grammar, and MOS:METRIC for metric and imperial/US-customary units. In developing the latter, "source-based units" became anathema, especially after one editor was accused of changing a source for articles about UK footballers to justify giving their heights in metres rather than feet and inches. Likewise, WP:ERA doesn't allow for switching styles according to sources, leaves no room for WP:OWNership by whoever's put in most work, and does not allow changes on general principles.

Instead, WP:ERA requires reasons specific to [the article's] content for any switching. I don't think we've seen any specific reasons for this article yet. NebY (talk) 19:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

@Robinvp11:, that's not how it works. You get to make your changes if you can gain a consensus by discussion. The burden is on you to convince others to change a stable era style, not the reverse. --Nicknack009 (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Getting consensus assumes this discussion is about logic, rather than emotion. That's presumably why you've (apparently) put far more effort into escalating and winning this relatively minor issue, rather than (say) making useful comments on the content. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:28, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

This article was flagged as requiring extensive updating, including use of modern sources, and is effectively a rewrite. I've had zero comments on the content from any of the editors above.

A lot of the text above frankly seems irrelevant. I personally don't care if people use BC or BCE but those who do use BCE include all modern historians, schools, news organisations like the BBC, other online encyclopedia such as the EB etc. Several of the sources quoted in this article (Beard and Holland among others) use BCE. And since a lot of our readers are from schools, our audience will too.

The oft quoted WP:ERA specifically says you can use either. So far, the only rationalisation provided here for continuing to use BC is because people feel emotionally attached to it. Why would we update an article and not employ commonly used formats? And if the answer is "because we like BC", then just say that, save everyone hours of typing their detailed rationalisation of that simple truth.

No worries - I've taken this page off my watch list and I'll make sure I avoid this period going forward.Robinvp11 (talk) 18:28, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

No talk of servile war

It’s mentioned he is elected consul in 70, 55, and 52, with very little supporting information for any of this. No talk of the Servile war either. 2603:8001:5602:B943:A91B:853F:6FFF:602E (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

The article does discuss the consulships in 70, 55, and 52. It does discuss his activities during the Third Servile War. I'm not sure as to how the claim made here is at all factual. Ifly6 (talk) 02:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Sections on sources and a separate bibliography

This doesn't seem entirely consistent with MOS:LAYOUT but regardless of whether it is consistent or not it's confusing. Some clean up of that might be desiderable. Ifly6 (talk) 17:12, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I think it's worth keeping the citations in the "sources" section that are specifically about Pompey as "further reading" (i.e. sources that are relevant but not cited in text). Abbott, Brice, and Crawford seem a bit too general to keep and Van Ooteghem might be too old. I don't see any good reason for keeping the primary sources. "Julius Caesar. (1976)" deeply discomforts me and I'm not sure why we're advising readers to consult that particular edition. Furius (talk) 21:29, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree that a "Further reading" section could be introduced; it would not be the same, however, as "Sources" and "Bibliography" which is what is in the article at present. I'm not too troubled with Julius Caesar 1976 as if we quote translations we will have to select a specific one; but I think it should be anonymised in the way documented at WP:CGR/Guides/Primary sources. Ifly6 (talk) 03:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Consulship error?

The Early life/career section says "He completed the traditional cursus honorum, becoming consul in 89 BC," but later in the Sertorian War it says "Backed by his allies in the Senate, Pompey was appointed military commander in Spain with proconsular authority. This act was technically illegal as he had yet to hold public office, illustrating Pompey's preference for military glory, and disregard for traditional political constraints."

Which was it? Did he hold public office before this or not?

Edit: upon further inspection, the quote from the Early Life section actually refers to his father Strabo. I'm gonna tweak the punctuation to make that a little clearer.

TrendySpaghetti (talk) 21:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Assassination of Pompey

I've started this draft and anyone interested can collaborate. Let's get this done. X (talk) 18:04, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi X, thanks for putting this together. I think you are right more can be added on Pompey's assassination, but I am unsure if it merits its own article. It was a significant event, yet much of the content you provided is discussion of Caesar's civil war and also the Ptolemaic Kingdom. Perhaps a more lengthy treatment on the significance of Pompey's death on all those 2 pages and/or Pompey's page would be more fitting. The Madness of Joanna (talk) 18:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

If there is more to be said about his death, then I'd suggest first expanding Pompey#Death a little. That also allows you to avoid making definitive statements such as the current draft's "Ultimately, the decision to betray and assassinate Pompey was made by the regent Pothinus and other influential courtiers, as they sought to curry favor with Caesar and secure their own positions of power." It's temprting to say such things when decompressing the narrative, but ultimately that's unknown. NebY (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

It probably is ultimately unknown, but this is Wikipedia and if X has WP:RS covered and is willing to be bold then such statements should be welcomed. The Madness of Joanna (talk) 20:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)