Talk:Spartacus

Spartacus -II

Spartacus -II is a system slave leading a slave uprising (1975 - 2005 AD).

What does this mean and does it belong in this article? Mintguy

It means that I am a slave as you are in the Capitalist Empire, my slave revolt began in 1975 achieving victory in 2005 Meta-philosophy

Nationality

John Kenney removed the ancient Roman category on the basis that Spartacus is normally said to be Thracian, and thus, not a Roman.

However, did African natives taken in slavery to the US not become Americans? GreatWhiteNortherner 06:04, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The concept of national identity in the ancient world was quite different from that of the modern world - such comparisons are invalid. To say someone was a "Roman" is to mean something specific - that they were a Roman citizen. This was never true of slaves (and not true of most free inhabitants of the Roman Empire until the early third century AD). john k 06:45, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There should be no doubt that Spartacus was a Thracian by ethnicity. No such name is attested among traditional Roman names. On the other hand, names such as Spardocus and Sparadocus are well-attested among Thracians. Alexander 007 02:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be best to keep the text that calls him a Roman, for 2 reasons. 1) he was a slave of a roman, and thus he was roman property in those times. 2) it will make it easier for people to have an idea of where he led his uprising. Saying he was a thracian gladiator would confuse many who wouldnt take the tiem to read the text more in depth.

I disagree with that, because what you are advocating is inaccuracy. Call him what he was: a Thracian slave of the Roman Empire who led a slave revolt in Capua. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.69.132 (talk) 11:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC) The source

Plutarch wrote spartacus biography and he mentions he is of greek thracian descent.The english translation does not mention that he was from "MAidikon genos" the line of Maidikoi who where greeks.Why is that?

Terming Spartacus a Roman is like insulting him. Spartacus probably hated & despised the Romans for enslaving & torturing him & his fellow slaves. So, ideally he should be called a "Thracian by birth" and a "Roman Slave", if necessary. TathD 16:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Apostrophes

I always thought that you would put it like this: Spartacus' dog was small. Why on this page is it like this: Spartacus's dog was small. In many places on the page it has his name followed by an apostrophe and then another 's' letter. Was I mistaken about the way this grammar rule works? Bryan 12:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I was taught the same rule to indicate nouns in the possessive case. However, it appears you & I, Bryan, are either on the losing side of a changing rule -- or are the only ones right about this issue. (In either case, let's not fight this too passionately -- that would lead us into fighting one of the lamest edit wars ever.) -- llywrch 21:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The truly correct method to indicate possession is ~'s, although by convention the final "s" can be dropped when the possessor's name ends with "s" itself. An writen piece should consistently use one rule, and as most people are likey to show possession by using apostrophe-s it makes sense to use this as the "default" setting.

While the preceding posters comment on descriptive grammar is valid, the notation of "the dog of Spartacus" by using "Spartacus's" is just plain poor English. It sounds silly. It is exactly the sort of English up with which I shall not put. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.179.110.135 (talk) 05:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Anon comment

Anon added this note; it does have a point but is not relevant to the article, therefore I move it here - Skysmith 09:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[[[Note: this is very unlikely. According to Dr. William Bass (see his entry) in a seminar presented at the University of Tennessee Martin around 2002, a human body can be reduced to mostly skeleton in as little as two weeks. This does not take into account scavenger activity. It would be very improbable for the bodies in any form to remain attached to the crusifix for such a long time as a year.]]

(by 71.15.148.161 (talk · contribs))

Bold text

Why is wikipedia still using "BC" instead of "BCE" for dates?

See this section of the Manual of Style. Both are acceptable according to Wikipedia policy. I prefer BC/AD - to my mind they're more likely to be understood by a general audience, with BCE/CE more familiar to specialists. I also think (and I'm not a Christian, so this is not for religious reasons) that BCE/CE are still the Christian dating system, the change of name does not alter that, and claiming it to be a "common" era is inaccurate - it is only common to countries with a Christian history. To tell cultures that have a different calendar that our calendar is now common to everyone is to me more of a cultural imposition than for Jewish or Muslim or whatever editors to have to say "before Christ" when writing for a western Christian-heritage audience.

Anyway. The policy is that either is acceptable, which I take to mean, if you find an article using one dating terminology consistently, leave it alone and don't arbitrarily change it to the other. If the majority of dates are in one format but one or two are in the other, go with the majority. --Nicknack009 16:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

BCE is completely illogical, and is likely confusing to persons unfamiliar with it. If the Common Era is considered to equate to after the birth of Jesus, then I daresay, regardless of your religion, calling it "BC" can't exactly be considered "Christian exclusive". How can one be more Christian than another if they are both based around the birth of the same figure?

I disagree. While the 'common era' starts at the same time, its meaning is clearly much more 'christ-independent' and 'ecumenic'. Of course it is more an expedient than a definitive, universal solution, but anyway I think it is a more correct and respectful way than the other, at least for west-world datings.

Also, it doesn't seem to me so 'confusing' anymore, given it looks intentionally similar and being its use already pretty widespread today.

Cheers, 85.18.136.99 14:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Sepa (28-04-07)

Video Games?

I played both God of War and Spartan: Total Warrior. I really don't see much in common between either of the games and Spartacus. God of War is a complete fantasy and Spartan: Total Warrior is about the war between Sparta and Rome. (If there even was one - not sure about that.) Dak 05:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, both videogames are based on the city of Sparta and greek mythology and have nothing to do with Spartacus. I'm removing them 81.240.12.47 14:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Political uses of Spartacus in modern times

Spartakiad - This name is surely derived from Sparta, the place - as with Olympia and the Olympic games - not Spartacus the person. Sparta was a city renowned for its tougness, while Spartacus was a rebel fighting against the state. Not something, I'd have thought, the Soviet Union would have wanted to promote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by kro666 (talk • contribs)

Well Spartacus was a pretty major Communist hero—he led a "proletarian" uprising against the exploiting classes. That's why Rosa Luxemburg's revolutionary organisation was called the Spartacist League, and their uprising was one of the central dates of East German mythology. Soviet ideology was all about idolising those who led rebellions against capitalist states. That said, I have no idea about the history of the term Spartakiad. Binabik80 23:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Correct about Spartacus as a leftist hero (see, e.g., that short book by Z.W. Rubinsohn I've placed recently under 'Further reading'). But, oddly enough, a 'Spartaciad' also originated from Spartacus, not from Sparta. Or not so oddly at all, given that he was a Communists' hero. Mass competitions of the workers' sport unions in the early 1920's, organized in some European states (in Soviet Union since 1923) were named 'Spartaciad' as a counterbalance to a 'bourgeois' Olimpiad (БСЭ). —Barbatus 00:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Spartacus is one of the nost popular Russian football clubs

It comes to me as a surprise that the article does not mention that Spartacus ("Spartak" in Russian) is a popular name for sports societies and clubs. For instance, one of the most popular Russian soccer clubs has a name FC Spartak (Moscow).BTW they are currently playing in the Champions League.

www.spartak.com

• Added. Nikolay Starostin was inspired by a historical novel about Spartacus when chosing the name for his team. Moreover, the whole voluntary sports society was given this name. Garret Beaumain 07:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Spartacus' Lifespan?

The dates of Spartacus' birth and death have gotten pretty specific. Does anyone have and supporting sources for this? I know the birth year has a source, but I don't read Russian :) The year of his death has also been changed, and does not agree with the Third Servile War article as to the year in which the war ended. This isn't serious, as Roman era historical dating tends to be a bit "slippery" with an error range of a few years being common. Still, sources would be nice. - Vedexent (talk) - 14:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Spartacus' Philosophy?

The article mentions that Spartacus took his political/social ideas from Blossius of Cumae, and that he was inspired by the gladiator Jaunus Maximi. In my research for the Third Servile War article, I found no reference to either. Can someone source this? - Vedexent (talk) - 14:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I conducted a Google Search for "Jaunus Maximi", and the only hits are in Wikipedia, or quotes from Wikipedia, or mirrors of Wikipedia content. This seems to be a fictional insertion, and as such, I'm removing it - at least for now. If someone can source this, feel free to re-insert it. - Vedexent (talk) - 14:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

"No, I'm Spartacus"

Can anyone tell me, what's the source of that joke? James Callahan 02:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

See Spartacus (film). Fred Hsu 21:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Current text: Just before the members of The Wonders are about to play the biggest show of their careers during one of the final scenes of Tom Hanks' 1996 film That Thing You Do! the band's lead guitarist Lenny Haise asks, "Skitch, how did we get here?" Drummer Guy Patterson replies, "I led you here, sir, for I am Spartacus." Suggest mention that That Thing You Do! is set in 1963 or 64, thus the context is that the movie was recent and the reference timely for the character to make: Just before the members of The Wonders are about to play the biggest show of their careers during one of the final scenes of Tom Hanks' 1996 film That Thing You Do! the band's lead guitarist Lenny Haise asks, "Skitch, how did we get here?" Drummer Guy Patterson replies, "I led you here, sir, for I am Spartacus.". The movie is set in the early 1960s, shortly after Kubrick's Spartacus was released, and thus the line would have been an easily recognized meme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.218.18 (talk) 03:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Inline references removed

While undoing an act of vandalism, I noticed that someone earlier has expanded the first section, but removed two inline references at the same time. People who contributed to this article to double-check this edition: diff. Fred Hsu 21:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Spartacus' Origins?

Someone has added a highly detailed, totally unreferenced, speculative origin section for Spartacus which has - as far as I know no historical backing. Can someone provide references for this? If not - I'm going to rip out the speculation and go back to what can be referenced in the Appian and Plutarch accounts of the Third Servile War, in a few days (in order to give people time to reference this, if they can). - Vedexent (talk) - 14:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, although it should be noted that the identification of Spartacus as a Thracian (Appian I.14.116 and Plutarch, Crassus 8) has been doubted by some modern scholars because the identification of a Thracian-style gladiator as ethnically Thracian seems to easy. See, for example, Gordon, JRS 14: "The Nationality of Slaves Under the Early Roman Empire."

True, but the ancient sources do seem to believe he was actually from Thrace. Also, as far as I know, most of the sources for the types of gladiators come from the Collosseum period, when gladiatorial combat was fully developed as a form of entertainment. In Spartacus's time it was still technically a funeral rite, and we can't say for certain that all the rules and customs known later applied. The article as it stands is plain wrong. While there is the possibility that the sources have got confused between actual Thracians and Thracian-style gladiators, there is no ancient source that says he was a Latin from Capua, so that's just made up. --Nicknack009 23:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think whoever added the questionable section has had plenty of time to provide sources, so I have rewritten the section and provided sources. I seem to remember the article used to refer to similar names attested in the Black Sea region, but I can't find it in the history. I've provided a couple of refs to Diodorus Siculus and Theucidides for similar names, but if any others are attested on coins or inscriptions, refs should be provided. --Nicknack009 09:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I made some edits using a recent NG documentary narated by prominant researchers. I want to watch it again and perhaps add a few more edits before adding it as a reference as I need to see the end credits. Wayne 13:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

A single source for such a wide range of details is questionable - especially since you characterize it as being narrated and not created by notable researchers. I'd be more interested in who wrote it. I also question how you know them as notable, as it is possible to interpret your statement as meaning that you need to read the credits to know who they are. Many of the things claimed in the additions fall outside any of the ancient sources that I've seen, so I'm iffy about the additions - however, if they can be substantiated, such points might well "spill over" into other articles about the events, notably the Third Servile War article. I'm not that optimistic that these points can be defended, but open to them being so. - Vedexent (talk) - 14:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The narrators (and researchers) were Professor T. Corey Brennan, Dr Theresa Urbainczyk and Dr. Michael Burns. Are they notable enough for the article? I'll hold off making more edits until I get agreement. Wayne 00:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

My main interest in editing this article is that as it is currently, it is rather bland with largely only basic facts and little in the way of place names and detail on Spartacus as a person (as in detail of actions reflecting his personality). Wayne 00:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Well... having done some pretty extensive research into the historical Spartacus and the events of the Third Servile War (I was the major editor/author in the push it to Featured Article status), I can tell you that that information probably doesn't exist. It isn't like he wrote a biography or was interviewed by Roman News Network - he was a nobody slave that no knew anything about, became a Roman "bogey man" with an army wreaking havoc in Italia, to being dead. Not much is know about the man. Much of what Roman and Greek historians wrote about him is conjecture, contradictory, and it can be argued that since he was good enough to threaten the Romans, they built him up as much as possible - postmortem - because no "mere mortal" could challenge Rome like that - so their speculation is suspect.

I'm afraid that, for the most part, the personal details of Spartacus - which seem to be wht you want - are pretty much lost.

As for the notability of the source ... I don't know. Published texts would be a lot better. The reason I'm suspect of the television program is that it apparently adds layers of details not seen anywhere else in the primary texts! Where are they getting their information? Is the program a dramatization based on published, peer-vetted papers about recent findings and research, or an "artists impression" - a pleasant possible fiction based on what we know (or don't know). Given that - to the best of my knowledge which is vastly imperfect - we apparently have little to no information about him, one can construct myriads of possible scenerios that are not contradicted by the known sources.

If other additional publications/sources could be found for these points, I'd feel a whole lot better about the apparently "suspect level of detail". - Vedexent (talk) - 15:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The source for "but he later deserted rather than fight against his own countrymen and after capture, Spartacus and his wife were sold into slavery" is T. Corey Brennan and Dr Theresa Urbainczyk. The rational they gave for the statement is that Spartacus deserted while fighting with the Romans against people he lived with (and presumably of his own race) and that his later behaviour (which indicates a higher moral standard than is common for the times) makes this reason highly probable. It is just left to decide if this is a good enough reason for inclusion, perhaps adding "it is believed" after "but" would be good. That his wife went into slavery with him after capture is not contested. It could be argued she was not sold though on the grounds that she may have volunteered. Wayne 02:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

So there is a source? Just telling us the "pet theory" of the author isn't really sufficient: See WP:Cite. Book and page would be good. - Vedexent (talk) - 15:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no ancient source that mentions Spartacus's wife, or the reason he deserted. The authors you cite are making stuff up. --Nicknack009 19:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Plutarch in his "Life of Crassus" mentions that Spartacus' wife was a Thracian from the same tribe as Spartacus (and a prophetess). Plutarch also mentions that she was with him when he was taken to be sold (although the event that confirms this is anecdotal). Pltarch goes on to say that she later escaped from slavery at the same time as Spartacus and lived with him during the revolt. I already mentioned that the reason for the desertion was an educated assumption by historians based on the facts which most ancient history is to some extent anyway. Wayne 04:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, you've got me on his wife. That's what I get for going from memory. However, the reason for the desertion is not an "educated assumption... based on the facts", it's pure speculation based on nothing but wishful thinking, and has no place in the article. --Nicknack009 21:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

In fact, if you look at the footnotes for Third Servile War, whether he deserted from the Roman Legions, or was captured fighting against the Roman Legions all depends on which translation from the ancient sources you are using. Aparently there is some linguistic ambiguity here, the long and short of it being that we don't even know he was a deserter. - Vedexent (talk) - 04:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

He was a korou a third generation slaveRon Broxted (talk) 13:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC).

Please, do not delete sourced material without discussion. Thank you. Jingby (talk) 11:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Inserting "alleged"

Inserting "alleged" in a sentence— "the alleged leader of an unsuccessful slave uprising"— could never make a wrong statement right. Nor could it render a dishonest statement honest, nor a biased statement neutral. It comes from police vocabulary, and is intended to cover insecurities of fact. In this article it is simply buffoonery. --Wetman 00:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Quite right. The statement is already qualified with "according to Roman historian" for those who are so sceptical they don't believe anything written by anybody. I've removed it. Still, at least it it wasn't smisspelt "alledged". On the other hand, how is it justified to give a birthdate for Spartacus? I know it's referenced, but it's referenced to a book in Russian which few of us can consult, and the author of that book can only have guessed it because there's no reference to Spartacus's age in any of the ancient sources. I think that should be removed as well. Thoughts? --Nicknack009 08:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

"smisspelt"? Good to know the fundamental laws of the universe still apply. --Nicknack009 08:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I think alleged was in there not because there is much doubt the rebellion occured, but because

1. Spartacus is widely portrayed as the leader of the rebellion, especially in fiction
2. Several other slave leaders are mentioned by Roman historians (Crixus,Oenomaus, Castus, Gannicus, etc.)
3. There is no evidence explaining what the relationship between these leaders was

all meaning that Spartacus could be the leader, or could also just as well be one leader among many, implying that the rebellion was by several bands of slaves acting in concert, each with their own leader.

While trying to portray that viewpoint might be considered interpretation of the events (original research?), claiming that Spartacus was the "one true leader" of the Third Servile War is equally speculative. - Vedexent (talk) - 09:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm Spartacus!

Not so tough now, eh Romans? ~ Infrangible 03:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
No I am Spartacus! 124.185.31.54 (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Ancient Depections is a mess

The capsule summary of the Third Servile War is a mess. There are many suppositions, myths, and downright speculation stuffed into it. There are also a few "repeated events", where Spartacus is described attacking and defeating the Consular legions twice, and Pompey apparently both intercepts Spartacus and defeats his army (in contradiction of Plutarch's accounts), and then comes in from the north again to capture the slaves fleeing the battle.

It sort of looks like someone has mashed together several online articles, aspects of Kubrick's movie, and some editorial comments into a summary of the Third Servile War. It does not agree much at all with the article on the Third Servile War. If the discrepancies can be documented, then the article on the Third Servile War should be corrected and updated, but I am dubious that more than a handful of the discrepancies and speculations in this article can be supported by either the original primary sources, or modern historical publications.

Still, I've tagged what I think are many of the problems (but not all!), and look forward to the disputes being sorted out factually, regardless of which way the disputes fall out :) - Vedexent (talk) - 14:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Claudius vs. Clodius

"Clodius" was the lower-class pronounciation of "Claudius". Publius Clodius Pulcher changed the pronunciation of his name from Claudius in order to seem more like one of the people... AnonMoos 21:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually it was much more of an important change than to "seem" like one of the people. He was legally adopted into the plebeian gens of the Clodii so that he could become Tribune of the Plebs, a position that was unobtainable by members of the patrician class. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.179.110.135 (talk) 05:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Depicition v.s. Mention

There is an awful lot of clutter in the "Modern Depictions" section. Does it not make sense to keep only those entries which are actual depictions (i.e. representations of the person of Spartacus himself) as opposed to any time in a movie, song, or videogame that the word Spartacus is mentioned, or the movie quoted?

Unless there is a strong objection, I'm planning on "pruning" the list to actual depictions after a few days. - Vedexent (talk) - 10:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe there should be a Spartacus in popular culture article... AnonMoos 23:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Map proposal

Thracian tribal area mapAlso indicates Orpheus and Spartacus tribes,the Cicones and the Maedi.Megistias (talk) 07:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

MAedi accorfing to Hoddinot & othersMegistias (talk) 13:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

My placing is actually perfect.Megistias (talk) 13:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

My placing is perfect....by Hoddinot,Fol & Cah.You present a 1924 work......Megistias (talk) 14:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The Geography of Strabo published in Vol. III of the Loeb Classical Library edition, 1924. "...Not only the Axius flows out of the country of the Paeonians, but also the Strymon, for its flows out of the country of the Agrianes through that of the Medi and then Sinti and empties into the parts that are between the Bisaltae and the Odomantes..." [1] Jingby (talk) 14:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

According to Alexander's Early Life - J. R. Hamilton Greece & Rome, 2nd Ser., Vol. 12, No. 2, Alexander the Great (Oct., 1965), pp. 117-124 "...Alexander subdued the Maedi, a 'Thracian tribe on the Upper Strymon..",[2] Jingby (talk) 14:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Mine supersedes yours.Megistias (talk) 14:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Greek site about the Maedi ... Alexander waged a brief campaign against the rebellious Maedi, a tribe that must have lived somewhere in the southwest of modern Bulgaria... [3]Jingby (talk) 18:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Strabo Book 7 - To the Dardaniatae (Dardani) belong also the Galabrii, among whom is an ancient city, and the Thunatae, whose country joins that of the Medi, a Thracian tribe on the east. [4] Also according to Strabo the Maedi lived east from the Dardani! Jingby (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

File:Thracian tribes.JPG

Thracian tribes in Thrace before the Roman invasion.

Another map of the Thracian tribes showing the same location! [5]

Another Greek map of the Thracian tribes showing the same location! [6] Jingby (talk) 19:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Another Greek site stating that ...But as the Macedonian army advanced deep into Thrace, the Thracian tribe of Maedi bordering north-eastern Macedonia rebelled... [7] Jingby (talk) 19:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Another Bulgarian site stating that ... In the Southwest Bulgaria is found a little part of the province Macedonia, which was one of the earliest Roman possessions in the Balkans – from 146 BC. The lands of the thracian tribe Maedi, from which originated Spartacus, were annexed to it. The Maedi lived in the area along the riversides of Struma and Mesta. During the Roman times in this region have prospered the city Nicopolis ad Nestum (Gotse Delchev (town), Bulgaria) and the ancient city, which name is still unknown and locates under the modern Sandanski, Bulgaria. Jingby (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Another internatianal site with map stating the same! See the secondari sources - Mellish Liz , Nick Green; Romania and Balkan History pages - Thracians Κουρτίδης Κωνσταντίνος Γ.; Ιστορία της Θράκης Γενική Γραμματεία Περιφέρειας Ανατ. Μακεδονίας και Θράκης - Θράκη! Maidoi / Medoi / Maedoi Μαίδοι Neighbours of the Odomantes to the north in the mountainous region in Pirin Bulgaria along the Struma (Στρυμών, Στρυμόνας) valley river. Their towns are now called Sandanski and Petrich. [8] ... Jingby (talk) 19:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

According to Thucidides - As he (Sitalces) left the Odrysian territory in going through the mountain (in south) he had on the right hand the Paeonians and on the left hand the Sinti and Maedi! (See the maps!) [9] Jingby (talk) 19:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Hoddinot,Fol & Cah are the elite in the issue.Koyrtides is from 1932 and you cant use original research.Bulgarians are currently claiming orpheus and others as Bulgarians-Lol- so you can forget your "sites".They were Thracians.Megistias (talk) 22:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Fol for example sourced for my mapMegistias (talk) 22:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Another map with description of Thracian towns claming the same location - [10] Jingby (talk) 08:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Another map with description of Thracian towns claming the same location - [11] Jingby (talk) 08:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The monument of Spartacus in Sandanski - Bulgaria - Maedi location![12] Jingby (talk) 09:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

According to Revue Journal Arheologiâ (Arheologiâ) ISSN 2002, vol. 43, no4, pp. 25-32 Bulgarian Academy of Science - Civitas heracleotarum. A new epigraphic inscription indicating the name of the ancient city near the Village of Rupite, Petrich Region .... Geographically it was situated on the territory of the Thracian Sintoi that also bordered with the Thracian Maidoi (Maedi)... [13] Jingby (talk) 09:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

According to Professor Alexander Fol In : Thracia IV, Sofia 1977, p. 171, ...les tribus au nord des Crestoniens sont les Maidoi et les Dentheletai..., Alexandre Fol,L’orphisme thrace (en bulgare), Sofia 1986, p. 152! Translation is my - The tribes in north from the Krestonians are Maedi and Dentelai.(Your map is not related with this locations! See all other maps are showing this!)[14] Jingby (talk) 09:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

According to - The Macedonian Empire: The Era of Warfare Under Philip II and ... James R. Ashley - 2004, pg. 143 - The Maidoi lived in the upper Strymon Valley... [15] Jingby (talk) 09:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

According to THE GREEK PAGE OF THRACE ISBN 960-85609-0-X The the Maidi were in (mid-Strymon valley)[16]

According to THE GREEK PAGE OF THRACE'S ISBN 960-85609-0-X map the Maedi were located in Bulgaria! [17] Jingby (talk) 09:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

According to the historycal site of Bulgarian Government "...в района на Благоевград - на медите..." Translation is mine - "In the region of Blagoevgrad lived the Maedi".[18] Jingby (talk) 10:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

According to The Cambridge Ancient History by John Bagnell Bury, Stanley Arthur Cook, Frank E. Adcock, Martin Percival Charlesworth, Iorwerth Eiddon Stephen Edwards, Michael Whitby, Cyril John Gadd, Nicholas Geoffrey Lemprière Hammond, John Boardman, David Malcolm Lewis, Frank William Walbank, John Anthony Crook, Andrew William Lintott, Elizabeth Rawson, Averil Cameron, Peter Garnsey, Bryan Ward-Perkins - 1925 - History, Ancient p. 449 [19] The Maedi lived in the middle Strimon Valley! Jingby (talk) 10:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Dont remove my map again please as it is sourced.You can add your own map as well though the one you provide is aesthetically and informatively lacking.In the future i will be improving mine further and may include tribal movements and internal migrations within Thrace.Megistias (talk) 11:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I even show it scanned dont call me a lier.Maedi proper location from by Hoddinot,Fol & Cah.Megistias (talk) 11:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Please, see the location of Medi here - Classical Balkans: from Map from "rothers Publishers, New York, 1849A Classical Atlas to Illustrate Ancient Geography, Alexander G. Findlay, Harper and B ros. NY 1849

Jingby (talk) 12:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thirteen consecutive reverts! As this article is not about the Maedi, the map is not vital, so I suggest leaving it out until some sort of consensus can be reached. In the meantime, look at Wikipedia:Edit war and Wikipedia:Three-revert rule, and calm down. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I have made the map with both views and will upload soon.Megistias (talk) 12:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Map updated

Thracian tribes & Spartacus tribe,the Maedi

Megistias (talk) 13:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

And what is updated? Jingby (talk) 13:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

CLick on the map and refresh if need be.......Megistias (talk) 13:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Cassius?

Nevermind. Srajan01 (talk) 17:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Lets shed some light on the suffix of the name "Spartacus".

A spartan is called Spartaku in a seldom reminded language of the Balkan peninsula. The language im referring to is albanian.

I will give a short example of how the suffix is used in albanian and translate them into english.

Spartaku = The spartan

Bardhoku = The whitey (refered to skin colour)

Zezaku = The blackey (refered to skin colour)

Plaku = The elder

Konaku = The guest

Shtepiaku = The homesteady

What do you think? --Durim Durimi (talk) 18:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The article on the Albanian language says it's thought to be related to either Illyrian or Daco-Thracian, so you may well have a point. --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Artistic

In Film and television there is a mistake.

"Most famously, Stanley Kubrick's adaptation of Howard Fast's novel, as Spartacus, in 1960." Stanley Kubrick did not adapt Howard Fast's novel, Dalton Trumbo did. Kubrick was hired by producer Douglas after he had fired director Anthony Mann. Kubrick did not even like Trumbo's screenplay and tried to get some of the dialog changed with no success. Kubrick nearly disowned the film ... even though his contribution was totally professional and very laudable. --aajacksoniv (talk) 17:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Rome: Total War

No, Spartacus doesn't appear as a character per se in the game. The name "Spartacus" is present in the game files and is often randomly selected as a family member', general's, captain's, or admiral's name, true, but none of these random characters are technically the Spartacus that this page is about. Spartan198 (talk) 01:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Auxilia contradiction

It says "According to the differing sources and their interpretation, Spartacus either was an auxiliary from the Roman legions later condemned to slavery, or a captive taken by the legions". However Auxiliary troops were founded at around 30 b.c. (according to the article Auxiliary). ? --84.32.232.154 (talk) 06:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Well the regular auxilia wasn't created until 30 b.c.e but temporary formations existed before that.90.231.81.43 (talk) 12:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Why does it say that Spartacus was trained in a ludus near North Bergen? Is it meant to be Capua? Or where was the ludus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.45.185.31 (talk) 17:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Accuracy and citation

Read the first paragraph of the article and it seems a mess. Not really like an encyclopedia article at all. At the very least clean up that last line. The only thing I am going to edit on the page is to add a citation note to the last sentence (which seems somehow out of place following the previous sentence mentioning conflicting facts).

I'll leave it to someone with more credentials to fix it up proper. 208.54.32.251 (talk) 04:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

BC-BCE

The vast majority of History articles use BC/AD. The fact is BCE/CE uses the exact same method of dating as BC/AD.

But this edit: 14:11,.. 23 January 2010 Ian.thomson (talk | contribs) (31,013 bytes) (Undid revision 339492046 by 67.238.166.96 (talk).. added the comment: "THIS ARTICLE HAS 'BCE' FOR A LONG TIME, SPARTACUS IS UNCONNECTED TO CHRISTIANITY, DON'T SWITCH IT TO BC!"

But this simply isn't true. For the vast majority of it's existence, this article has been BC/AD. The user added that comment just shortly after someone else changed it to BCE/CE.

Why should this article be BCE/CE purely because one editor left a note telling people not to change it?

His reasoning that it is "unconnected to Christianity" is utterly irrelevant, a huge amount of articles are "unconnected to Christianity" and yet the consensus is to use AD/BC.

This needs to be discussed properly, not reverted endlessly without consensus.

Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 22:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The site-wide consensus is not to use BC/AD, but to decide consensus per each article. You are the first person to properly challenge the current consensus.

The article had BCE/CE when I added that comment, and it was not "recently" as seen here. It has been flip-flopping, but it found some stability in BCE until the IP editor began fighting over it. I wasn't the only person to support this, as other editors' reversions show.

WP:ERA says that when consensus cannot be reached, it should go with the earliest version. The earliest saved version gives the edit summary "BCE -> BC"], indicating that the older version was BCE. No earlier version can be found (the version displayed is a conversion bot working months after to move things to a new format), hence my assumption that the article originally had BCE. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there is no reason to change to BC/AD. GOP's reasoning sounds POINTy to me. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Would you mind reverting it? I don't want to risk getting called on WP:3RR. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The earliest version states "Spartacus was the name of a Roman slave who led a large slave uprising (73-71 B.C.). He was defeated by M. Licinius Crassus. ".

So, clearly it was initially posted as BC. Mainly, because BC is what people use. BCE is a political term. As it refers to the same era and only uses an extraneous letter, it is political and pointless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.98.99 (talk) 18:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The earliest stored reversion gives the edit summary "BCE -> BC," indicating that an earlier version (which is no longer stored) was BCE. As far as can be found, the earliest version was BCE. The term BC is a religious term. As it refers to the same era and only uses one less letter, it is religious and pointless. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The term BC is a religious term in the same way that the month 'August' is a testament to the glorious Caesar (that is to say, in most minds, not at all). However the ongoing (minority) movement to replace BC with BCE in the face of popular dissent is clearly partisan. The drive to replace two words with three to denote the same period serves no useful purpose. I am not a Christian and wouldn't give the subject a second thought if it was not for the annoying zealotry shown by some of those wishing to force the change through. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.233.172 (talk) 01:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

You're using the Bandwagon fallacy and ignoring what academia does (which is what we cite, not blindly traditionalist-for-the-sake-of-tradition political correctness raised by politicians and pundits to get the attention of sheeple who don't know what real problems are).

Also, WP:ERA says go with the earliest version, The earliest stored reversion gives the edit summary "BCE -> BC," indicating that an earlier version (which is no longer stored) was BCE. No earlier version can be found. End of discussion as applies to Wikipedia, further political whining that makes no reference to Wikipedia policies, guidelines, or precedent will be removed under WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:NOTFORUM. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I checked the initial dating system of the article and subsequent ones. Ian.Thomson has given false evidence. Please reach a consensus before trying to change again. The above is not a consensus. Wikipedia favours both systems. see WP:Style, and WP:ERA for more information. Therefore unless a decent consensus is reached your changes cannot be affected. 94.194.34.10 (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The earliest saved edit summary, at 17 September 2001‎, by Zundark is "BCE -> BC." I have not given false evidence. The article also had BCE for quite some time and the change back was unchallenged until the BBC did some news special which got a few new folks involved. WP:ERA says that when consensus is not reached, to use the older version. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Spartacus was the name of a Roman slave who led a large slave uprising (73-71 B.C.). He was defeated by M. Licinius Crassus."

-This is the opening line of the first written article. It has carried on for ten years. IT was then challenged by you in September 2011. Since your edit there has been edit warring over this. It is you who has caused this trouble. There is no consensus for BCE/CE and thus unless a GOOD reason (Spartacus is not christian is NOT one of these) is found then you should cease from making further edits. IF you wish to make this an issue we will have to go to the board, I'd rather we didn't waste our time, and I'm sure you don't want this as you're already under review for edit warring (Your culpability is not for me to say as to that since I don't know about religions relations). None the less I cannot think you wish for that.94.194.34.10 (talk) 18:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

And the edit summary for that version indicated that that version was changed from an older unsaved version which used BCE. The oldest version was BCE. I'm not the only editor to support the BCE version, as seen here, here, here, and here.

Furthermore, I'm not some upstart changing the article to say BCE, it's been going back and forth for some time. If it was concensus to change the article to BC, that note saying that it has been BCE for some time would have been removed instead of staying there for two years.

In absense of concensus, the oldest version is to be used. You are failing to provide any precedent or guideline that overturns that. You are presenting the second oldest known version, I am presenting the oldest known version. You are failing to provide any evidence otherwise. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

A couple of things, since I can see your passionate about keeping it as BCE. Firstly, all versions of the article are archived for references. If the first article that said "BCE" is not there, it's not there. Wikipedia doesn't delete articles willy nilly. The first documented article uses BC. Implication is not something that wikipedia runs by here. Secondly, the four people you've cited have all been reverted back instantly. The community was reverted ungrounded changes. Style cannot be changed surreptitiously, it must reach a consensus, and all BCE changes were not acts of consensus. Further more

"THIS ARTICLE HAS 'BCE' FOR A LONG TIME, SPARTACUS IS UNCONNECTED TO CHRISTIANITY, DON'T SWITCH IT TO BC!" was used as defence. As you may well know, this is NOT a reason to change the guide. If you read the STYLE manual it makes this very clear. To to sum up

1) The original that we see used BC

2) There was no consensus for change

3) The article has used BC for 99% of the time for over ten years.

If you have any more to say, please let's discuss this, but it seems very trivial, and I'd much rather you focused your attention on that Dan fella, because I've now read his edits and they're preposterous. 94.194.34.10 (talk) 18:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the oldest oldest material was lost in the transition from Nupedia to a Wiki format, which is why we end up with this curious diff featuring an edit by an apparently time travelling conversion script bot. The first edit saved summary indicates that the article was changed from BCE to BC. There would be no reason to do that if there was no older version, it would actually be ridiculous to do so. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair point, it may be the case but for every other edit one goes by what one can see. The person who wrote BCE->BC didn't actually make a revert, so all we're going by are those two words with a little arrow symbol in them. Very little evidence if you ask me. Anyway, all the otherpoints I've made still stand. So let's move on. I'm wearing thin here and you know how much effort it is to get boards to solve these things. You might just have to step down here. There is overwhelming evidence that BCE is not the style of preference here.94.194.34.10 (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

How else can "BCE -> BC" be interpreted? There is no other way to interpret it. The consensus has been going back and forth over the years, so under WP:ERA we go with the oldest version, not what has been used the most. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

You have no evidence that the initial article was BCE. until you find that evidence you cannot keep making these claims. Even on nupedia (which you can't use for evidence anyway) people could have edited the dating system there. You can't know. Additionally, just because a couple of users over 10 years have objected to BC does not mean that we can just change it to BCE and leave it. The overwhelming majority in making edits to this article have no concerned themselves with BC. And actually, you're wrong about "what has been used the most". If someone makes a style edit and no one objects to it for a long period of time, it becomes the norm. Neither of your arguments have much weight I'm afraid. 94.194.34.10 (talk) 19:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

How else can "BCE -> BC" be interpreted? Answer that. You know what it means and have to present serious competence issues to avoid admitting what it means. The oldest version we can see is the change from BCE to BC. When multiple editors object to the norm (check) and they have guidelines supporting their case (check), consensus does not lie with the norm or the majority. There is currently no widespread agreement, so there is no consensus. In the absense of consensus, we go with the oldest version. This does not have to be what has been the norm. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Let me spell this out to you one last time before you make a personal attack that I will find offensive. You are saying that Nupedia's first article used BCE and thus this article which has used BC for over ten years should thus use BCE? <-- This is the first non-sequitur

the second non-sequitor is this -> you are assuming the Nupedia used BCE because one person wrote "BCE->BC" suggesting a change in dating. Ok, but you are failing to think outside the box, that the person who wrote "BCE->BC" could well have been reverting someone who had changed the dating system previously without consensus.

the final non-sequitor is this --> Everytime someone has changed BC to BCE, it has been reverted. Your argument is that BCE has been used on and off. If a hundred people edited Barack Obama's page let#'s say, and changed nationality from American to Kenyan, does that make it acceptable? Of course not.

I really hope you take heed of these comments because I shan't spell it out any more clearly in the future. As far as I'm concerned this very small matter is over. 94.194.34.10 (talk) 20:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

You're being ridiculous. The earliest version that we can find is a change from BCE. We can see that. That is all "BCE -> BC" can mean and it is only insanity or some other mental deficiency to deny that. We cannot find any earlier version. Ergo, the earliest version, for all intents and purposes, is BCE. Period. That there were earlier versions which we do not know of which may have been BCE or BC is of no issue. This is not imagining, it is the only reasonable understanding of the situation.

If you can that the earliest version of the Nupedia article used BC instead of BCE and show it, then I'll switch. The earliest version we can find is the change from BCE. You are imagining the Nupedia version using BC, it is entirely possible to imagine it going either way so we have to only go with what we can see.

Your comparison to Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories is a red herring, because it's not a proper analogy. The BCE side has guidelines and precedent on their side, and they are not contradicting observable facts or reliable sources. It is almost an ad hominem attack to compare those using BCE with those birther crazy bastards. Everytime someone has changed the article to BC, it has been challenged at some point (and with guidelines and precedent cited), which shows that there is no consensus.

Also, reverting to BCE is not vandalism, you were out of bounds to call 86.185.18.168's edits vandalism. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

This issue is now being discussed here 94.194.34.10 (talk) 00:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

You've taken a "small matter" to ANI? Way to go. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Per WP:COMMONNAME it really ought to be BC 1650 hits for BCE 71600 for BC Darkness Shines (talk) 01:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

That's for article titles. Per WP:ERA, the oldest version should be used unless a consensus is established on the talk page. No discussion appears to have ever occured. Also, when consensus cannot be reached, the earliest version is used. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Based on available evidence BC seems reasonable.– Lionel ^(talk) 06:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The precedent on this article is clearly to use BC rather than BCE. It was stable like that from the earliest edit visible to 2009, and since then has generally been BC with occasional edits to change to BCE. If it is wished to change to BCE then consensus is required. We do not know what happened before the earliest revisions, it is speculation as to how the original nupedia article was formatted. What we do know is the history since then, which is overwhelmingly BC. Polequant (talk) 10:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that the article was BC before it was BCE? It has been flip-flopping throughout the years, and in the absence of consensus, the earliest version should be used. As far back as can be found, the earliest revision is a change from BCE. The speculation is on saying that BC was used earlier, because no evidence can be found for that. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The first recorded editor of the article once it was brought into wikipedia, has commented on WP:ANI. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

You don't have any evidence either way, and it is taking legalism to an extreme when the article used BC for 8 years before there was changing around of it, and there has never been any consensus to change it. The note that you put at the top of the page was plain wrong. You are edit warring because you think you have policy on your side (which is a dubious position in itself), yet exemptions to 3RR are reserved for very particular situations, which this one is not. Take the advice of Stephan Schulz at ANI and start an RFC, but don't carry on reverting assuming that you are in the right, when it certainly is not that clear cut. (And asking others to revert for you is not on either). Polequant (talk) 12:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Why do you and the IP care about this very minor thing so much? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Where have I made any comment on what I think it should be? Polequant (talk) 12:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Good point. I'm just trying to figure out why anyone cares... beyond politically-driven reasons. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The only thing I care about is that an IP editor seems to be being shat upon from a great height when they have a reasonable point. Have an RFC to determine it, if anyone cares that much (it's not up to me or you to decide whether people should care or not about a particular issue). Just don't carry on edit warring. I don't like the semi-protection either as that seems to be coming down one side of a content dispute (either hand out blocks for edit warring or fully protect). Polequant (talk) 13:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The IP reverted at least 8 times in a day and a half, so whatever his "reasonable point" might have been, it's been nullified by his edit-warring. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Regarding evidence: We have an earliest saved revision to look to and treat as the earliest revision. The earliest saved revision has the edit summery "BCE -> BC," clearly indicating that the previous version was BCE. The lack of evidence is for any claim that it was otherwise. There is only speculation for that. I am repeating myself here, please bring up a new point, or an actual counter to that point. Regarding reasonable points: The IP editor had a point, and it was countered. Nothing new supporting the IP editor's argument was brought up, he just repeated it and ignored any arguments and evidence that countered his point. That is tendentious editing. Regarding a lack of consensus: There was no discussion for consensus when the article was changed from BCE. The person who originally changed the format admits that people did whatever they wanted in those days. People just went with it because people just went with it because people just went with it, ultimately because editors didn't know that things had been changed without discussion. Regarding edit warring: Please show me where I have reverted more than 3 times in a 24 hour period. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and it was unchanged for 8 years. WP:ERA says "Do not arbitrarily change from one style to the other on any given article. Instead, attempt to establish a consensus for change at the talk page." Given that it had used BC for 8 years, I think it is reasonable to assume that you would need consensus to move from that. There is no mention there of using the earliest version. Just have the damn discussion and try and get a proper consensus, rather than arguing about interpretations of policy. You haven't refuted the IPs point, you just disagree with them. In terms of policy, I think you are wrong.

And please read WP:EW again. In particular: "The three revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of what "edit warring" means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." and "Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation." You had 5 reverts in 30 hours. Polequant (talk) 13:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

And the IP had 8. What's your point? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Ian is saying he didn't break 3RR. Whilst that is true, you don't have to break 3RR to be edit warring. Polequant (talk) 13:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

True. So where's your criticism of the IP for reverting 8 times? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

REMOVED COMMENT BY CONFIRMED SOCK Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

My guess is that 129.11.76.229 (talk · contribs) is the latest reincarnation of an IP who is now blocked for abusing multiple identities, while constantly warring on the BC/BCE issue at Spartacus and also at Baalbek. Though listening to his arguments could be correct, you probably shouldn't take him seriously as a good faith editor, since WP:SOCK is a policy. Due to the abuse, it would be worth considering whether Talk:Spartacus should also be semiprotected. EdJohnston (talk) 18:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

REMOVED COMMENT BY CONFIRMED SOCK Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's simply vote/verify the consensus

How about simply voting upon the issue? That is what they/we did in Talk:Battle of the Teutoburg Forest and it solved the issue in a civilised manner for a certain amount of time (until it flares up again :). Who thinks that BC/AD is the best dating form for this article? Who thinks that BCE/CE is the best dating form for this article? Flamarande (talk) 21:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• BCE/CE is the better option, as it's religion-neutral. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  • That's not a single dating form, that's two dating forms. Flamarande (talk) 21:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Fixed. Now I'm off to get my eyes checked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
• BCE/CE: The topic is not related to Christianity, and the term is religion-neutral. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
• My humble vote goes to BC/AD because of a simple logical reason: it is by far the most common form as far as the English language is concerned and it lost its religious importance a long time ago (like Thursday and bless you). Forgive my bluntness but: Stuff this religious-neutral argumentation. All major articles about ancient Rome/ancient Greece/ancient whatever (like Roman Empire, Julius Cesear, Augustus, Mark Antony, etc) use BC/AD precisely because BC/AD is the most common form.

To be honest: BCE/CE is simply typical American political correctness: "We are going to censor, supress and twist this language into a PC-form incapable of hurting non-Christians in any form or manner." This 'Before Christian Era/Christian Era' is simply all but unknown in Europe. Flamarande (talk) 22:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC) PS: I'm a strong atheist, but that doesn't mean that I'm obliged to be an anti-Christian. Anti-Christians give serious atheists a bad reputation.

Implicitly referring to Jews as "anti-Christians" is not appropriate. It's also not recent. It's also Common Era. Read that article for more insight. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"BCE" means "Before Common era," and "CE" is "Common Era." What about protecting Christianity from being devalued as a world religion and being turned into a cultural system? Surely Christianity deserves the same respect that other living religions do in not having their concepts turned into meaningless simulacra. The reason that it has been the most common form is because it has the majority of the persons using it were Christian for most of its history. Secular use of it is a small and recent shift.

If Christianity were dead, the comparison to Thursday would be accurate. As it is, its more comparable to the African and African diaspora religion Vodou being used colloquially as "Voodoo" to refer to superstition, or "Muslim" being used to refer to any terrorist or person of near-eastern descent. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• BC/AD as it is most commonly used. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• BCE/CE, oldest to be found for this article, doesn't try to assert that Spartacus has anything to do with a Christian era. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
• BCE/CE, as long as we're voting. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
• VE is language neutral.©Geni 16:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
  • VE? That's a new one. Flamarande (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
    • 1635 is new? well I guess we could always use VA (vulgaris aerae).©Geni 16:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
• BCE/CE as oldest found in this article, unless a compelling reason for change is provided which I haven't seen yet. All of the countter-arguments I've read are deprecated per WP:ERA. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

This is truly briliant. If you care to check the history of this article you will find that BC/AD was earliest. Flamarande (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

And that the edit summary was "BCE -> BC," indicating that it was changed, so that it was BCE earlier. How many times does that have to be explained? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

No Ian, the "BCE earlier" you mention was actually the second of three edits. The sequence was BC to BCE and then to BC. Moriori (talk) 22:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Were you editing under a different account then? I'm not talking about later flip-flops, the earliest recorded edit summary (which is older than the archive.org earliest version) is "BCE -> BC" (earlier versions being lost in time), and the editor who made that edit stated on ANI that he did not remember what was the original. You are the first to say definately that it was reversing an earlier decision (as opposed to "it could have been even though there's no evidence"), though your account is not that old. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, next month I celebrate my 10th birthday on Wikipedia, having originally made occasional changes from IPs before becoming Moriori eight years ago. Not that it matters. Anyway, I see that the link you give gives a false impression, in that the edit on the left side of the page is not earlier as wold be normal. My bad. I still support BCE. Moriori (talk) 02:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• BCE/CE preferred as religion-neutral. I think that's more important than which was first used in the article. Moriori (talk) 22:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• It isn't religion neutral. Quite apart from being anti-islamic it actually makes a positive assertion that the letters after years have a real religious meaning.©Geni 19:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• BC-AD. The oldest is BC/AD. What is the actual point of forcing BCE/CE if it is based on the exact same frame as BC/AD? It is a pointless piece of PC to force it here. Btw I am not religious at all but I abhor this sort of pc pushing. What purpose does it serve other than to inflameGaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 03:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
• BC/AD, since it is most common and natural. The entire BCE/CE movement is just a politically correct, intellectually dishonest, and awkward attempt to mask the Christian origin for the current system of dates. If people truly want a "religious neutral" dating system, then pick something like the founding of Sumer and make that year 1. Dwcarless (talk) 18:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

More natural? Really? Did I really just read that? Mind if I ask a question? Have you ever had a rational thought in your life? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

first off WP:PERSONAL... What is irrational about his arguemnt? It seems pretty sound to me. BC/AD and BCE/CE are both based around the same event, the birth of christ. One is just much more open about it then the other. It's like the Christmas Tree or "Holiday Tree" type of censorship, it's intellectually dishonest. Calling it the common era instead of the year of the year of the lord doesn't change the fact that it's still a dating system that starts with the year of the birth of Jesus. (although funny enough Jesus was born between 7-2 BC lulz)Smitty1337 (talk) 01:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Calling it the year of OUR Lord is intellectually dishonest or oppressive for non-Christians. Common era at least acknowledges that the dating system is being used outside of Christianity. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

thats just a translation. it could easily be translated as Year of the lord. Anno Domini does not imply the word "our" thats just how people choose to render it into english. Smitty1337 (talk) 08:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The difference being? Either way, non-Christians would have to refer to Jesus as lord without actually accepting Him as such. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK the overwhelming majority of non-Christians simply use the most common and popular system (when speaking/writing in English) and have little problems with its origins. Its ancient meaning is simply all but irrelevant. Flamarande (talk) 20:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Once again: "What about protecting Christianity from being devalued as a world religion and being turned into a cultural system? Surely Christianity deserves the same respect that other living religions do in not having their concepts turned into meaningless simulacra. The reason that it has been the most common form is because it has the majority of the persons using it were Christian for most of its history. Secular use of it is a small and recent shift. If Christianity were dead, the comparison to Thursday" (i.e. ancient origins) "would be accurate. As it is, its more comparable to the African and African diaspora religion Vodou being used colloquially as "Voodoo" to refer to superstition, or "Muslim" being used to refer to any terrorist or person of near-eastern descent." Ian.thomson (talk) 20:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK we are trying to write an encyclopaedia for the benefit of the masses/readers. We not in the business of protecting Christianity in particular, or religions in general (expect from lies and malicious propaganda - these are to be countered by the historical truth as far as respected authors can prove it). I certainly agree with you as far as: BC/AD has become a 'meaningless simulacra'. It all but lost its original meaning and is used by the overwhelming majority of Christians and non-Christians alike (when they are talking/writing in English).

But so what? IMHO the English wiki should use the most common English forms no matter their origins, because the English reading masses use and are used to the most common form. I'm not sure, but I believe that this happens in the Arab language wiki and the Hebrew language wiki: They simply use the most common dating form as far as the respective language is concerned (Arab language: AH = anno Hegirae) (Hebrew language: AM = anno Mundi). IMHO it's simply a matter of common use. Flamarande (talk) 21:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC) PS: We aren't supposed to automatically respect religions. We are meant to tolerate religions. Respect isn't automatically deserved - or demanded. True respect has to be earned.

Sideways picture of sculpture

Seriously, it would be better to have no picture at all than a sideways one.67.190.86.13 (talk) 03:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The file page for the image says that a bot will be putting it in the correct position shortly. It's an update issue that should be resolved in a few days at most. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)