Talk:Gothic War (376-382)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] "What's more?" What's less?
Quote: "What's more,..." I'm sure Wikipedia doesn't allow this kind of presentation. --Terrancommander 15:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, if you take it out of context. If you actually read what's being said, it emphasis the reason why the Goths decided to revolt. -- Stbalbach 16:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Of course I read, obviously. Only thing is, it is funny that I have never seen that phrase used before in any other article on Wikipedia. "What's more" is also a figure of speech, denoted by the apostrophe. I am sure that you do not write the words "can't", "don't" or "won't" here. These words are in the same category. I also think that there is absolutely no need for the sarcasm intended. --> "If you actually read what's being said". --Terrancommander 15:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Whatever. Please stop posting on my talk page, you seem to have taken this personally. I don't know you, I don't care about you, just leave my talk page alone. Thank you, have a nice day. -- Stbalbach 15:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Thank you. However, your sarcastic tone is not required, and I could request an apology if I wanted to. You have implied that I cannot read what was written in the article. This can be considered a personal attack, and therefore I may take it personally. --Terrancommander 11:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Terrancommander, what is your problem? I asked you to stop posting on my talk page and you did so anyway. If you continue to harass me, I will ask for an administrator to intervene. Your crocodile tears argument is not very convincing. We had an edit dispute, and now your turning this into a "NPA" over something that is worded very ambiguously and frankly is a statement of fact "if you read the entire section" ie. if you take the whole thing into context. And if you want to talk about sarcasm, look at what your wrote originally: "What's more?" What's less? - so give it a break, you are in much more serious violation by continuing to post on my talk page when I have asked you to stop. --Stbalbach 15:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
[edit] Link?
Could/Should there be a link to the term foederati? <KF> 17:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Visigoth/Ostrogoth split
This article claims that the Goths split into Visi- and Ostro- Goths in 380, after first claiming that it was Visigoths that moved into the Empire in 376. Both surely can't be true. Note that the latter version is supported by our other articles about Goths. Zocky | picture popups 18:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Most of Wikipedia (and most history books) are fairly confused on this issue. It's complex, there were dozens of tribes involved, Goths all over the place, it's not the simple split this article (currently) makes it out to be. --Stbalbach 19:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Timeline
Both the start date and the end date are disputed. The events began with the Danube crossing in 376, whether the fighting started in fall 376 (Heather 1998, p. 133) or spring 377 (Wolfram, IIRC) but not fall 377. Dating from the Danube crossing would avoid this problem. Jacob Haller 00:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- This is true - it gets confusing renaming the article to Gothic War (376/377-382) - maybe your right just use the Danube crossing 376. -- Stbalbach 05:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Will soon move article to Gothic War (376-382) unless other editors object. Using the ordinary dash (on the keyboard) unless other editors object. Jacob Haller 01:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Ordinary dash is better, I don't know why someone moved it to the special dash. Maybe it's a rule or something but it adds a lot of confusion. -- Stbalbach 15:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Battle of Adrianople
I've been revising the Battle of Adrianople article, and thought the more-or-less revised background section was more appropriate in this article than the other article. Any thoughts on copying parts of the Adrianople article to this article?
- I'm not the only one working on this either. Srry if that came out wrong. Jacob Haller 03:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Jacob, there is overlap, but there is some material here not there and vice versa. -- Stbalbach 15:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Not Searchable/Linkable
For some reason, searching for/linking to Gothic War (377-382) doesn't work. What's with that? Jacob Haller 18:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- It's the type of dash used. I just made it a re-direct so it will work either way. -- Stbalbach 19:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Tervingi, Greuthungi, Visigoths and Ostrogoths
Referring to the Tervingi as Visigoths and the Greuthungi as Ostrogoths in this context was confusing. The Visigoths effectively originated as the Goths (and others) who made peace with the Romans in 382 - they were probably predominantly Terving, but some were probably Greuthung and others neither - see, for instance, the Peter Heather reference. The Ostrogoths came together several decades later, from Goths (possibly but not certainly mainly Greuthungi) who been subjected by the Huns. PWilkinson 20:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)