Funny how these articles seldom mentioned the war crimes of the sympathetic side. Like how these rebellions started by killing all Romans in the province, after raping the women and children first of course.
Actually, its worse - even if you were a saintly society neighboring Rome or within the reach of Rome, Rome would invent a 'reason' to invade you if you had something they wanted or they lacked enough slaves. Like how the Syracuse invasion was done on literally manufactured consent by disguised legionnaires committing acts of atrocities against the Romans. All the wars of Rome from Early Republic and on were done on such manufactured consent and false flags.
At the end of the Republic period, everything changes - they stop needing to manufacture 'reasons' for invasions. By this time, the empire is already nascent as a social and political format and the slave-reliant economy is already dominant so there is no need to manufacture consent for the need for acquiring slaves.
Well yes, that's true. But one could consider the central Italian unification wars as even nastier affairs. However yes, its not like Romans were not as brutal in other periods as they were in social wars...
More seriously, are we going to have a put disclaimers on an all encyclopedic articles that “standards of conduct were much different then”? How much pretext then becomes necessary?
Material for people who are knowledgeable in the area are specialized books that can assume more background knowledge or journal articles meant for people keeping up with the state of the art.