This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our
project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our
talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
That's not a peer-reviewed book. It was reviewed in not a single journal of classical studies. Nobody in the scholarship has cited it. Most scholars believe Romulus is a fictitious character. This presentation of what Hyden admits is myth (p. x) is outrageously
WP:FRINGE, especially when TableSalt43 has completely failed to cite Hyden at all. Bad sourcing, misinterpreted sources, non-existent citations, and copyright violations seem to pervade both these articles and previous ones on minor battles that TableSalt43 has also created.
Ifly6 (
talk)
21:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I will repeat again that this entire series of articles should be deleted. There is no basis for articles here. The content that is present is almost all unattributed
WP:COPYVIO-ing
WP:CFORK.
Ifly6 (
talk)
21:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)reply
There are few possible approaches here that I can see. Our encyclopedia includes articles on many early English kings that are pretty mythical themselves, so a properly sourced short article about a mythical battle will do no harm (surely someone in modern times had summarized
Plutarch?). Immediate and major improvement can be achieved by just adding a "In
Roman mythology, ..." prefix, see
Battle of the Lacus Curtius.
Викидим (
talk)
03:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Re the summaries of Plutarch, I see many articles on Wikipedia that are obviously just
WP:PRIMARY pseudo-
WP:OR summaries of Plutarch's works. Given how much scholars have doubts about many things Plutarch claims, this is by no means a good practice. Archaic Rome is very difficult to handle well; I think it is better not to discuss it without reliable modern secondary sources (eg Cornell Beginnings 1995 or Forsythe Critical history of early Rome 2005) and the framing This mythological battle is both very tiring to read and easily misinterpreted. Given that many of these mythological Battles are not called that by anyone, I also think they are not worth writing articles on.
Ifly6 (
talk)
04:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree that interpreting Plutarch is better left to professionals, and we should use modern secondary sources for our articles on Roman empire (among other subjects). The RfD route is labor-intensive, so, if the problem is urgent,
User:Somebody "Notme" Else with more knowledge of the subject should start the process.
Викидим (
talk)
20:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our
project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our
talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
That's not a peer-reviewed book. It was reviewed in not a single journal of classical studies. Nobody in the scholarship has cited it. Most scholars believe Romulus is a fictitious character. This presentation of what Hyden admits is myth (p. x) is outrageously
WP:FRINGE, especially when TableSalt43 has completely failed to cite Hyden at all. Bad sourcing, misinterpreted sources, non-existent citations, and copyright violations seem to pervade both these articles and previous ones on minor battles that TableSalt43 has also created.
Ifly6 (
talk)
21:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I will repeat again that this entire series of articles should be deleted. There is no basis for articles here. The content that is present is almost all unattributed
WP:COPYVIO-ing
WP:CFORK.
Ifly6 (
talk)
21:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)reply
There are few possible approaches here that I can see. Our encyclopedia includes articles on many early English kings that are pretty mythical themselves, so a properly sourced short article about a mythical battle will do no harm (surely someone in modern times had summarized
Plutarch?). Immediate and major improvement can be achieved by just adding a "In
Roman mythology, ..." prefix, see
Battle of the Lacus Curtius.
Викидим (
talk)
03:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Re the summaries of Plutarch, I see many articles on Wikipedia that are obviously just
WP:PRIMARY pseudo-
WP:OR summaries of Plutarch's works. Given how much scholars have doubts about many things Plutarch claims, this is by no means a good practice. Archaic Rome is very difficult to handle well; I think it is better not to discuss it without reliable modern secondary sources (eg Cornell Beginnings 1995 or Forsythe Critical history of early Rome 2005) and the framing This mythological battle is both very tiring to read and easily misinterpreted. Given that many of these mythological Battles are not called that by anyone, I also think they are not worth writing articles on.
Ifly6 (
talk)
04:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree that interpreting Plutarch is better left to professionals, and we should use modern secondary sources for our articles on Roman empire (among other subjects). The RfD route is labor-intensive, so, if the problem is urgent,
User:Somebody "Notme" Else with more knowledge of the subject should start the process.
Викидим (
talk)
20:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply