![]() | This is the
talk page of a
redirect that targets the page: • Roman Republic Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:Roman Republic |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 1 September 2013. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Under the technological view, I was tempted to add:
Hmm. Seriously, can anyone make a serious argument that the current text is anything but an extended expression of POL? Sheesh, I wouldn't hold the Roman Empire as an example of an enlightened state (except, perhaps, against some of its contemporaries), but this article is so harsh on that extinct political entity that one would have a vaguely guilty feeling just for knowing how to speak Latin -- even if that knowledge was enforced by the sharp edges of the rulers of countless nuns! -- llywrch 02:01, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I've added accuracy and NPOV dispute headers, and I'm going to copy this thing to a subpage of mine to see if I can improve it; anyone who wants to should feel free to jump in. But I think that this entire article really needs to be junked and rewritten from scratch; you can polish troll droppings all you want, but they're still troll droppings. --MIRV 10:48, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
The author of this article assumes, and pretty much says so in the first couple of paragraphs, that the only people who would want to read this article are politicians and people of power who are concerned about retaining power. The topic is only interesting because it concerns power. Therefore, the article will have a POV to address the retention of power.
I am not a politician. I don't need to retain power. I need a timeline and a quick summary for an article I'm writing. At the risk of making wild assumptions like the author, I'd say 90 percent of the people looking at this article are like me and have similar needs.
Yes, yes, I know the Wiki credo. If you don't like it, roll up your sleeve and write. In fact, I may do that. The last section of the restructured article would explore the fascination with the rise of Rome. But that section would be secondary, even tertiary.
And I won't be offended to hear a vigorous defense from the original author about why the current structure is the most appropriate.
--
I'm not sure what to say except the article looks like the musings of a community college sophmore parroting an instructor's comments out of context rather than any analysis of the rise of Rome.
Why is it that other articles are plagued by a thousand "citation needed" superscripts and this article doesn't have a one? Rtdrury ( talk) 06:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
The fall of Rome was basically because of the seven deadly sins.
This section doesn't have to do with the article, has no sources, and is quite hypothetical. Rome was a world government?
The article is completely worthless under its present state. It should be renamed "Roman Imperialism" (or something similar), and focus on the Roman expansion in the Mediterranean Basin, in order to answer the questions why and how the Roman Republic then the Empire managed to defeat and conquer so many other civilisations, then how Rome preserved its Empire for so long (and avoided "national" revolts). All the drivel on the first seven world governments or the Roman influence on later times should be removed. I mean, the article deals with "Celtic scholars" in the Middle Ages and the creation of the Euro...
A good starting point would be to list here books and articles on Roman imperialism. I think moving the section on Roman Imperialism from the current Roman Republic article could be a good start. T8612 (talk) 13:09, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- Erich S. Gruen, " Review: Roman Imperialism and the Greek Resistance".
- __, Imperialism in the Roman Republic.
- Andrew Erskine, Roman Imperialism.
- Mattingly, D. J., Dialogues in Roman Imperialism: Power, Discourse and Discrepant Experience in the Roman Empire.
- CB Champion, Roman imperialism: Readings and sources. T8612 (talk) 21:46, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This is the
talk page of a
redirect that targets the page: • Roman Republic Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:Roman Republic |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 1 September 2013. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Under the technological view, I was tempted to add:
Hmm. Seriously, can anyone make a serious argument that the current text is anything but an extended expression of POL? Sheesh, I wouldn't hold the Roman Empire as an example of an enlightened state (except, perhaps, against some of its contemporaries), but this article is so harsh on that extinct political entity that one would have a vaguely guilty feeling just for knowing how to speak Latin -- even if that knowledge was enforced by the sharp edges of the rulers of countless nuns! -- llywrch 02:01, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I've added accuracy and NPOV dispute headers, and I'm going to copy this thing to a subpage of mine to see if I can improve it; anyone who wants to should feel free to jump in. But I think that this entire article really needs to be junked and rewritten from scratch; you can polish troll droppings all you want, but they're still troll droppings. --MIRV 10:48, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
The author of this article assumes, and pretty much says so in the first couple of paragraphs, that the only people who would want to read this article are politicians and people of power who are concerned about retaining power. The topic is only interesting because it concerns power. Therefore, the article will have a POV to address the retention of power.
I am not a politician. I don't need to retain power. I need a timeline and a quick summary for an article I'm writing. At the risk of making wild assumptions like the author, I'd say 90 percent of the people looking at this article are like me and have similar needs.
Yes, yes, I know the Wiki credo. If you don't like it, roll up your sleeve and write. In fact, I may do that. The last section of the restructured article would explore the fascination with the rise of Rome. But that section would be secondary, even tertiary.
And I won't be offended to hear a vigorous defense from the original author about why the current structure is the most appropriate.
--
I'm not sure what to say except the article looks like the musings of a community college sophmore parroting an instructor's comments out of context rather than any analysis of the rise of Rome.
Why is it that other articles are plagued by a thousand "citation needed" superscripts and this article doesn't have a one? Rtdrury ( talk) 06:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
The fall of Rome was basically because of the seven deadly sins.
This section doesn't have to do with the article, has no sources, and is quite hypothetical. Rome was a world government?
The article is completely worthless under its present state. It should be renamed "Roman Imperialism" (or something similar), and focus on the Roman expansion in the Mediterranean Basin, in order to answer the questions why and how the Roman Republic then the Empire managed to defeat and conquer so many other civilisations, then how Rome preserved its Empire for so long (and avoided "national" revolts). All the drivel on the first seven world governments or the Roman influence on later times should be removed. I mean, the article deals with "Celtic scholars" in the Middle Ages and the creation of the Euro...
A good starting point would be to list here books and articles on Roman imperialism. I think moving the section on Roman Imperialism from the current Roman Republic article could be a good start. T8612 (talk) 13:09, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- Erich S. Gruen, " Review: Roman Imperialism and the Greek Resistance".
- __, Imperialism in the Roman Republic.
- Andrew Erskine, Roman Imperialism.
- Mattingly, D. J., Dialogues in Roman Imperialism: Power, Discourse and Discrepant Experience in the Roman Empire.
- CB Champion, Roman imperialism: Readings and sources. T8612 (talk) 21:46, 10 November 2018 (UTC)