Talk:Livius Andronicus

Initial comment
ok guys, livius is awsome, where is the info.....?
 * Are you responsible for copying from Ivy? You can't do that! Are you trying to get us in trouble? Probably not, but you should know, there are copyright laws for books, you just can't copy anything you may see without giving credit (and not then either, for much of the time). I've given Ivy some credit here but we can't really use her as her views are off the wall. Let's stick to the standard stuff. The sooner this is totally rewritten the better.Dave (talk) 12:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Tarentum was never captured
which is accepted by many scholars. Roman influence and hegemony began in Tarentum by 272 BCE; however, it was never captured. Livius, therefore, probably was not a war captive but could have been a Tarentine,

This statement is unreferenced and is apparently false. I'm removing it.Dave (talk) 11:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Semi-plagiarism
The secret to this stub is that it was plagiarized from "A linguistic commentary on Livius Andronicus" By Ivy J. Livingston. This expensive book is still under the copyright laws. Much of the article contains sentences and phrases taken from her. Some of it has been altered. The material was lifted off of Google Books (Google was sued not long ago and settled). Unfortunately Ivy put the notes in another location from the text, so although we can read some sections from the introduction (I suppose by consent) we cannot read the notes. So, in rewriting this article, we have to find all those references ourselves. This will take some time. Not only that but Ivy is somewhat of a shocker. Why, Tarentum never fell and the Greeks there were never sold into slavery. Assertions such as that require evidence and references. Ivy doesn't give any as far as I can tell. She just wants to shock us. Well, I don't want to be shocked, I want the best truth available. Tarentum fell, Andronicus was sold into slavery along with all the other thousands of Greeks captured in the many wars between Greece and Rome. All Roman education is practically of servile origin. So now, the whole thing will have to be rewritten and reorganized. This will take some time. Meanwhile, don't think this article says anything reliable.Dave (talk) 12:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

More semi-plagiarism
After his work, rapid literary development began in Rome; as a result, Livius Andronicus soon lost favor. Cicero, Horace, and Ennius find his art primitive though he was their predecessor. The reading of his works in school probably lasted longer than his own literary success. .

Well this is a valid opinion of an expert in the field and it is properly referenced; the only problem is, these are mainly his words as well and they are not quoted. As I do not hold this opinion I am not going to rewrite it for you. You may do that. If you do, I would suggest putting it under works and not biography. And, it probably should be expanded, giving some ancient assessments and references.Dave (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Titus Livius
Is there any reason at all to suppose that the Titus Livius mentioned by Jerome is supposed to be the same as the Lucius Livius Andronicus of this article? If there is any reason, I'm not seeing it. Should it be spelled out? Rwflammang (talk) 00:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)