Talk:Prostitution in ancient Rome

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 January 2020 and 12 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): EmmaForRome142497. Peer reviewers: AbbSe37.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled
Note: the original version of this article was based on W. C. Firebaugh's notes in his translation of the Satyricon of Petronius Arbiter, which are in the public domain.

Then all of those sections which are lifted from the Satyricon should be marked as quotations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.125.60.1 (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

This text is in dire need of modernization; many of its arguments and conclusions have also probably long since been made obsolete by modern scholarship, but it's a place to start. -- The Anome (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppian Law
The "Oppian Law" section still contains a lot of Firebaugh's own POV, and needs to be updated to a more neutral treatment. -- The Anome (talk) 09:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

German Wikipedia
The German-language Wikipedia has an article de:Prostitution in der Antike (Google machine translation) which deals with prosititution in both Greek and Roman antiquity, that has reached excellent article status. This may be a good starting point for research to improve this article.

The Dutch-language nl:Prostitutie in het oude Rome looks good too. (Google machine translation) -- The Anome (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal
This article covers the current content at Meretrix, and already offers reasonably thorough background and context. No point in duplication (which would be consequent on expansion at Meretrix. Please discuss. Haploidavey (talk) 22:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Problems with Other locations
The tone in the large middle section of #Other locations is very casual, there's a lot of personal interpretation by whoever wrote it and most notes are to primary sources. It uncritically refers to Paul the Deacon. Smells of someone's OR. 195.169.52.30 (talk) 10:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean by "it uncritically refers to Paul the Deacon"? And why presume it's original research? Evidently, someone decided to copy the source, along with its idiosyncracies, and justify the text using at least some of the same primary sources referred to by the editor of the original, well over 100 years ago. Like it or not (and I don't like it at all), the source has already been checked. It's a legitimate use, apart from failure to credit the source and some surplus flourishes, most of which came with the text and can be removed. Rather than tag sections, you might find a thorough search pays off. For the original (or rather, an ebook of the original, word for word, including that give-away "we") see the Gutenberg edition of Petronius Arbiter - The Satyricon — Volume 06: Editor's Notes. The work is in the Public Domain. Copyright (C) 2001, 2002 by Michael S. Hart. Haploidavey (talk) 13:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

See talk page discussion around 2009 (above) on this very issue, and the evaluation of commentary as very outdated indeed. Haploidavey (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)