Talk:Roman mythology/Archive 1

Is this an original article? There are other articles out on the net which look substantially similar. sjc

I suspect it's non-original but in the public domain. Several different, unrelated websites have the same text (see http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Because+extensive+changes+in+the+religion+had+already%22 ), totally unattributed. Moreover, the style and contents of the article indicate it easily could have been written for that famous Not-To-Be-Named 1911 encyclopedia.

Does anyone else have any other insight? O ye who have uploaded this, please tell us where you got it. --LMS

OK, if we're relatively happy with its origin I will start to do some work on it over the coming weekend. sjc

it does sound remarkably nineteenelevenish, and it DOES need some work.

Later the same day: Having now read the first couple of paragraphs to work on it, I'm sure it's turn-of-the-last-century. The use of the word "legendary" to refer to any king before the Tarquins in characteristic of pre-1930s scholarship (archaeology having in its usual way confirmed rather than confounded the timing for the foundation of Rome and the length of the regal period). --MichaelTinkler

You know, what you could do, if you cared (and I hope you do!), is you could e-mail one of those people who have copied all these mythology articles onto their websites. There are quite a few of such people. One of them is bound to tell you where the articles come from. --Larry

Africus for COTW
I've nominated Africus for COTW. I did this because I felt that the Roman god who is directly responsible for the name of one of our present-time continents deserves more than two lines for his article. If you would like to support, please go to its COTW page and write your name down on the support list. -- SoothingR(pour) 15:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Parenthetical Problems
Why do two of the Roman deity use "(god)" or "(goddess)" randomly, while most of them, and all the Greek deity articles, use "(mythology)"? The latter seems preferable, since it avoids needless specificity in disambiguation and can apply accurately to a wider number of articles without possible accusations of POV for stating whether or not a specific being qualifies as a "god". What's up with this:

I'd fix them myself, but unlike most of the deity pages where a move from (god)/(goddess) to (mythology) was implemented, for some bizarre reason this one already has "Jupiter (mythology)" and "Pluto (mythology)" as redirects to those two pages. Ick. -Silence 04:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Why are they not tagged "_(religion)"? It is only from an "outside" POV that they are myths. It is certainly not true that Papa Roman sat his kids down and said "It is time you learned our mythology, those things we believe in order to understand our world". I could also support using no tags at all, (as in the case, for example, of Amaterasu), and glossing the untagged entry on disambiguation pages, as, for example, is the practice here with Jesus. In short, adding (mythology) to Jupiter et al. but not to Jesus or Amaterasu seems rather POV to me. Whogue 07:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Mythology is not meant as a POV slight. Remember that mythology does not necessarily mean that something is considered false, but it is not exactly the same as religion, either.  In short, mythology is more about the stories while religion is about beliefs and rituals.  Check the pages on wikipedia pages mythology and religion for more info. AliaGemma 05:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

List of Major Gods
I changed the list of major gods. It is now a gallery, the reason for this is that in my opinion, it is better with pictures. However, I am short of some pictures. The previous list looked like this:

If you prefer the old one, above, to the current please tell me and I'd be happy to change it back. Sotakeit 20:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I actually much prefer the list above without the pictures. Here is why I feel quite strongly about it: it seems to me that we are confusing the concept of "Roman god" with its depictions in art. A Roman god, whatever it is (or not), is different from the art used to represent it. Moreover, it seems particularly little enlightening (we see basically a bunch of statues...).62.203.8.195 12:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Huh?
The beginning of this article sounds sort of like the content on this website http://www.crystalinks.com/romemythology.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.29.117.134 (talk) 23:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes it does, but it's probably copied from Wikipedia and not the other way around (the end of the text says: References: Wikipedia). Pax:Vobiscum 02:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Early mythology about Roman history
The last two paragraphs of the "Early mythology about Roman history" section contain numerous spelling errors (such as "Odisius", "whorlpool", etc.), some wording that needs to be rearranged for clarity, as well as the abbreviation "w/" instead of "with" several times. I tried to correct them and to clean it up some, but cannot find how to edit that section anywhere on the page, either by editing the entire page or by editing that section. 32.97.110.142 (talk) 20:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism
The last two paragraphs should not be in the article. They are obvious vandalism. I haven't quite figured out the ropes around here, can I just remove the offensive passages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterCalamy (talk • contribs) 03:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC) u r gay now sut up and dei —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.175.223.10 (talk) 18:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 13 year old kids... I'm 13, you don't have to act immature. homophobe. Take out the last two.

Mythology and Religion
It seems to me that a good deal of this article ("Native Roman and Italic gods", "Foreign gods", "Major Roman deities") properly belongs in Religion in ancient Rome. Whogue 08:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not vandalize Wikipedia!!

that's all I ask, it makes people not trust this website [it is very trustworthy!!] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.111.52.38 (talk) 23:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Article needs dedicated editing
It lacks citation and modern references, so I'll tag accordingly. Style and content are reminiscent of a public lecture by some charming, scholarly old buffer with elbow-patches who means to talk about mythology but loses his way. Really needs some work, and Beard, North and Price's "Religions of Rome" (1998) Cambridge, might be a start. Yes, "Religions", because the authors elucidate the issues this article attempts to resolve. Haploidavey (talk) 12:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Also to your point, some of the language sounds rather stodgy. For example, the first sentence under "Early Roman Mythology" uses the words "dearth" and "panoply", neither of which are widely understood (other than by context) outside upper-level academic circles. GalacticCowboy (talk) 15:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)hjgjhgjhgj


 * Upper-level? You mean you can't expect the average college senior to know them? Wow, if that's true, how sad. (The trouble with 'panoply' here is that it doesn't mean what the user seems to have intended.) To Haploidavey's point, "The Romans had no sequential narratives about their gods comparable to the Titanomachy or the seduction of Zeus by Hera until their poets began to adopt Greek models in the later part of the Roman Republic" … hard to say where to begin to rewrite that into something meaningful. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, a splendid beginning. Let's just link to Greek mythology and be done. Or better, let's rewrite from scratch. Haploidavey (talk) 15:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Temporary measures
I was at the library the other day, had T.P. Wiseman's The Myths of Rome in my hand, thought, eh, I won't be looking at Roman mythology anytime soon, put it back, and somehow ended up here today. Anyway, I had made some notes from Bremmer and Horsfall's rather idiosyncratic book, which taken alone seem so disproportionate (no Horatius at the bridge!) that I threw in some other Greatest Hits. I figure if a student ends up here (and they appear to frequently, judging from the juvenile vandalism the article gets), something is better than nothing for now. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed it is. Structure at last, (and "convoluted revisionist genealogy" bodes very well for the future. Lovely phrase). Haploidavey (talk) 14:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism
Someone changed the page to "write some damn mythology". I changed it back to the previous version.

You don't need to make a comment about it ;) ---As said on this site, &lt;i&gt;The wii version will Have wii compatibility&lt;/i&gt; (talk) 19:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC) heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.65.149 (talk) 16:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cramir19.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

English
Roman mythology

The ancient Romans had a rich mythology and while much of it was decrived from their neighbors and predecessors,the greeks,it is still defined the rich history of the roman people as they eventually grew into an empire 122.54.113.218 (talk) 03:22, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: HUM 202 - Introduction to Mythology
— Assignment last updated by Nursing202 (talk) 15:50, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: ARH 371_The TransAtlantic_Cross-Cultural Representations
— Assignment last updated by Ndballar (talk) 23:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)