User talk:InformationvsInjustice/Cut R & R Content

Comments
Intimidating, isn't it? And it's hard to say where all this might lead. Just to slam things into reverse for a moment (thinking out loud, no more than that). Not so very long ago, everything Livy wrote was taken as history (unless Livy himself said it wasn't); and anything else was more-or-less considered a footnote or commentary on Livy. So where to draw the line between myth and history? And where to draw the line in terms of article scope? I think you're taking the right approach, in seeking a cut-off point. I'm not at all certain where this should lie.

I think that, at least for the time being, we can stick with the "published" article's intro. It does its job. I don't think we can cut things off with Remus' death; surely, the divinisation (or murder) of Romulus is an essential part of the package? Each part of the overall mythos says something essential about Rome's idea of itself; for instance, the divine or semi-divine paternity; superiority of Romulus' augury; the appalling and morally complex fratricidal foundation; seizure of women and lands; first senate and armies; in short, the "invention" of Rome. This is why I still think we should use themes from modern scholarship, and developments of the legend(s), rather than comparison of accounts - the latter might go on forever, and we'd be none the wiser on the significance of such differences and interpretations. Haploidavey (talk) 10:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

(the same, continued) ...and of course, there's no evidence at all within classical sources themselves to justify a development from the earliest dated version(s) onwards - no original "seed" to the mythos; no central literary, oral or visual resource on which to hang the tale or its developments. For that, we have to rely on modern, secondary sources. Haploidavey (talk) 13:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)\


 * Well, a hearty thanks for taking a little time. I am currently working more on this than a)my real job; b)my completed manuscript, the research for which gave rise to this effort (ostensibly ;-); and c)yet another RW project...  So I can certainly appreciate your contribution.  Intimidating isn't the word.  I might say "draining" or "disheartening".


 * R & R vs just "R": The real problem here is the redirects.  The topic of the article is "Romulus and Remus".  The redirect from "Romulus" would suggest that this the tale of Romulus.  That would be the tale of his origins, his youth and the city's founding and his reign.  I don't think that's the tale of "Romulus and Remus".  Perhaps I'm just plain wrong.  That said, It seems to me that a Wp reader would come to the article understanding the fable of Romulus and Remus as being about them, the she-wolf, the fratricide, and "before he founded the city" and would expect that to be there.  I'm not sure that has to include the details of his reign.  This article should begin with a "For the legend of Romulus' rule as Rome's first king see article named either "Romulus Rex", "Romulus (King of Rome)", "Romulus (Mythology)", "Romulus (Founder of Rome)" or "Romulus (Roman Kingdom)"  whatever we decide.  A single section with a para on Romulus' reign as Rome's first king" with a "Main article" link should suffice.  This would be in keeping with the way things are structured now (with the article titled R & R and the redirects).  Alternatively, we could change it to "Romulus (Mythology)" and then put a redirect from "Romulus and Remus" to it and include it all in one article.


 * How to treat the ancient sources: I think the article should include summaries of the exigent ancient sources.  There's enough in common between them to fairly say that there is a core "story".  Perhaps some of the work I've done could be relocated to, for instance, the Ab Urbe Condita Libri (Livy) (as I've already done with Battle of the Lacus Curtius) and herein there would be a brief section on Livy's version of the legend with a "main article" link.  I do agree, however, that there is not enough here on "scholarship".  There should be verbiage in the intro that discusses, broadly, how the myth is seen today.  Part of that is due to the fact that I'm working with the resources I have available to me.  I'm supposed to get an account for the OUP Journals, and as soon as I get that, I can help more.  Also, I'm not a classicist, I am quite comfortable reading English translations of the sources and some of the Latin versions.  I certainly know how to research, but describing with confidence the state of current scholarship is something I'll do, but would love to have it done by someone who has actual, factual credentials in the field  :-)  On a side note, I did find an interesting discussion in the Fornacalia and Quirinus articles about views of the myth's origin and evolution that would be a nice inclusion here.  Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 20:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)