Talk:Overthrow of the Roman monarchy

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Overthrow of the Roman monarchy article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Overthrow of the Roman monarchy has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: August 27, 2022. (Reviewed version).

Classical Greece and Rome Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Roman & Byzantine

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Roman and Byzantine military history task force

Drafting notice

I just wanted to drop a notice that I'll soon be embarking on a rewrite of the article; see User:Ifly6/Overthrow of the Roman monarchy. Do tell if this kind of notice shouldn't be done. Ifly6 (talk) 22:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft moved over original article's last revision. Ifly6 (talk) 19:03, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:33, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Overthrow of the Roman monarchy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Iazyges (talk · contribs) 05:55, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will take this on as well. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:55, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

GA Criteria

GA Criteria:

1
1.a Y

1.b Y
2
2.a Y

2.b Y

2.c Y

2.d Y
3
3.a Y

3.b Y
4
4.a Y
5
5.a Y
6
6.a Y

6.b Y

No DAB links Y
No dead links Y
No missing citations N:
by Romulus up to the reign of Tarquin. This historicity of the kings themselves is generally accepted insofar as there were kings in Rome. Modern scholars believe the traditional account to be mostly fictitious.

Some scholars also reject the c. 500 BC dating of the republic's foundation.

The next paragraphs are the sources which reject the c. 500 BC date. Ifly6 (talk) 19:20, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ifly6: Could you put the appropriate sources for the sentences themselves as a ref? It is standard practice for Good Articles that every bit of prose is cited, per 2b, with the only exception being the lede (assuming it is otherwise mentioned and supported in the body) Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:24, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One of these practices is synchronism: placing important events in different societies on the same year.

The next paragraphs are the sources which explain what synchronism is, unless you mean that you think a source for the definition of the word is necessary. Ifly6 (talk) 19:20, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The overthrow of the Roman monarchy has frequently been the subject of various literary and artistic works since ancient times. It also influenced later politicians and revolutionaries.

The next paragraphs are the sources which show that it was the subject of various literary and artistic works and how it influenced later politicians and revolutionaries. Ifly6 (talk) 19:20, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The death of Lucretia and the death of Brutus' sons also were subjects of many neoclassical paintings in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. has a source but, as pointed out by a current template, the source does not back the full text.

Discussion

Bispham 2006, p. 32. the sfn does not have an associated cite in the Sources section, rendering an error. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:00, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected. Ifly6 (talk) 19:29, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prose Suggestions

Please note that almost all of these are suggestions, and can be implemented or ignored at your discretion. Any changes I deem necessary for the article to pass GA standards I will bold.

Lede

later Roman historians invented a narrative of the events, traditionally dated to c. 509 BC, but largely believed to be fictitious by modern scholars. suggest later Roman historians invented a narrative of the events, traditionally dated to c. 509 BC, but this narrative is largely believed to be fictitious by modern scholars. to clarify that it is the narrative, not the dating, that is considered fictitious.
The traditional narrative story suggest removing story.

Both done. Ifly6 (talk) 19:38, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology

Livy's list of consuls points to the republic's starting around 502–1 BC suggest changing republic's to republic
"we have no way to prove or disprove most of the information contained [in the fasti]" would recommend directly attributing this to Drogula

Done. Ifly6 (talk) 00:42, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional account

Archaeological evidence supports there having been kings in Rome suggest Archaeological evidence supports that there was once kings in Rome

Reworded a different way. Ifly6 (talk) 00:43, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Account

; Lucretia commits suicide. the lede actually contains more detail than the body here, suggest copying from the lede and expanding to ;Upon revealing the assault to some Roman noblemen, Lucretia commits suicide.
Tarquin, the king, is then conducting a war against Ardea and rushes back to Rome on news of the coup suggest During this time, Tarquin was conducting a war against Ardea, but rushes back to Rome on news of the coup
Note, however, that the Romans, also report that in this early period, the consuls were initially called praetores (deriving from "leader"). suggest removing note as it is odd to include it in prose
who marches on Rome but is stopped by Horatius Cocles who holds a bridge alone against suggest changing holds to defends for clarity.
With no more allies willing to throw themselves at the Romans, suggest changing throw themselves at to fight against

I renumbered your bullets as numbers. (1) Done. (2) Done. (3) Non-concur, though I agree perhaps some different wording is possible; putting the note earlier is too disruptive and some kind of transition is needed. (4) Done. (5) Done. Ifly6 (talk) 00:45, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Development

Most scholars now agree that as a result of this process the details of Livy's political and military narrative are unreliable, amounting to reconstruction or plausible invention by Livy himself or by his sources. suggest appending —S.P. Oakley

This is something about most scholars, so I don't specifically attribute. Ifly6 (talk) 00:45, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Few can now doubt that earlier times tended, both consciously and unconsciously, to be re-created by a succession of Roman writers in light of the conditions in the third and second century. This was true even before [133 BC and] a new political climate in which historians had more urgent motives to project the [contemporaneous] political concerns and conflicts [on] earlier Roman history. suggest appending —Harriet Flower

Same as above. Ifly6 (talk) 00:45, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The narratives and details of the early republic are, therefore, even as the events are accepted in their most general terms. unless I'm misreading something it looks like a word is missing here? Perhaps The narratives and details of the early republic are doubtful, therefore, even as the events are accepted in their most general terms.

Fixed. Ifly6 (talk) 00:45, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This distrust is why "[Livy's narrative] has failed to carry much conviction among modern scholars, who have attacked its historical credentials in all kinds of ways" suggest Historian Tim Cornell states that this distrust is why "[Livy's narrative] has failed to carry much conviction among modern scholars, who have attacked its historical credentials in all kinds of ways"

Same as first. Ifly6 (talk) 00:45, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Intervention by Porsenna

"the division of power between two officials [is] maintained as a sensible arrangement". would directly attribute this to Forsythe.

Reworded to paraphrase version. Ifly6 (talk) 00:46, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Later foundation of the republic

Some scholars also reject the c. 500 BC dating of the republic's foundation. Suggest bringing this sentence down into the beginning of the following paragraph

Done. Ifly6 (talk) 01:02, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Academic Arguments

This article reads more like it's about the various academics of Roman history rather than about this particular event in Roman history - as do many of the articles related...

... just thought I'd give an outsider's perspective on this, as I came her looking for information on this particular event, but found an article about scholars arguing instead. 76.70.42.234 (talk) 03:26, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]