Talk:Rome

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Article milestones
Date Process Result
March 27, 2006 Peer review Reviewed
Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of May 7, 2006.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Rome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 19 April 2016[edit]

abstrat = abstract

Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 20:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

That is exactly what was done and corrected from that instruction.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 23:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Birth of the city[edit]

Hallo, I reverted two additions to the article. About the first, when we write about the "history of Rome" and its lifespan, we refer to the city, not to the villages or dwellings that predate it. Between the end of the bronze age the begin of the Iron age, each hill between the sea and the Capitol was topped by a village (on the Capitol, a village is attested since the end of the 14th century BC). However, according to the archeologists none of them had yet an urban quality. Nowadays we think that the city was born through the aggregation ("synecism") of several villages around the biggest, that on the Palatine. This, together with the raise of agricultural productivity, the begin of secondary and tertiary activities and the development of trade with the Greek colonies of southern Italy, is considered as the birth of the city, and happened more or less around the mid of the 8th century BC. About that you can usefully read, among others, Filippo Coarelli "Guida archeologica di Roma", R. A. Staccioli "Roma entro le mura"; Mario Attilio Levi "La città antica"; Massimo Pallottino "Origine e storia primitiva di Roma"; and, last but not least, Andrea Carandini "La nascita di Roma". The last two sources are entirely devoted to the birth of the city. Coarelli and Carandini have been translated in english.

About Rome having 16% of the world art treasures, in order to write it we need a RS that explain us the criteria adopted to estimate this number. Without that, the number is only "fried air" (as we say in Rome ;-)). Alex2006 (talk) 18:36, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

If "more than two and a half thousand years" seems short to some, maybe we can just come up with different wording? "2.8 thousand", "28 centuries", or simply "since the 8th century BC"? Even "near 3 thousand" would be all right with me, even if a bit of a stretch; it's a general, not a scientific statement. --A D Monroe III (talk) 21:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Personally I have no problem about the first three variants that you propose, but the fact that the original wording "seems short" to someone, is not a valid reason to change it. The problem is not to find consensus about the dating of the first archeological findings on the site which would have become Rome, but the understanding about what a "city" is. A couple of years ago took place a long similar discussion about Istanbul, which some user pretended having been "founded" around 9,000 B.C., but this interpretation has been rejected. The reason, as I wrote above, is that most of historians and archeologist don't consider a couple of huts above a hill inhabited by dwellers who practiced a subsistence agriculture (and fishing, as was the case of the villages on Istanbul's site) as a city. Each ancient city which has not been founded by colonist a pre-urban, a proto-urban and an urban age, and in the case of Rome archeological evidence set the transition to the last one around the 8th century B.C.. The debate right now is between academicians who, like Carandini, think that the myths about Rome have a historical significance, and those who think that they are just legends, but the archeological evidence is not controversial. Alex2006 (talk) 06:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Earliest History[edit]

Some content from this section was copied to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_of_Rome to improve the page referrred to, which should be the main reference on this topic Rjdeadly (talk) 22:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)