Talk:Battle of Antemnae

This article was nominated for deletion on 14 March 2024. The result of the discussion was Mixed outcome.

Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance

	This redirect 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
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

There is almost nothing here about the battle itself[edit]

@TableSalt43: This is one of few articles about the early Roman battles that consist almost entirely of the background information. For example, the actual information here is in the section Battle of Antemnae#Battle and Sack, consists of few hundred characters and sourced only from Plutarch. Due to this lack of information in the sources this article (and other articles of this group) used to be a redirect. Is there any more information, preferably in more modern research, on this battle (and the similar ones, like Battle of Nomentum, Second Battle of Rome (753 BC), Battle of Caenina, Battle of Rome (753 BC))? (cf. also Battle of Alba Longa). Викидим (talk) 19:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a book written by Marc Hyden has provided speculative and biographical information about Romulus, and his campaigns. TableSalt43 (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it 'Romulus: The Legend of Rome's Founding Father' [1]? Викидим (talk) 20:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a peer-reviewed book. It was reviewed in not a single journal of classical studies. Nobody in the scholarship has cited it. Most scholars believe Romulus is a fictitious character. This presentation of what Hyden admits is myth (p. x) is outrageously WP:FRINGE, especially when TableSalt43 has completely failed to cite Hyden at all. Bad sourcing, misinterpreted sources, non-existent citations, and copyright violations seem to pervade both these articles and previous ones on minor battles that TableSalt43 has also created. Ifly6 (talk) 21:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there are aware of more articles like these, let's at least make a complete list (or some approximation of it) here. Викидим (talk) 03:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this is a good place to start. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=TableSalt43&namespace=all&tagfilter=&newOnly=1&start=&end=&limit=50. Also pre-catalogued at TableSalt43's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Roman_Kingdom_Campaigns. Ifly6 (talk) 03:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will repeat again that this entire series of articles should be deleted. There is no basis for articles here. The content that is present is almost all unattributed WP:COPYVIO-ing WP:CFORK. Ifly6 (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the appropriate venue to discuss the topic in its entirety? Is Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome a good place for such discussion? Викидим (talk) 03:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's been raised in part at WT:CGR. I think it might be better to take a look at WP:RFD to actually do something about it. Ifly6 (talk) 03:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are few possible approaches here that I can see. Our encyclopedia includes articles on many early English kings that are pretty mythical themselves, so a properly sourced short article about a mythical battle will do no harm (surely someone in modern times had summarized Plutarch?). Immediate and major improvement can be achieved by just adding a "In Roman mythology, ..." prefix, see Battle of the Lacus Curtius. Викидим (talk) 03:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re the summaries of Plutarch, I see many articles on Wikipedia that are obviously just WP:PRIMARY pseudo-WP:OR summaries of Plutarch's works. Given how much scholars have doubts about many things Plutarch claims, this is by no means a good practice. Archaic Rome is very difficult to handle well; I think it is better not to discuss it without reliable modern secondary sources (eg Cornell Beginnings 1995 or Forsythe Critical history of early Rome 2005) and the framing This mythological battle is both very tiring to read and easily misinterpreted. Given that many of these mythological Battles are not called that by anyone, I also think they are not worth writing articles on. Ifly6 (talk) 04:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that interpreting Plutarch is better left to professionals, and we should use modern secondary sources for our articles on Roman empire (among other subjects). The RfD route is labor-intensive, so, if the problem is urgent, User:Somebody "Notme" Else with more knowledge of the subject should start the process. Викидим (talk) 20:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This title appears in not a single document on Google Scholar. Ifly6 (talk) 02:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]