Talk:Nova Roma

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal	Nova Roma is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Brazil and Brazil-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
To-do list for Brazil: This article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

	This article is within the scope of the Micronations WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of micronations. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

How can an article about a serious effort to study and revive a culture and religion at the heart of modern western culture lack "notablility"? Every character in "Sailor Moon" has an article (e.g. Mamoru_Chiba) and I daresay the study of Roman religion and culture is rather more "notable" than any individual character from "Sailor Moon". Whogue 11:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

But Nova Roma isn't a study of Roman religion and culture, it's a micronation. I don't expect an article written about me because I picked up a copy of Wheelock's Latin from a nearby bookstore. Slac speak up! 09:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Well that's specious reasoning if ever I've seen it. There's no reason why a micronation can't be based on a study of Roman religion and culture if that's what the members want. --Centauri 10:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree with that at all: but the proposition that studying Roman religion and culture is what makes it notable I emphatically reject. Slac speak up! 11:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

What makes it "notable" is the fact it has 2500 members in a dozen or so countries, which makes it the biggest Roman-themed recreationist organiszation in the world, readily comparable to such organizations as the Society for Creative Anachronism. --Centauri 22:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I see in the proposed criteria for notability of organizations:

Criteria For Organizations

1. Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by a third party source.

[SNIP]
Assertion of notability Notability can be asserted for organizatons through:

1. Inclusion in third party published materials.

It seems to me that we have established that Nova Roma, whatever else it is, is international in scope and is cited by reliable third parties. Can we lay the notablility issue to rest? Whogue 10:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. In any case "notability" is not a valid inclusion criteria. It's merely a proposal at this stage. Verifiability carries far more weight. --Centauri 10:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, as I said, "...the proposed criteria...". But really I was just responding to the content of the tag on this article. It says "...please expand the article to establish its notability, citing reliable sources". So I'm suggesting that the specific objection mentioned has been dealt with enough to dismiss the tag and let work on this article proceed without categorizing it as "Wikipedia articles with topics of unclear importance".

I'd suggest that the "reliable external sources" aspect needs to be stressed a bit more and the article needs to be better referenced. This was my motivation in appending the tag rather than nominating it for deletion. Slac speak up! 21:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

OK - we'll work on finding those. We (members of NR) haven't made much of an effort to track such things in the past, but we'll see what we can do. Thus far, I've mainly concentrated on improving the writing style of the article, which wasn't good originally. MattHucke^(t) 22:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Wikipedia and others cite Nova Roma as a source 2 Recruitment tent photo 3 Roman religion 4 A new flag 5 Nova Roma isnt a true Roman Revivalist group 6 Notability - again

[edit] Wikipedia and others cite Nova Roma as a source

Nova Roma is cited by http://www.religioustolerance.org/ as a source on the topic of pagan reconstructionism. Nova Roma is also cited under "External links" in Polytheistic_Reconstructionism. It is simply a fact that there is a reconstructionist movement and reconstruction of the Religio Romana is mainly centered in Nova Roma and www.religioromana.net . The Nova Roma wiki also contains original work by recognized classicists. This is sufficient, IMO, to show that Nova Roma is taken seriously both as an authority on the Religio Romana and as a valid participant in the academic community. Whogue 13:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recruitment tent photo

I'm not sure I understand the reason that the "recruitment tent" photo was removed. It nicely illustrated the "Live events" section. Would a photo of some military re-enactors be better? I hope it was not removed simply because it underlines the fact that Nova Roma is not exclusively internet-based (which is why, I suspect, it was included). Whogue 09:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks to me like a Wiki glitch. Seems it was lost when I re-wrote the first paragraph - but I certainly didn't delete it so I've no idea how it could have vanished. In any case, I've restored it now. --Centauri 09:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks! Whogue 09:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roman religion

Nova Roma wont force the Roman religion on there citizens but in order to become a high ranking member of Nova Roma, you must make oaths to the Roman religion, and participate its religious rites. Futher more you also have to swear to protect the religion as well, those are the reasons for my add ons under the Roman religion section. --Lucius Sempronius Turpio 06:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A new flag

I uploaded to wikicommons a new version of this flag made by me, I hope you may want to use it in this article as it is under the public domain license. Oren neu dag 11:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

That symbol is a trademark - sorry, you can't make a copy and call it public domain. I'm going to request deletion. MattHucke^(t) 14:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nova Roma isnt a true Roman Revivalist group

Nova Roma wants to revive the ancient republic, not the empire. They have no claims to any kind of Translatio Imperii, and it doesnt seem like they even care. They are more like a club of people who are interested in the ancient republic. There political, and financial stances are unimpressive, and the organazation seems more interested in the ancient pagan religion. We all know that the Romans adopted Christianity. Nova Roma doesnt reconized the major changes in roman society and culture that occured from the early republic, to the debated fall of the empire.

Calling Nova Roma a micronation, or a political organazation is inaccurate. It should be listed as a club, or Roman interest group.--Lucius Sempronius Turpio 21:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability - again

I have tagged this article as unreferenced as there are no sources cited that attest to its existence. The only references are to the general revival of interest in the use of Latin. If this organisation is as large and active as the article claims, I am surprised it has not come to the notice of the media: perhaps someone could add some of these sources? Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 07:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not a question of notability, its a question of proper references. I'll see what I can dig up, but please give me time -- I have papers, a play, and Finals coming up soon. Zidel333 (talk) 17:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course: I wasn't suggesting that the organisation was non-notable (in which case I would have proposed for deletion). Just that no references were cited to establish its notability, and if the article is to be believed I'm sure they must exist out there! No rush, there's no fixed time limit by which references need to appear and real life does have a way of intruding! Meanwhile if anyone else can help by referencing that would be very good indeed. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 18:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)