Talk:Curtia gens

Merged content

I salvaged some content from Curtius (gens), a duplicate article. Unfortunately, much of that article lacked citations, but it did contain some potentially useful material that could be revisited. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Goals and problems

This article still looks more like a disambig. The detail on the items is more ample than you would expect on a disambig. That is because no articles exist for all these people. This raises the question, how should this section appear? If the articles were all present, it seems to me a simple list would do, "List of Curtii." In that case one would expect it to be divided by period. The monarchical period, which the previous editor has removed, would then reappear. For the time being, the detailed list seems the only way to present the Curtii.

But, the situation is more complicated. Note the term "origin" in the article. The section then goes on to state anything but the origin. This is just not an apt title. The origin of the lacus curtius is stated, but that belongs under Lacus Curtius. It should be moved to that article. For the actual origin, note that Mettius is not a Roman, he is a Sabine. The name is of Sabine origin and was imported to Rome with the Sabines.

In short the usual accumulation of small edits is not sufficient for this article. It needs a new outline. The stories should all be in the proper place. The division of monarchy, republic and empire should be restored. The legends about people need to be distinct from considerations concerning the clan. Also, who said it was a minor clan? We need either a reference for that or for the concept to be dropped.

These considerations are the reason I do not have more changes to make right now and why I have accepted the changes of the previous editor without much comment. I did correct a typo, the dangling participle. If you have comments and views on these matter please do express them. This is the time for your ideas and their implementation. If you are going to do something more with it, do it. I'm working on something else but this article, say a few months down the road, is definitely on my agenda. Until then I am not going to participate further in the minor fixes of material that needs reorganization and rewriting. So, do your thing. Since there is more interest in this article, when I start I will be running the changes past you in this discussion, as is proper.Botteville (talk) 11:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The article is nothing like a disambiguation page. It's a treatment of a specific family with discussions of its historical significance, origin stories, peculiar traits, and a list of members. Precisely like a hundred other articles about Roman gentes. If your intention is to dismantle it and turn it into a disambiguation page, then you really want to dismantle all of the other articles, too.

No, that's not my intention. Can't see how you would cast it as that.

But that's not your argument. Actually it's hard to focus on what your argument is. In one place you argue that the list of members should include a section for "Curtii of the Monarchy," a section consisting of a lone individual whom you then go on to say wasn't even a Roman, and therefore shouldn't be in the article. You can't have it both ways. First of all, Mettius Curtius is in the article because he is 1) the first Curtius to appear in history, albeit a legendary period in which we cannot take for granted that the characters and events described are actual people; 2) the person to whom (at least some of) the later Curtii and other Roman antiquarians looked as the ancestor of their gens; and 3) because his story lends significance both to the family's supposed illustrious origin, and its ethnic background.

No, that isn't what I said either. He should be in the article. You can too have it both ways. The Roman population was an amalgam of various elements, including the Sabines. Do you need to read Livy? Also, it is your opinion that everything about the legendary period must be discounted. You need a ref for that. If the Curtii appear in the early Republic, they must have been in the monarchy. Your either-or approach is not NPOV. We present different points of view with references.

Secondly, none of the other articles have a section for persons who lived before the beginning of the Republic (as we use that word; the Romans, I note, used the word to describe the Roman state, without reference to the form of government; to them the Republic began with Romulus and continued under Augustus and his successors). There's a reason for this: in no case would such a section include more than two or three individuals; and in most cases there would be either one or zero. There's no good reason for creating a subsection for one person. Many gens articles don't even divide the list of members between persons who lived during the Republic and those who lived under the Empire. This one didn't, originally. It became divided largely as a matter of convenience, breaking up a long list into two shorter segments. Before the division, there was no section called "Curtii of the Republic," and thus no inaccuracy with respect to Mettius Curtius. That minor quibble did not justify the creation of a new section for a single individual; hence my solution of changing the section heading to "Early Curtii."

Let me give that one some thought. If we divide the clans by period, then the monarchy must have a period. What do you do with the Julii? The state of the other clan articles is not a good indication, as they all need work. If in the case of this article there really turns out to be one known Curtius, one representative of the period, that is still logically sound. There is no rule that a subdivision has to contain a threshold of material. If in this article there are one-line subdivisions.

Your next argument is that the origin section doesn't state the origin of the gens. If you expected something that said, "in the sixth century BC, a man of Cures named Gaius moved to Rome and took Curtius as his surname," then no, there's no origin for this or almost any other gens. But every gens article has a section for its origin if there's anything to say about where they came from or when. In this case, the family's origin story is that they were descended from a legendary Sabine hero in the time of Romulus. The fact that the Lacus Curtius was supposedly named in commemoration of this hero's one and only appearance in history is perfectly relevant to the article, just as the naming of any ancient Roman landmark after an ancestor of a particular gens would be relevant to an article about that gens. It's difficult to relate that story without noting that it doesn't represent the only explanation for the name; but since both of the other individuals for whom the lake could have been named are also members of this family and treated on this page, it's perfectly appropriate to give a brief explanation next to the story of Mettius Curtius.

The article plainly states that the story of Mettius Curtius suggests a Sabine origin for the family. So it's hard to understand why you're arguing about that. But for the record, since the legend itself is only a legend and may or may not be based on actual persons and events, it's by no means certain that the Curtii were in fact descended from Mettius Curtius or that they were Sabine. It's also inappropriate to say that the name was "imported to Rome with the Sabines," as if 1) the name were some sort of goods, and 2) the whole point of the story of which Mettius Curtius forms a part is that the earliest part of the Roman community was formed by a mixture of Latins led by Romulus, and Sabines led by Titus Tatius. That's integral to the entire Roman psyche; they always believed that they were a mixed community from the start. They weren't ethnically Roman, with a few Sabines thrown in for the flavour.

If we were speaking of something that happened two or three centuries later, then perhaps there would be some point in distinguishing the two. But there is no point in distinguishing the Sabines who fought under Titus Tatius from the "people of Rome," whom at that point consisted of at most a few hundred unmarried men, none of whom were born at Rome or had lived there for more than a few months, when in the immediate aftermath of the war the Latin and Sabine communities were blended under a dual monarchy, the principle of which continued when the next king after Romulus was a Sabine, the king after him a Latin, and the king after him a Sabine. Of course, I haven't lost track of the fact that we're still talking about a legendary period that may or may not have been based on actual persons and events. But there is no reason to distinguish a member of the Sabine community that became part of Rome at the very beginning from the Romans, as you seem to be proposing.

The fact that the Curtii were not of great importance is self-evident. Only a handful of them are known prior to the first century BC; only one of them achieved the consulship under the Republic; some five hundred years elapsed before another was consul suffectus under Claudius. All of the others are either lesser magistrates or mentioned only by reference to more important historical persons (Cicero, Augustus, Ovid, Nero, etc.).

As this article states explicitly, "This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain..." referring to the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, which is one of the few English-language sources to discuss individual gentes in any detail. Here is the original text, without additional material about the family's legendary origin, preferred praenomina, discussion of the surnames, or a list of members:

CURTIA GENS, an obscure patrician gens, of whom only one member, C. Curtius Philo, was ever invested with the consulship, B.C. 445. This consulship is one of the proofs that the Curtia gens must have been patrician, since the consulship at that time was not accessible to the plebeians; other proofs are implied in the stories about the earliest Curtii who appear in Roman history. The fact that, in B.C. 57, C. Curtius Peducaeanus was tribune of the people, does not prove the contrary, for members of the gens may have gone over to the plebeians. The cognomens which occur in this gens under the republic are Peducaeanus, Philo, and Postumus or Postumius. For those who are mentioned in history without a cognomen, see Curtius.

It's hard to improve on a description of this type, which is why some of the phrasing has survived to the present article. But of course, it's too short to include any of the aforementioned information, which is why the current article includes a great deal more than this brief recitation. The fact that I preferred "minor" to "obscure" in writing the header (which is still clearly cited to the DGRBM) is not grounds for deleting the fact. For that matter, even the lack of a citation wouldn't be, in part because the lead paragraph only needs to introduce the material making up the rest of the article, which clearly supports the asserted fact; and in part because even if the fact appeared dubious (which it doesn't), the appropriate step to take would be either to look to see if any sources support it, or tag it for someone to come along later and find a source or remove it after failing to find one. Facts should not be deleted merely because you're not satisfied that they're cited to something; there's a process for evaluating them and finding sources before that. P Aculeius (talk) 14:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Your edit summary: "How do you know that is the only one? We have not done a study of evidence here. Got a quote?" What kind of smug, superior attitude are you trying to show here? The sentence followed a description of three stories accounting for the name of the Lacus Curtius and then said that only one shed light on the origin of the gens. Which is perfectly true. Neither Philo filling in the hole nor Marcus leaping into it tells us anything about the origin of the family, although both are relevant to its subsequent history. This isn't a study of evidence. It's a simple statement that two of the stories don't relate to the family's origin. I don't need a quote! Get off your high horse, already! P Aculeius (talk) 14:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Non-NPOV editor

I just finished your long commentary, Aculaeius. I suspected there was something wrong when your changes mainly reverted almost all the changes I had made. In your commentary you miscast everything I say. You plainly are being confrontative and that is the wrong attitude for WP. This isn't your article, it is our article, all of us. I think I have reached the point of diminishing returns with you. You have demonstrated to me a great interest in opposing me but little interest in fixing the article. I don't like being called all these names, I don't like your deliberately miscasting everything I say, and I find you very unknowledgeable about Roman history and Prehistory. Moreover, you attack WP rules and procedures. The first thing you need to do is quit attacking me. Until you can manage that I will not communicate with you further. An apology would be in order. With regard to the article, some of the headings are off topic, some of the material belong in other articles, and the article is still in outline form. It need to be fleshed out with adequately referenced material. What I said before is still true. In a few months or less I will be changing those things I mentioned, with all due respect to what you already have, of course. If you persist in this unreasonable confrontation I will be following WP rules, including the use of tags to mark inadequate places. I'm afraid what you cast as my "smug, superior" attitude is really your own ignorance and intractable persona. No one knows everything. We can learn from anyone. It is best if we keep an open mind. Attacking everyone who crosses you in any way whatever is only going to lead you into greater and greater conflict, and greater and greater error. Do you plan to take on the entire world? Seeing that you have decided to respond in this way I don't think I should have to put up with it. Answer however you please, I will not reply unless it begins with "I'm sorry." I may not read what you say. You're "making my day." When I get ready I will begin fixing the article.Botteville (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

More on non-POV editor

I just read Aculeius' user page. I must say, Aculeius, I am totally shocked and dismayed at the face you have chosen to display to me. Is this how you speak to your colleagues? What did I ever do to you except offer a critique of something you may have written! Is this how they talk to each other at your place of employment? You appear to have some contributions to WP. That is creditable, no doubt. I give you credit. I am linking to many I am sure. They seems to vary in quality. They are not so good that you can take your current rude attitude. But, there are a few more issues raised by your resume on WP. Do you know that professionals are forbidden to publish their work on WP? I hear that you are an expert in onomastics. Good for you. I don't see any of it here, what are you doing, holding back? I say that knowing that you cannot cite your own opinion on WP. That brings me around to another point. WP requires references, especially for opinions. You cannot just give your opinion as you would in a professional article. This is not the place for publication of original material. Things are different here. But here you are among us. Let me turn it around, who do you think YOU are? The god of WP just because you are a professional? Because you have spoken we must all jump into line? I dare say, you are not the only classicist around here and not the only person with an interest in onomastics. That is what puzzles me. If you know all this stuff, why are you not putting it in? Well, look, you have a lot to learn just like everyone else. No one is too old to learn. We have a unique way of writing these articles. You just can't throw in your opinon and expect it to be taken for granted. I'm mad, but not that mad. I'm not just going to leave the article to you if it isn't right. I would not have said the Curtia (gens) article was written by a professional. Looks like I am playing with the "big boys" now. Big Aculeius. Don't you EVER speak to me like that again! As it is now I cannot work with you. You will just have to work things out with me when I get started.Botteville (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

References

I can be of some small assistance on the references while thinking about the big picture. This is slow and gradual type work. First item. We need articles from Smith, not just "Smith." Second item. Using a Smith template for standardization. Third item. The "minor" parrots Smith's "obscure." Has to go. NPOV. Fourth item. Smith out of date. There were consuls under the empire. making changes.Botteville (talk) 22:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I've accepted most of your edits, except to the lead paragraph, which I've revised. I kept the reference to consuls under the Empire, although it's not usual in these articles to mention late magistracies due to their lack of real importance. Most gens articles are concerned primarily with figures under the Republic and the legendary origins of the family, unless the more important members were figures of imperial times. I've rephrased the part mentioning their significance in Roman myth; it's not the purpose of the article to assert whether the legends are true, false, or have a particular underpinning in historical facts. The section on the origin of the gens already implies uncertainty as to the legends. If we're trying to eliminate PoV, then it shouldn't get into an argument about whether the legends are true unless there's a very good reason.

I've put back the description of the gens as minor, since it clearly was. It's not "parroting" the DGRBM to render the original text's "obscure" as "minor," and the description is clearly justified by the following information. It's wrong to disregard scholarly opinion because simply you consider the source to be "out of date." This has been argued many times and it's always been decided that it's a perfectly good reference for most purposes. If you have a source that says it wasn't obscure, fine. But you can't just take something out because it's old. It's also misleading to refer to it simply as "Smith." William Smith didn't write the whole encyclopedia. There were thirty-six different authors. As for the template for including text from that encyclopedia, the article name wasn't originally part of the template. That's why it was attached without the article name. P Aculeius (talk) 02:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a somewhat better tone. Let's hope it lasts. I got no problem with the 1st paragraph as it is now. I'm not sure about the "minor." It sounds like opinion to me. But, if it were general opinion it might be all right. Maybe someone thinks it was not minor! It sort of catches the attention. One thing you have to guard against as a professional is speaking as if you were the expert. Whether you are or not I have no idea, but you can't adopt that persona on WP. That is the sticky problem with experts and authors writing on WP. With the minor, its location makes it tough to put a tag on. One is a little more lenient with the intro because its main purpose is only to introduce what comes after. Let me give it some thought.

There you go again, jumping to unwarranted conclusions. Good thing you are not in politics, you'd have us all in endless conflict across the plains of Heaven. I'm not disregarding ANY scholarly opinion unless it was superseded by further work. In fact you are taking my theme and singing my song. You have to guard against rash opinions. I suppose you will not like that, either. This reminds me of the clinical psychologists. They have your kid draw one picture and all of sudden they are telling you his whole history and frame of mind. Quit drawing conclusions about me, if you do not mind. And I am familiar with Smith. He is a favorite of mine, but even though he is legion, everyone still calls him Smith. WP has templates for Smith.

Speaking of Smith I believe you are sinning again. You put a whole bunch of information under one smith reference without an article name. WP wants the name of the article. When I go to look it up I find different articles. All right, I can look that up. But, there is some information not appearing in any articles I can find. In fact they look like your opinion. If you could fix that I would appreciate it. Save me the trouble. Since this is an onomastic thing I suspect you are putting your opinion in there. Sorry, but here you are not allowed to have an opinion other than general knowledge. Sometimes you can stretch the line a little but usually not too far. If you find those refs I would appreciate that. Don't feel bad, I still have people removing unreferenced things I wrote over 10 years ago on here. It isn't you, except insofar as you decide to get nasty.

Since we are on that topic, let me test your suppression of anger still more. I tried looking up those praenomina elsewhere on WP. Someone is making the same mistake; specifically, they are listing as a reference just Paluly-Wissova without any indication of article. Not allowed. There are some tags for that but I am hoping this will be settled before that point. If that was not you, forget it.

I got to go now. I wanted you to know I am going to be on this until it comes out reasonably right. But, this is too fast for me. I'm trying to get some other stuff moved along. Remember, if you can keep your cool when no one else does then you really are cool. But I suppose you wouldn't even consider that unless someone else said it. Later. There WILL be more changes.Botteville (talk) 03:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Since the article is quoted above, I assume restoring the citation for the cognomina listed is no longer arguable. With respect to the praenomina, there are multiple ways of addressing this. First, the Curtii listed in DGRBM under either Curtius or various cognomina demonstrate the usual praenomina of the gens. A more comprehensive group can be found by consulting PW, but unfortunately that's very difficult to do from home. I did at one time catalogue all of the individuals I could find in PW by name, but since I can't read German the names were all I was able to get for most individuals. I'm not sure whether counting people named in an encyclopedia should count as original research... but since all anyone would have to do to verify the fact is look at the cited source, I think it's at least arguably allowable; after all, summarizing the contents of a source is not original research.

But even without using either source, the list of individuals named in this article is sufficient to support a summary based on that list, in the same way that the lead paragraph of an article doesn't usually contain a lot of citations; normally it's just a summary of what's contained in the body. However, it seems wiser to cite the names used to an actual source that can be used to verify or refute that fact, even if, strictly speaking, it doesn't need a citation. Otherwise editors go around deleting things. So I would prefer to cite the list of praenomina used by the gens to the DGRBM, since the persons listed therein demonstrate the names used, and this source is much more accessible (at least for readers of English Wikipedia) than PW is. P Aculeius (talk) 05:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

More thoughts

I've been thinking about this. I did not expect your rapid responses. The way it is now, however, I'm beginning to agree with you that the "Origin" section does describe an origin, at least at Rome. I notice you worked it over. That being so, there is not a lot more to be done on the article at this point. Painful though it might have been, you improved it. I would have to say, except for the insults, this was a good response.

For the present there are some small items remaining, such as links to the Lacus Curtius article. Did you work on that one also? Never mind, it does not matter. We are not allowed to sign these things. Also, these chains of references are frowned on by WP. I think there might be more lists that should go under See also. I will be looking at these more closely with a view to enhancement and conformity to the formatting style. Other than that we are pretty well done for the moment. You can forget about a storm of tags.

For the future here is what I see. The articles for the people in the list need to be written, which will take the burden for referencing off this list. Let us keep the list, by all means. You may have the "early" instead of the "kingdom" if you prefer. I would not do it that way but it is only a point of style. So far no one else has expressed a preference. A second point perhaps a little closer is the etymology of Curtius. Oh, I like etymologies. They have to be carefully referenced however. You could not put your own etymology in there (or I mine). That would acquire a tag almost immediately. Related to that is the question of a Sabine family of Curtii. I don't know very much about it but I may come to know if there is anything much out there.

The final question in my mind is the relation of the Lacus Curtius material in this article to that in the Lacus Curtius article. There is some overlap there. I'm not saying that is necessarily bad. WP does allow some overlap. People seem not to like introductions that are just a reference and often ask for an expansion. I think any scientific or archaeological material on the Lacus would be relevant but frankly I would have to defer that to work on other things. Maybe you'd want to pursue it.

I do notice you pushing the line a bit with the opinions but you do have to express yourself and I tend to be more tolerant of it. Someone else, however, might throw a references tag on there. You should should be prepared for that event. Well, ciao, except for the minor embellishments I mentioned I am leaving this article for the time. I believe the article is better than when I bombed in here.Botteville (talk) 12:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)