Talk:Comitium

message: Please indicate what is wrong with the images and they can and will be altered in as timely a fasion as possible.
"Illustrate by consensus" is an experiament.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am removing these images and posting them at the project discussion to see if I can get contributions to more accurately illustrate this subject.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help make the illustrations better 

message: I have identified this article as having a rating that is too low. The subject should have a top importance and should be a subject hub for all details that link to this page. The comitium was the original forum when the Forum Romano was covered by a royal residence (the original Regia), it is here where Republican government was born and here that many legends of the founding of the city center around.
It's political importance is pretty high as the location for both the Rostra and the Curia and other political assemblies. It was a place of high honor where the first monuments of the Republic were displayed and where the Ambassadors of foreign lands would be greeted.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: To high reassesed with more nuetral eye on individual project importance.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-write, re-rated and Infobox/subject hub 

message: Many more monuments written about...the three Sybil's, the statues of Pythagoras and Alcibiades and the small statues of the ambassadors that were assassinated.--69.62.180.178 (talk) 06:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional monuments 

message: I really need to change the main image as it is not the actual comitium space, but the roman Forum and the Ipmerial commitium after the time of Caesar. Anyone know where I can locate an image?--Amadscientist (talk) 07:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The current drawing appears to be original research, especially the placement of the "Ancient Comitium" and the "Curia Cornelia". It's sources need documentation to avoid violation of WP:OR. WCCasey (talk) 19:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhm....original research is actually acceptable in images, but this and all its information is based on a similar diagram I found in a public domain book source.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmmm. Now I think I may be wrong here. --Mark Miller (talk) 04:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main Image 

message: The following information appeared in the Lapis Niger article, and makes more sense, practically, than any architectural or structural description currently appearing here, and so I suggest it be incorporated here: 
In addition, the following section:
* Structures within the comitium, see   
in this article defies the general structure, which on its face appears to follow a chronological description, shifting abruptly, mid-stride, to turn in this architectural/structural direction. This should either go as a subsection of some other chronological section, or it should be renamed/edited to fit into the general flow/structure of the article.
Le Prof  Leprof 7272 (talk) 03:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: While the snippet is clearly in the public domain, we try hard to avoid direct copying. Perhaps we could add it as a quote from Platner himself?--Mark Miller (talk) 03:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Platner's letter was only about work-in-progress.  It shouldn't be used as an authoritative statement when his published final works are available.Vicedomino (talk) 15:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some further issues regarding "understandability" 

message: An uncomfortable number of items are not about the comitium, but just general works on ancient Rome.  Some paring down and cleanup is needed.  For example, what is the point of:  Hubbard, Thomas (2003). Homosexuality in Greece and Rome?  It's used to reference a comment by Cicero, but there are hundreds of translations of Cicero's works in English.  Why drag in a source book, which is likely not available to the masses? Several books are presented as new and current, while they are only reprints of old (or very old) works.  Ann Vasaly's Representations: Images of the World in Ciceronian Oratory, is tangential to the subject. Vicedomino (talk) 15:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Bibliography

message: The discussion is ongoing and fierce.  It is summarized, for example, in  Jeffrey Alan Becker, The Building Blocks of Empire: Civic Architecture, Central Italy, and the Roman Middle Republic (a dissertation U North Carolina Chapel Hill 2007), pp. 70-73,  which is available for reading at Google Books: https://books.google.com/books?id=5kMjzj8WJhgC&pg=PA70&dq=comitium&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjWjZ-ug8jLAhWGKGMKHdGgDJU4ChDoAQgzMAQ#v=onepage&q=comitium&f=false
Even if it cannot be used directly, it can still inform the writers of this article of where the discussion is--which is NOT where they think it is.
Also, some of the bibliography of Einar Gjerstad should be included, especially Early Rome Vol. I: Stratigraphical researches in the Forum Romanum and along the Sacra Via (1953); and Legends and Facts of Early Roman History (1962).
Vicedomino (talk) 15:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Archaeology