Talk:Religion in ancient Rome

message: This article needs a lot of work. Some sections are really confused and seem uncertain as to what the overall goal of the article is. I'll be removing some unsourced / poorly written sections. 8bitW (talk) 22:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sprawling and confused 

message: Thank you for your comments, I certainly appreciate them. I have followed up on Do ut des. I think the glossary entry is quite good. I see that the link is still included in the sacrifice section (which is the appropriate section for this.) As for the lede, I agree with above comments that the lede should be the last thing edited, it was my mistake to start there. But, the statement that "this approach to religion was practical and contractual" is not sourced in the article. (Do ut des is currently entirely unsourced). While this is a legal term, discussed even in sources like Joseph Storys commentaries, I'm concerned about the lackadaisical approach to sourcing in this article. We shouldn't say more then the sources say, for example calling it "practical" I see some interesting discussion of it in WP:RS here but I can't find any sources describing it as "practical", the closest I can find is this source  which describes it as "manipulative" and "corrupt" Seraphim System (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do ut des 

message: Yet Theodosius accepted comparison with Hercules and Jupiter as a living divinity in the panegyric of Pacatus, and despite his active dismantling of Rome's traditional cults and priesthoods could commend his heirs to its overwhelmingly Hellenic senate in traditional Hellenic terms.
I pretty much guarantee 100% comprehension failure of this lofty, abstract diction at a grade eight reading level. I just approached this at a grade 18 reading level, and I only have a sketch of a hypothesis about what sentiment this sentence endeavours to impart. 
For instance, just what does "it" reference here? Most viable antecedents would be "his", "her", or "their": 
* Theodosius — his
* Hercules — his
* Jupiter — his
* living divinity — hard to say; superficially low on itishness
* panegyric of Pacatus — the one good "it" candidate 
* Rome's traditional cults and priesthoods — their 
* his heirs — their
"Panegyric of Pacatus's overwhelmingly Hellenic senate" it is, then. 
Seriously, there has to be a more direct route. — MaxEnt 22:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: How is this a "roundabout" tone? "It" is surely Rome - famous for having a senate, unlike say Hercules? Johnbod (talk) 23:21, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roundabout tone 

message: Given the terrible treatment at Suicide#History, History of suicide, Suicide in antiquity, and Religious views on suicide, it would be helpful to have a decent place here where Roman suicide could be redirected and where those other pages could pull better treatment from. It may even fall under or alongside the bit on human sacrifice, since it was perfectly honorable in some cases for a human to choose to sacrifice themselves to preserve dignity, atone for disgrace, etc. in a way that probably informs what the Romans considered wrong and barbaric about sacrificing others. — LlywelynII 19:29, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Suicide