Talk:Nova Roma

message: 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)
thread_title: Wikipedia and others cite Nova Roma as a source

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Ah, thanks! Whogue 09:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recruitment tent photo

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  A new [[Commons:image:SPQR flag.png|flag]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Nova Roma isnt a true Roman Revivalist group 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: One source is the book "Cornelia, Mother of the Gracchi" by Suzanne Dixon. Searching for "Nova Roma" on Google Books will find the reference. Cn Caelius (talk) 04:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Three more sources are "Modern Paganism in World Cultures" by Michael Strmiska, "Introduction to Pagan Studies" by Barbara Jane Davy, and the "Numismatist" edition from 2003. These are all accessible via Google Books or can be purchased from Amazon. Cn Caelius (talk) 04:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: I think this article lacks notability. No one has heard of this group. James Frankcom (talk) 06:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're wrong. Obviously the members of Nova Roma have heard of it, as well as past members. As well as numerous Roman Reenactor groups. And all of these people talking about it on this talk page have heard of it. Also, Nova Roma was referenced in a blog about the obituary of a fallen soldier who was a member(the original online article is gone). So how can you claim no one has heard of it? --AnnaBucci (talk) 00:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

text: First and foremost, I cannot see why you wouldn't be sated by all the third party secondary sources which have been provided here and in the article. I am no member of Nova Roma, but I found extremely useful either the wikipedia article about them, either the quoted secondary source. I surely vote to remove the notability tag altogheter.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aledeniz (talk • contribs) 21:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources in the article at present do not meet Wikipedia's requirements for reliable secondary sources that are independant of the article's topic and are primarly about the topic. For example, the sources dealing with the Magna Mater project and excavations of the SW side of the Palatine hill barely (if at all) mention Nova Roma. Likewise for the sources dealing with religion and paganism. I can't quickly evaluate the Dixon book, but I'm guessing that the same is true of it. The Secretary of State filing does absolutely nothing toward establishing notability; it only tells us that Nova Roma has been a non-profit organization since 2001. Personally, I think Nova Roma may be notable, but these sources are wholly inadequate for Wikipedia's purposes. cmadler (talk) 21:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: They do exist though. I believe Nova Roma is one of the cyber-empires mentioned in Liceaga, A.C. (10 June 2002) "Cibernaciones: pai'ses que solo existen en Internet", Mural. Ottre 21:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

text:  I spent 5 minutes searching in Google News, and I come up with three articles from the Portland Press Herald, a newspaper that according to Wikipedia, was founded in 1862 and has got a daily circulation of 66050 copies: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-55171966.html from 2002, http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-79773849.html from 2003, http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-99075840.html from 2004. Other five minutes spent on Google Books found out Nova Roma quoted in Down the Moon, although arguably probably just an item in a list, History Highway, still a list item, but with a short introduction, Paganism in World Cultures, almost 2 pages, plus various other quotes (i.e. in a book called "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Paganism", in another called "Numismatist", and so on, which were mostly reported before in this discussion or in the article). Last but not least, does  about the Magna Mater project "barely" mention Nova Roma? I do personally think they could have chosen a better name, the main Nova Roma page should probably redirect to Constantinople, as it is surely the most common usage for the term (I actually came to read the article about their organisation while looking for information about the past names of nowadays Istanbul), but I don't think their page warrant deletion. --Alessandro Riolo (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying the page should be deleted. I do think Nova Roma is notable, I just don't think the sources currently in the article are adequate to support that. Even if they are mentioned in the Magna Mater website, I don't think it meets Wikipedia's requirements for a reliable, secondary source. It can be used as a source for factual statements, but not to establish notability. cmadler (talk) 13:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what Citizensship Studies is, but if it's being used to support notability, it needs to be listed in the "References" section of the article. cmadler (talk) 12:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability - again

message: At the risk of sounding over-fussy, and admitting that I'm not a true reconstructionist myself, I can't help noticing that a number of references to the Religio Romana link to this article.  Maybe I'm just misinformed, but I understood 'Religio Romana' to be a term describing the religious system of the Roman people pre-Christianity, as opposed to an integral and exclusive part of the practices of the Nova Roma organisation (NR).
Which is to say that while I recognise that citizens and associates of Nova Roma (NR) do practice the reconstructed Religio, there are also practitioners and reconstructionists who are NOT associated with NR.
So my question is, should articles referencing 'Religio Romana' perhaps link first to Religion in ancient Rome, rather than to Nova Roma?
(The question of whether the Religion in ancient Rome article should carry any reference to modern reconstructionism is probably for that article; but I'll wait and see if anyone wants to correct me here before I start on that.  If I have it wrong, and the term 'Religio Romana' refers specifically to reconstructed Roman religion, then please let me know.)  - Laterensis (talk) 12:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll ask once more on this, simply to give people a chance to correct me before I start redirecting links.  Again, if 'Religio Romana' applies only to Nova Roma, or if there is some other reason why such links should come here to the NR article, then please let me know. - Laterensis (talk) 12:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

text: You are right, Laterensis. Only *modern* Roman religion should be directed to Nova Roma. Ancient religion goes to ancient Roman religion. But currently Nova Roma is the only one article in the Wikipedia that is about modern recostructionism, so links about modern reconstructions CAN be linked to this article. --Gonda Attila (talk) 06:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should modern Roman religion point only to Nova Roma? Modern Christianity doesn't point to Catholicism, modern Islam doesn't point to Sunni. Seems as if you cannot remain unbiased, can you, Lentulus? Chris Weimer (talk) 17:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does Religio Romana = Nova Roma? 

message: The Religio Romana link from the Ceres page directed here. My question is, does this organization represent the totality of present day Roman religious reconstructionism? I'm thinking it probably doesn't, as from the article Nova Roma  seems to be a social organization of which religion is only one component, and not even a requirement. Also there are surely people practicing the religion of ancient Rome today who are not members of Nova Roma. Maybe the two subjects should be separated to avoid confusion.Lily20 (talk) 16:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that these two things are not the same. The link from Ceres should be to Roman polytheistic reconstructionism, and that needs to be worked on as well. Whogue (talk) 08:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the above was written, Roman polytheistic reconstructionism itself has been redirected to Polytheistic reconstructionism, where the only info about it was a list of refs (external links to some Roman-recon groups) and the phrase "see Nova Roma."  Yup...this question all over again, when I thought we'd agreed that they are not one and the same thing...  So I removed "see Nova Roma".  Which leaves us needing a real article about Roman poly recon for the mention on the Poly recon page to link to.  Surely someone who knows something about the topic could write an informative, engaging article about the broader movement, including but not limited to its place in Nova Roma? -- Marius the Wanderer 01:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nova Roma = Religio Romana? again 

message: Having waited a year for references to show up, I removed what I thought to be the most serious neutrality and reference issues. Can we take a look at the remainder, sort it out and get rid of the NPOV tag? Whogue (talk) 04:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Having removed the last unsourced material and seeing no comments since November 2010 I was bold and removed the "neutrality" tag. Whogue (talk) 07:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: After checking the sources and references given for the section Nova Roma#Internal_problems_as_of_2011, it is quite apparent that the claims therein lack verifiability, and the source (a blog) does not seem reliable. The claims come from an unidentifiable blogger, probably from a disgruntled former Nova Roma member who might have a malicious agenda of vendetta or whatnot. I suggest careful consideration before any claims from such a blog would be accepted as "reliable sources". I suggest that the statements in this section be supported by sources more reliable than a vendetta blog of a disgruntled Nova Roma member, or be deleted. Gonda Attila (talk) 19:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: After having waited 6 months, it seems no editor of this article can voice objection against the removal of the unreferenced and unreliable material. Section removed per WP:RS, in agreement with User:Haploidavey's edit's comment. --Gonda Attila (talk) 16:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Unreliable source used as reference to the section about internal problems

message: So why are far more notable uses of nova roma over at a disambig but this internet forum dominates the page? I'm not even sure its notable enough to warrant an article let alone being THE nova roma...--90.216.117.92 (talk) 21:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The most notable use of the name "Nova Roma" is when it is used as an alternative reference to Constantinople. However, Constantinople already has its own article. Currently only the organization Nova Roma uses this denomination as its sole and proper protected trademarke name. All other uses of "Nova Roma" are second names; except the organization Nova Roma, which can by no other name be referred to. Gonda Attila (talk) 18:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambig?

message: Under the heading Roman religion, we have "As a polytheistic reconstuctionist practice, the religio Romana or cultus deorum Romanorum, Latin denominations used by Nova Roma adherents when referring to their religion, is reported to attract people especially of military background." Three supporting references are given. Only the last actually supports this content - Strmiska, Michael: Modern Paganism in World Cultures: Comparative Perspectives, pp. 335-36. ABC-CLIO, 2005. This citation should come first; in fact, I'd say it's the only citation required. The other two "citations" offer links to a single example of a person of military background who was a member of Nova Roma. If this is to be kept, one link is ample, clearly footnoted as illustration of a single example. Haploidavey (talk) 12:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Supporting references

message: How does the unfortunate death of one Indiana National Guardman show that NovaRoma draws members, "especially of military background"?  I don't see it at all. 138.162.128.54 (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "especially of military background"?