Talk:Capitoline Wolf

message: Online documentation for this statuary is sorely lacking.  I tried for two hours to find the dimensions of it, and could not.  I know the one in Georgia is supposedly an full-size replica, and according to it, it weighs 1500 lbs.  Looking at it in context in front of the City Hall steps, it appears to measure about 2 ft x 3 ft.  Any help? Iamvered 03:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Googling "Lupa Capitolina cm" found the measurement in centimeters, now added to the article. --Wetman 12:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dimensions?

message: "When the twins' grandfather Numitor was overthrown by his brother Amulius, he ordered them to be cast into the River Tiber." Who did - Numitor or Amulius? PiCo
:I've re-edited, so that no one could be confused.--Wetman 19:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguity 

message: That the twins were added in the Renaissance is a commonplace of popular travel guides, which, with ninety seconds' worth of googling, might have been confirmed for even the least informed. I have added the NY Times travel guide to the articles "references" (!) but the online Frommer Guide has this: "...you'll find Lupa Capitolina (Capitoline Wolf), a rare Etruscan bronze that could date from the 5th century B.C. (Romulus and Remus, the legendary twins who were suckled by the wolf, were added at a later date.)" The attribution to Pollaiuolo (noted as "possible") in my edit, is also a commonplace, though not quite so universal:  "The figures of the twins,   Romulus and Remus,  being suckled by the Wolf (lupus), were added by Antonio Pollaiuolo in the 15th Century."   Now that it's been pointed out, I'm sure that a cursory inspection of the wolf and the twins will bear out their separate origins, even from a photograph. --Wetman 19:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The added twins

message: In which direction is expansion being requested? I have removed the tag from the head of the article itself, as unnecessarily disfiguring. Any concrete requests for expansion? --Wetman 12:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Expand"

message: On the one hand, the article states, "after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire the Capitoline Wolf was housed until 1471 in San Teodoro..."
On the other hand, the article also states, "The bronze wolf was said to have been unearthed under the northwest spur of Palatine Hill, and was noted at the Lateran Palace from the beginning of the 9th century."
There are two parallel histories presented here.  In the first, it seems the wolf was never lost in late antiquity, and remained in the Church of St. Theodore until it was moved to the Capitoline museum in 1471.
In the second, the wolf WAS lost, and only unearthed on the Palatine in the ninth century, after which it was on display at the Lateran palace law court.
Any way to explain the contradiction, or to smooth it out?
Simonesj 11:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: R. Lanciani, from the ext. links: "As regards the She-Wolf, the positive evidence of its being kept at the Lateran dates from the beginning of the ninth century. Benedict, a monk from Mount Soracte, who wrote a Chronicon in the tenth century, speaks of the institution of a supreme court of justice "in the Lateran p286palace, in the place called graffiti, viz., the mother of the Romans." Trials and executions "at the Wolf" are recorded from time to time until 1450. Paolo di Liello speaks of two highwaymen, whose hands, cut by the executioner, were hung at the Wolf. It was removed to the Conservatori palace on the Capitol in 1473, together with the colossal Head and the Camillus." I note the telltale formula "was said to have been... and I try to think what a ninth-century archaeological report would look like... --Wetman 17:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Text about San Teodoro was added by User:Neddyseagoon, 11 January 2007; text about "unearthed on the Palatine Hill" by User:Iamvered, 29 April 2006. Check with them: I've spent enough time on this. --Wetman 17:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The history in this article seems contradictory 

message: :Image:1960.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:1960.jpg

message: :Image:1960.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 18:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:1960.jpg

message: Italian wikipedia gives the reference Ranuccio Bianchi Bandinelli and Mario Torelli, L'arte dell'antichità classica, Etruria-Roma, Utet, Torino 1976. Can anyone find what is said here of the Lupa Capitolina? --Wetman (talk) 04:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: A reference

message: This article has been made obsolete. The University of Salerno has recently concluded, after a battery of tests, that the wolf was cast in the 13th century. The additions of Romulus and Remus were cast in the 15 century  --Jeremiahta (talk) 14:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've rewritten the article to bring it up to date. One of the peculiarities of the current situation is that 200 years' of scholarship is now going to have to be thrown out - all those learned books and articles telling us about how the wolf is a prime example of Etruscan art... -- ChrisO (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done ChrisO. You're right, lots of work there.  Doug Weller (talk) 18:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

text:  Linking the Times article. --Ghirla-трёп- 10:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This entire article is no longer valid 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Capitoline Wolf. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060118132131/http://www.romegeorgia.org:80/capitolinewolf.asp to http://www.romegeorgia.org/capitolinewolf.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Capitoline Wolf. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070319052408/http://www.museicapitolini.org:80/percorsi/percorsi_per_sale/appartamento_dei_conservatori/sala_della_lupa/lupa_capitolina to http://www.museicapitolini.org/percorsi/percorsi_per_sale/appartamento_dei_conservatori/sala_della_lupa/lupa_capitolina
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060516045944/http://www.museicapitolini.org/en/eventi/mostre_lupa.htm to http://www.museicapitolini.org/en/eventi/mostre_lupa.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060516045944/http://www.museicapitolini.org/en/eventi/mostre_lupa.htm to http://www.museicapitolini.org/en/eventi/mostre_lupa.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Capitoline Wolf. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060118132131/http://www.romegeorgia.org/capitolinewolf.asp to http://www.romegeorgia.org/capitolinewolf.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:41, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Re: the opening paragraph.  According to Plutarch, Amulius ordered their death, but there is no legend that the twins were actually cast into the river and "saved" by the wolf. Rather, they were placed in a feeding trough by a servant and left under a tree near the river.  There they were suckled by a she-wolf for a short time before being discovered.  (Later the feeding trough became an important relic.) Dmforcier (talk) 01:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Plutarch is a late source, and not even a Roman. There are of course many variant accounts, covered in a bit more detail in the article actually on the twins. Johnbod (talk) 08:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misstatement