Rome - 2/4/07 - Testudo Et Lepus (The Tortoise and the Hare)

[thedudeabides]

Another great episode.

I'm sad to see Max Pikris replaced (the original Octavian), but I guess he was too young for the role?

[bdlucas]

As I was watching the referee gesture while announcing the call in the Superbowl I was reminded of the public announcer guy in Rome. We were treated to another performance tonight. :up: I wonder if he had to go to public announcer school to learn the gestures? Or was it more freestyle, like rap?

Some other connections with modern life: I wonder how historically accurate the that the kitchen maid sang was? My impression was we didn't have much of a record of what music actually sounded like in ancient times.

And how about the crude magnifying glass that the slave camp owner used to examine Caesar's seal. High-quality optical devices like eyeglasses, microscopes, and telescopes weren't invented until much later, but I suppose it wasn't long after the invention of glass that someone noticed the magnifying properties of a convex lump of glass.

Not from the show, but I remember being fascinated to see Roman-era gladiator souvenir drinking glasses in the glass museum in Corning New York. They featured the name of your favorite gladiator and a crude embossed representation of the gladiator.

[Royster]

Bah! I didn't see this thread. I hope the moderators delete the other one I started.

Not sure how the episode title applies. The moral of the story of the tortise and the hare is usually put as "Slow and steady wins the race."

Alia doesn't take the poison.

It looks like a very grave mistake to let Sevillia live.

I don't like the new actor for Octavian. I suppose they did need an older actor at this point in the story, but his hair isn't even curly like the last actor's.

[dswallow]

I'll give the new actor some slack, but I really do miss the old actor playing Octavian. The new actor just doesn't look similar enough, and now I just keep getting the feeling of uneven aging going on since other characters are still being played by the same actors, yet we're to believe the same amount of time has passed.

[appleye1]

Another great episode.

I'm sad to see Max Pikris replaced (the original Octavian), but I guess he was too young for the role?I can't see any good reason for him to be replaced. He wasn't that young after all, and some creative makeup could have aged him as much as needed. It was a bit jarring, but I guess I'll get used to the new Octavian.

I agree this was a great episode. Not sure exactly why I think that, but something about it just resonated with me.

[Figaro]

I wasn't that big a fan of the old Octavian but this was rather jarring. How much time is supposed to have passed?

Speaking of time, I could almost hear a stop watch start on the slave camp chief's life when they started looking for the last daughter in the brothel stalls.

[TiVo'Brien]

I found it interesting that none of the kids ran up to their father, threw their arms around him, and said something like "Oh, father, you've saved us." Even after having been cast out, I'd think the kids would be happy to have been rescued. Of course, by then, they were so traumatized that it didn't register that their life in slavery was over.

[thedudeabides]

I found it interesting that none of the kids ran up to their father, threw their arms around him, and said something like "Oh, father, you've saved us." Even after having been cast out, I'd think the kids would be happy to have been rescued. Of course, by then, they were so traumatized that it didn't register that their life in slavery was over.

Remember that the kids came home to find Vorenus holding his dead wife. He cursed them and then left, leaving them alone with her body. I can only imagine that they think he was the direct cause of her death. While they are happy to escape slavery, I think they are still very afraid of Vorneus.

I loved Cicero's reaction to Agrippa - Another Ceasar? Oh great.

[bdlucas]

I can't see any good reason for him to be replaced. He wasn't that young after all, and some creative makeup could have aged him as much as needed. It was a bit jarring, but I guess I'll get used to the new Octavian.
I think probably the reason they did that is even though not much time has passed and so he hasn't aged much physically, he's matured tremendously in his new "career in politics" :) and is in many ways a different person.

I agree it was jarring, and I'm not sure it was a great choice. But I wonder if it was forced on them - maybe the previous actor quit?

[TAsunder]

My guess is that it was physically impossible to make the previous actor look somewhat wiry and muscular in the time needed...?

[Figaro]

My guess is that it was physically impossible to make the previous actor look somewhat wiry and muscular in the time needed...?
Or was he to young to legally film the gay bath house scenes that would appear to be imminent?

[ClutchBrake]

I understand the need for a new Octavian. I'm sure it will be even more obvious by the end of the season. I think the new Octavian bears a striking resemblance to a young Paul Bettany.

I was really hoping last night would be the end of Servilia. I'm tired of the Atia/Servilia storyline.

[Figaro]

I understand the need for a new Octavian. I'm sure it will be even more obvious by the end of the season. I think the new Octavian bears a striking resemblance to a young Paul Bettany.

I was really hoping last night would be the end of Servilia. I'm tired of the Atia/Servilia storyline.
According to history:


Servilla lives on past Brutus and dies of natural causes.

I can't believe I just spoilerized history.

[Legion]

Spoiler'ish question.............<highlight below>

So did Timon's men give Servilia a good buggering before the whipping started? It was implied when that guy dropped the loincloth or whatever he had on. BUt they didnt speak of it or allude to it after. You think Attia would of rubbed it in a bit.

[TAsunder]

No need to spoiler that question, IMO. And I believe the answer is yes.

[cheesesteak]

Servilla vs Atia might be (fake) ancient history's greatest cat fight.

Were there *any* laws in Rome at the time? You could do whatever you wanted to do to someone and get away with it?

[Mabes]

Is Atia based even loosely on an historical figure? From Wikipedia I know very few women were recorded in history.

[Legion]

No need to spoiler that question, IMO. And I believe the answer is yes.

You never know in this forum. Alot of cry babies and I didnt know which one would be here this week.

[TAsunder]

Servilla vs Atia might be (fake) ancient history's greatest cat fight.

Were there *any* laws in Rome at the time? You could do whatever you wanted to do to someone and get away with it?

Well she did want a confession first. And per Jack Bauer, it's perfectly ok to torture someone for information.

[TostitoBandito]

Is Atia based even loosely on an historical figure? From Wikipedia I know very few women were recorded in history.

Yes, the historical mother of Octavia and Octavian was named Atia. They probably base some other things about her character on historical fact, but there is clearly a lot of fiction added for the sake of the story. History generally records her as a religious and caring individual. Her historical husband is also not mentioned at all in the show.

[thedudeabides]

Well she did want a confession first. And per Jack Bauer, it's perfectly ok to torture someone for information.

There is some really interesting background on this topic on the HBO website. The link is below.

http://www.hbo.com/rome/watch/season2/episode16.html

Apparently, it was not only legal, but required to torture a slave for his or her confession to be admissible in court. As for Servilia, the mere fact that she was tortured at all was an insult to her given her class status.

[Anubys]

not sure I understood Atia's reaction when the guy choked her and told her he's not an animal...she seemed a lot more shaken by it than was warranted...

once again, the only nudity is that of man's behind :down:

[Rob Helmerichs]

not sure I understood Atia's reaction when the guy choked her and told her he's not an animal...she seemed a lot more shaken by it than was warranted...
I think the realization that he is not her complete and utter bitch shook her world to the core...

[Fahtrim]

not sure I understood Atia's reaction when the guy choked her and told her he's not an animal...she seemed a lot more shaken by it than was warranted...

once again, the only nudity is that of man's behind :down:

Incorrect, nudity in the slave camp of women. One on the stake and one right before Vorenus found his last daughter.

[Figaro]

Incorrect, nudity in the slave camp of women. One on the stake and one right before Vorenus found his last daughter.
Yeah man, nothing hotter than a dead broad on the cross!

[Mabes]

There is some really interesting background on this topic on the HBO website. The link is below.

http://www.hbo.com/rome/watch/season2/episode16.html

Apparently, it was not only legal, but required to torture a slave for his or her confession to be admissible in court. As for Servilia, the mere fact that she was tortured at all was an insult to her given her class status.

From the link-

Later of course, under the Emperors, torture also formed a titillating part of the entertainments put on in the theatre and amphitheatre. When the presentation, perhaps in the re-enactment of some Greek myth, called for, say, disembowelment, a real slave was provided for the purpose.


Gives a whole new meaning to dying on stage.

[DanB]

not sure I understood Atia's reaction when the guy choked her and told her he's not an animal...she seemed a lot more shaken by it than was warranted...


Not sure if she was experiencing "shock" or sexual excitement there -- she seemed to have a look of fulfillment/pleasure there. I think she likes her men to be rough.

[Fahtrim]

Yeah man, nothing hotter than a dead broad on the cross!
I wasn't saying it was sexy or anything, just that there was female nudity.

[Fahtrim]

Not sure if she was experiencing "shock" or sexual excitement there -- she seemed to have a look of fulfillment/pleasure there. I think she likes her men to be rough.
I'm thinking she was shocked that her man rebelled. In those times, the help wasn't thought of as anything but beings who did their bidding without question. As stated above, she was shocked he wasn't completely tame.

Edit to give credit to Rob on the call he made above.

[Figaro]

I wasn't saying it was sexy or anything, just that there was female nudity.
Oh I was saying it. Nothing like a little Sunday night necrophilia! Mmmm mmmm!

[Fahtrim]

Oh I was saying it. Nothing like a little Sunday night necrophilia! Mmmm mmmm!
They do things different in MA.

[Figaro]

They do things different in MA.

Yeah, the Kennedys and all you know.

[Anubys]

Incorrect, nudity in the slave camp of women. One on the stake and one right before Vorenus found his last daughter.

I don't like female nudity to horrify me...but hey, that's just me! ;)

:p

[Figaro]

I don't like female nudity to horrify me...but hey, that's just me! ;)

:p
Come on, girl on the cross must have been nailed four or five times! ;)

[Fahtrim]

Come on, girl on the cross must have been nailed four or five times! ;)

Joy Hickey "OH SNAP!"

[DLiquid]

Incorrect, nudity in the slave camp of women. One on the stake and one right before Vorenus found his last daughter.I didn't realize breast implants were invented back then. This show really teaches me stuff. :up:

[mqpickles]

I'm thinking she was shocked that her man rebelled. In those times, the help wasn't thought of as anything but beings who did their bidding without question. As stated above, she was shocked he wasn't completely tame.

Edit to give credit to Rob on the call he made above.It also may have dawned on her that she took things too far. She definitely crossed a line and exceeded the bounds of her previous evil deeds. Not that she feels any moral shame, but her lover and her son are both far away and fighting each other. She's been talking big, but she relies on Timon for security. Having driven him off, she's left herself exposed and her mortal enemy alive. Oops.

[stiffi]

Servilla vs Atia might be (fake) ancient history's greatest cat fight.

Were there *any* laws in Rome at the time? You could do whatever you wanted to do to someone and get away with it?

Atia made mention of this, to Timon I think?

She said since Servilla tried to poison her, she could make it out to be self defense if she killed her.

Having said that, there are a lot of things that don't jive with law in the show.

For instance Vorenus' kids. They are Roman citizens, and it would be illegal to make them slaves. Therefore, he and Pullo should have walked right in and demanded they be turned over to them, instead of trying to bargain.

[Rob Helmerichs]

For instance Vorenus' kids. They are Roman citizens, and it would be illegal to make them slaves. Therefore, he and Pullo should have walked right in and demanded they be turned over to them, instead of trying to bargain.
Although I suspect if they had, it would have ended with the slave-trader trying to kill Vorenus and Pullo in order to protect his investment and avoid prosecution. And they probably knew that.

[Anubys]

plus, I don't think they had any papers to prove what they were claiming...

the kids were too young to have a chariot license ;)

[Rob Helmerichs]

But since Vorenus no doubt claims them as dependents, they must have Social Security cards...

Oh, wait. Wrong thread.

[TonyTheTiger]

Oh I was saying it. Nothing like a little Sunday night necrophilia! Mmmm mmmm!

Yuk - dead boring!!!

Well, in historical terms...

Antony only has about a year left before he dies


...so it'll be intereesting to see how far they take the story.

[heySkippy]

Yuk - dead boring!!!

Well, in historical terms...

Antony only has about a year left before he dies


...so it'll be intereesting to see how far they take the story.
I don't think that's true. It was a year between the assassination of Julius Caesar and the events of this episode.

It's another dozen years before his final defeat.

[Anubys]

I really don't think we should put history in spoilers...

I do believe it's one more year for him, though...I don't recall the war lasting that long between him and Octavian...

[ClutchBrake]

I really don't think we should put history in spoilers...

I disagree. I feel the same way about Deadwood. If it hasn't yet happened on Rome/Deadwood it should be in spoiler tags.

[heySkippy]

Caesar was assassinated in 44 BC. The battle in this episode was in 43 BC.

Antony commits suicide in 30 BC.

[Anubys]

Caesar was assassinated in 44 BC. The battle in this episode was in 43 BC.

Antony commits suicide in 30 BC.

my fault...you're right...for some reason, I thought it was 40, not 30...

[dcheesi]

Remember that the kids came home to find Vorenus holding his dead wife. He cursed them and then left, leaving them alone with her body. I can only imagine that they think he was the direct cause of her death. While they are happy to escape slavery, I think they are still very afraid of Vorneus.In particular I think it was clear that the boy understood the situation, and that his "father" might want to kill him. OTOH, I think the daughters (especially the last one) were just too weary & traumatized to show much emotion. I did think it odd that the first girl didn't even show any sign of recognition initially.

[stiffi]

I really don't think we should put history in spoilers...

I do believe it's one more year for him, though...I don't recall the war lasting that long between him and Octavian...

I agree about History and spoilers. No need to hide the information. If something comes up in Rome, that you are surprised by, because you failed to learn it in High School, that's not my problem.

[heySkippy]

I agree about History and spoilers. No need to hide the information. If something comes up in Rome, that you are surprised by, because you failed to learn it in High School, that's not my problem.
But if you post it here without spoiler tags, it will be a problem.

Just because you don't care doesn't give you the right to assume the same for everyone else.

[stiffi]

But if you post it here without spoiler tags, it will be a problem.

Just because you don't care doesn't give you the right to assume the same for everyone else.

You're missing the point. It's not a spoiler if it's a part of history, and thus, common knowledge.

For instance, if you went to see Titanic and somebody told you "hey the boat sinks" in line, would you be mad?

I wouldn't post anything episode specific, obviously.

I'm just saying if someone slips and says something like "Caesar is murdered" or the like, you can't blame them.

[drew2k]

You're missing the point. It's not a spoiler if it's a part of history, and thus, common knowledge.

For instance, if you went to see Titanic and somebody told you "hey the boat sinks" in line, would you be mad?

I wouldn't post anything episode specific, obviously.

I'm just saying if someone slips and says something like "Caesar is murdered" or the like, you can't blame them.I think you're missing the point ... We are watching a dramatization of fictional events, and history is unfolding before the viewers' eyes at the pace the writers and producers determine. Although many people are familiar with ancient Roman history, many of those same people would prefer to be surprised or pleasantly reminded when history "repeats itself" during a particular episode of the series.

As someone else said, if it hasn't happened on the show yet, it hasn't happened. We're here to discuss and enjoy the TV series, so it makes perfect sense to me that anything "outside the series" (historical facts) should be in spoilers.

[dswallow]

I think you're missing the point ... We are watching a dramatization of fictional events, and history is unfolding before the viewers' eyes at the pace the writers and producers determine. Although many people are familiar with ancient Roman history, many of those same people would prefer to be surprised or pleasantly reminded when history "repeats itself" during a particular episode of the series.

As someone else said, if it hasn't happened on the show yet, it hasn't happened. We're here to discuss and enjoy the TV series, so it makes perfect sense to me that anything "outside the series" (historical facts) should be in spoilers.
I disagree. It's a dramatization; that they often dovetail with accepted historical fact doesn't make historical fact spoilerable; especially if you have no specific knowledge the series is going to stick to historical fact in that instance. It's just speculative that any particular thing will be dramatized in a particular way.

[heySkippy]

I disagree. It's a dramatization; that they often dovetail with accepted historical fact doesn't make historical fact spoilerable; especially if you have no specific knowledge the series is going to stick to historical fact in that instance. It's just speculative that any particular thing will be dramatized in a particular way.
Using the spoilered bits just a few posts up in this thread is a good example of why we should spoiler.

Marc Antony is going to kill himself in 13 years after many, many events involving all the characters in this show. I would guess that the vast majority of people watching Rome right now have no idea exactly when he dies and as far as they know he might die in the very next episode. It makes perfect sense to spoiler discussion about such specific events that haven't occurred yet in the show.

[dswallow]

Using the spoilered bits just a few posts up in this thread is a good example of why we should spoiler.

Marc Antony is going to kill himself in 13 years after many, many events involving all the characters in this show. I would guess that the vast majority of people watching Rome right now have no idea exactly when he dies and as far as they know he might die in the very next episode. It makes perfect sense to spoiler discussion about such specific events that haven't occurred yet in the show.
I'd say the majority of people are completely clueless about the actual timeline the show is following and wouldn't be able to tell you when or if at least 13 years passed between any two given episodes.

BTW, the Roman Empire falls. :p

[BobB]

I disagree. It's a dramatization; that they often dovetail with accepted historical fact doesn't make historical fact spoilerable; especially if you have no specific knowledge the series is going to stick to historical fact in that instance. It's just speculative that any particular thing will be dramatized in a particular way.

Gotta jump in here on the "should I spoilerize history" issue. First of all, you're simply being snobbish in presuming that everyone should remember all the details of Roman history, if they even learned it in the first place - I studied Latin for four years in high school but couldn't possibly have told you what year Antony died.

But more importantly, if even a few people reading this forum want to be surprised by the outcome (and I suspect there are many more than a few), it is your responsibility as a decent forum member to respect them and spoilerize such things. It costs you but a couple of seconds and doesn't prevent you from writing whatever you like. Plus it keeps the discussion from digressing into non-show-related topics like this one.

[heySkippy]

But more importantly, if even a few people reading this forum want to be surprised by the outcome (and I suspect there are many more than a few), it is your responsibility as a decent forum member to respect them and spoilerize such things. It costs you but a couple of seconds and doesn't prevent you from writing whatever you like. Plus it keeps the discussion from digressing into non-show-related topics like this one.
Quoted for truth.

[dswallow]

Gotta jump in here on the "should I spoilerize history" issue. First of all, you're simply being snobbish in presuming that everyone should remember all the details of Roman history, if they even learned it in the first place - I studied Latin for four years in high school but couldn't possibly have told you what year Antony died.

But more importantly, if even a few people reading this forum want to be surprised by the outcome (and I suspect there are many more than a few), it is your responsibility as a decent forum member to respect them and spoilerize such things. It costs you but a couple of seconds and doesn't prevent you from writing whatever you like. Plus it keeps the discussion from digressing into non-show-related topics like this one.
I absolutely don't believe everyone or anyone should remember Roman history to that extent; But it's a fictional dramatization that is only based on historical events, not a documentary that's trying to follow them exactly. They're two different stories and while the names might be the same, to some extent, they're different.

Spoilerize history if you want. I won't. Nor is it necessary to do so. Until such time as the rules state history has to be spoilerized, at least. Spoilerize everything in every post you make, if you want. You might accidentally mention something that clues someone in on something they'll watch in the future, recognize, and work themselves up over having learned inadvertently from you instead of being "surprised."

If one is so sensitive that any little possible hint of something that comes up from which there might be aspects of a story based upon, one may as well not be reading anything anywhere.

What gets real tiring is all these spoiler arguments that keep ruining otherwise interesting discussions about episodes.

[Mabes]

Using the spoilered bits just a few posts up in this thread is a good example of why we should spoiler.

Marc Antony is going to kill himself in 13 years after many, many events involving all the characters in this show. I would guess that the vast majority of people watching Rome right now have no idea exactly when he dies and as far as they know he might die in the very next episode. It makes perfect sense to spoiler discussion about such specific events that haven't occurred yet in the show.


You spoiled it for me! I couldn't resist reading the inviting whited out text. I think all spoilers should be in an external, password protected link.

Seriously, in a show like this, I like the fact that I now know exactly what happened to Antony, it makes how he gets there more interesting, which is almost always what historical drama is about. Hell, it's always what it's about, unless you are watching movies in school.

[TAsunder]

On the other hand, I like the fact that I know next to nothing because I forgot it all a few seconds after the school bell rang, because now there is a whole world of possibility. Until I grow impatient and read wikipedia articles on the subject.

[thedudeabides]

I, for one, would love to talk about the real history vs. its portrayl on the show without spoiler tags, but I understand why some don't want the "surprise" to be ruined.

Can we start another "spoiler" thread for those of us who want to discuss the history?

[thedudeabides]

OK! Here it is, for the people who want to discuss "spoilers":

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=340012

[dmdeane]

As I was watching the referee gesture while announcing the call in the Superbowl I was reminded of the public announcer guy in Rome. We were treated to another performance tonight. :up: I wonder if he had to go to public announcer school to learn the gestures? Or was it more freestyle, like rap?
Hard to say since almost the only info we have on classical theater are the remnants of the amphitheaters and some of the plays. How actors or announcers performed is less well known (actors wore masks, btw) but certain things were probably the same for them as for all announcers prior to the invention of electronic amplification: anything that you could do to enhance the effect would be fair game. What would be considered "hamming it up" for a movie or TV actor would be required for someone trying to communicate with a crowd without electronic amplification, and that would include florid hand gestures. 19th century public speakers actually did something like this, using the dramatic gesture to underline a specific point. Our modern electronic media is a "cool" media where less is more; ie, those kinds of old fashioned ways of delivering a speech look foolish and overdone or "hammy" under the glare of electronic media.

The actor playing the part of the public announcer is the British actor Ian McNeice (http://imdb.com/name/nm0573862/). He played Baron Harkonnen in the TV version of Dune (I loved his version of that character even if the overall TV version of Dune wasn't much better than the movie version - he brought a certain Shakespearean element to the role which IMO was very appropriate). I also remember him from his role in The Englishman Who Went Up a Hill But Came Down a Mountain.

Some other connections with modern life: I wonder how historically accurate the that the kitchen maid sang was? My impression was we didn't have much of a record of what music actually sounded like in ancient times.
Good point. The song sounded pretty modern to me. I've read - and I've no idea how true this is - that classical Greek and Roman song would have sounded a bit more like Japanese or Chinese song, more like a poem or chant accompanied by rhythmic musical instruments like the lyre. I'm probably botching that description up.
And how about the crude magnifying glass that the slave camp owner used to examine Caesar's seal. High-quality optical devices like eyeglasses, microscopes, and telescopes weren't invented until much later, but I suppose it wasn't long after the invention of glass that someone noticed the magnifying properties of a convex lump of glass.
IIRC, they have found a turned, or ground glass lens in the ruins of one of the cities of ancient Babylonia, so some kind of crude magnifying glass probably existed long before the Romans:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonia

The ner of 600 and the sar of 3600 were formed from the unit of 60, corresponding with a degree of the equator. Tablets of squares and cubes, calculated from 1 to 60, have been found at Senkera, and a people acquainted with the sun-dial, the clepsydra, the lever and the pulley, must have had no mean knowledge of mechanics. A crystal lens, turned on the lathe, was discovered by Austen Henry Layard at Nimrud along with glass vases bearing the name of Sargon; this could explain the excessive minuteness of some of the writing on the Assyrian tablets, and a lens may also have been used in the observation of the heavens.
Not from the show, but I remember being fascinated to see Roman-era gladiator souvenir drinking glasses in the glass museum in Corning New York. They featured the name of your favorite gladiator and a crude embossed representation of the gladiator.
The Roman era (and the Hellenistic era before it) were quite advanced in the arts and sciences. They had mechanical computers such as the Antikythera Mechanism (http://www.answers.com/topic/antikythera-mechanism), and their surgical instruments are surprisingly similar to modern surgical instruments, up to an including very specialized instruments for dealing with cataracts (ie, eye surgery).

[bdlucas]

They had mechanical computers such as the Antikythera Mechanism (http://www.answers.com/topic/antikythera-mechanism)
Yeah, that thing's amazing. It's been in the news lately as more detailed reconstructions of it have revealed its sophistication, including clever mechanisms that accounted for the elliptical orbit of the moon.

[TonyTheTiger]

I recently got ripped for not spoilerising the fact that a particular person from a previous show was going to appear on a current one. Nothing that affected the plot of the current show. I will spoilerize anything I'm not sure about from now on. At least that way if you didn't want to know, you can avoid highlighting the text.

As for reading wikipedia, why? Anyone can update it, so it's not always right. I hate people who quote from it as if it's a well-researched encyclopedia, when it's basically fan fiction!!

Anyway, back to the point - Rome is a great show and I will continue to watch and enjoy whether you want to argue historical accuracy or not!

[Rob Helmerichs]

As for reading wikipedia, why? Anyone can update it, so it's not always right. I hate people who quote from it as if it's a well-researched encyclopedia, when it's basically fan fiction!!
Somebody did a study that revealed that Wikipedia is slightly more accurate than Encyclopaedia Britannica...

[Figaro]

Somebody did a study that revealed that Wikipedia is slightly more accurate than Encyclopaedia Britannica...
Who? Almost anything I look up on Wiki is usually grossly inaccurate and written rather horribly.

[dcheesi]

On Wikipedia, any controversial subjects are automatically suspect. Most other stuff is relatively reliable; it may not be perfect or complete, but it's not fiction either. Excepting the occasional short-lived wiki vandalism, of course (which is why I'd never rely on it for work/school purposes).

[dswallow]

I recently got ripped for not spoilerising the fact that a particular person from a previous show was going to appear on a current one. Nothing that affected the plot of the current show.
Just because someone rips on you about not spoilerizing something doesn't make them right. :)

[getbak]

Somebody did a study that revealed that Wikipedia is slightly more accurate than Encyclopaedia Britannica...
Did you read that on Wikipedia? :)

[Rob Helmerichs]

Did you read that on Wikipedia? :)
Heh.

No, it was in the science journal Nature.

But I got it backwards...the study found that Britannica was slightly more accurate than Wikipedia.

My experience has been that Wikipedia has become very, very good, and is getting better. The only problem is that evil-doers and pranksters can slip whoppers in, and sometimes it takes a while for them to get noticed and edited out--although again, it seems to be less of a problem now than in the past.

[drew2k]

My experience has been that Wikipedia has become very, very good, and is getting better. The only problem is that evil-doers and pranksters can slip whoppers in, and sometimes it takes a while for them to get noticed and edited out--although again, it seems to be less of a problem now than in the past.If I'm not mistaken, I believe that Wikipedia no longer allows anonymous edits. If someone wants to contribute, they must now register and log their edits. I've also seen notices on several articles in Wikipedia that "the neutrality of this section is in dispute", with links to a talk page where the issues can be debated. I guess these changes are working and are helping to keep Wikipedia "honest" ...

[Figaro]

If I'm not mistaken, I believe that Wikipedia no longer allows anonymous edits. If someone wants to contribute, they must now register and log their edits. I've also seen notices on several articles in Wikipedia that "the neutrality of this section is in dispute", with links to a talk page where the issues can be debated. I guess these changes are working and are helping to keep Wikipedia "honest" ...
Too bad they can't monitor the rampant plagiarism that exists. It's a cut and paste heaven.

[dmdeane]

As for reading wikipedia, why? Anyone can update it, so it's not always right. I hate people who quote from it as if it's a well-researched encyclopedia, when it's basically fan fiction!!That's a gross exaggeration. Apart from occasional vandalism, or very controversial topics where you've got biased people fighting over control of the wiki topic, wiki is "good enough" for general casual research. Wiki is not a primary source - but then again, neither are traditional encyclopedias, either. Unfortunately most people don't understand the difference between primary and secondary sources. Overall wiki tends to be middle of the road "orthodox", things-generally-agreed-upon, and not some wild speculation by some random know-nothing.

I use generally use wiki to confirm things I already know. Most of the stuff I quote from wiki, is information I already knew and had learned a long time ago, but had forgotten or needed a refresher for. Wiki comes up first in a lot of searches, so why not use it. Nothing I have posted from wiki is the least bit controversial or speculative or unusual, and I defy anyone to prove otherwise.

Anyway, back to the point - Rome is a great show and I will continue to watch and enjoy whether you want to argue historical accuracy or not!
Does discussing the history really ruin your enjoyment of the show? I know when they aren't being historically accurate, and it does not ruin my enjoyment of the show. I don't think anyone was suggesting that historical inaccuracies detract from our enjoyment of the show.

[dmdeane]

Too bad they can't monitor the rampant plagiarism that exists. It's a cut and paste heaven.That's the nature of the beast.

But then again, other people are constantly plagiarizing wiki (do a search; there are other "informational" or encyclopedia websites that simply copy and paste info from wiki articles), so perhaps that's just the nature of the Internet.

[dmdeane]

Who? Almost anything I look up on Wiki is usually grossly inaccurate and written rather horribly.
On what topic?

On non-controversial topics I've searched, such as sports, TV shows, ancient history, etc., the articles are not only well written, but also accurate based on all the other evidence I have ever read.

On controversial topics (such as, for instance, modern history), I don't trust wiki, but then again I don't trust a lot of other so-called "safe" sources either.

[Figaro]

On what topic?

On non-controversial topics I've searched, such as sports, TV shows, ancient history, etc., the articles are not only well written, but also accurate based on all the other evidence I have ever read.

On controversial topics (such as, for instance, modern history), I don't trust wiki, but then again I don't trust a lot of other so-called "safe" sources either.
Just about anything regarding music and voice. A random google search for an opera singer landed me on Wiki the other day. Most of the singers pages were direct cut and pastes from the singers website and the plagiarism...I mean reference, was not even cited. What wasn't just blatantly copied looked as though it had been written by a fourteen year old. Much of the content about voice classification was incorrect and seemed to be based on the writers experiences in church choir.

That's just the music. If I happen to look at something for a TV show or comic book the tale is pretty much the same. A bunch of material cut and pasted from an uncited source combined with poorly written fangasm.

I can only imagine how frustrating it is for school teachers these days. How many kids are using Wiki for their papers instead of using proper sources?

[Anubys]

do we need a new thread in HH to discuss Wiki?

[Figaro]

do we need a new thread in HH to discuss Wiki?
I would rather just discuss Rome.