This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LatinWikipedia:WikiProject LatinTemplate:WikiProject LatinLatin articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical League, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Classical LeagueWikipedia:WikiProject Classical LeagueTemplate:WikiProject Classical LeagueClassical League articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rome, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the city of Rome and ancient Roman history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RomeWikipedia:WikiProject RomeTemplate:WikiProject RomeRome articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
He wrote more than three-quarters of extant Latin literature that is known to have existed in his lifetime[edit]
This is quite absurd, whether referring to actual books existing in Cicero's time, or books of his time that have survived to our own time. Any decent Loeb collection will disprove it.2A02:AA1:1029:5099:61C5:D47E:EFD2:2CE0 (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Serious work on content and structure needed[edit]
I went through and did some work on the referencing and some rewrites for early life. But that has (fatally) undermined for me any confidence in the article's contents. There were incorrect assertions littered through the first sections: someone added something citing Plut Caes not realising that is the wrong person and a section placed pro Caecina a decade too early to make it look like part of some kind of anti-Sullan legal crusade. Nor do the regular references to Everitt (who evidently from the first chapter does not understand the republican constitution) and Parenti (an ignoramus) build any confidence.
Something also really ought to be done on the structure of the article. The subpages Political career of Cicero and Personal life of Cicero probably should be folded in or deleted; even if not nobody will read or maintain them. The current structure also fails to present things at all chronologically; intermixed in the first section with Cicero's biography is a long digression on his philosophical legacy. Serious work, probably a rewrite, is needed. Ifly6 (talk) 09:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This page relies heavily on Plutarch; many classicists consider Plutarch unreliable, even though he's one of our only sources. The ancient understanding of history was different from our modern one, and he wasn't exactly trying to stick to Wikipedian standards of objectivity. I agree with Ifly6 that this page needs basically a deep clean; honestly the classics stuff on wikipedia is outdated in general. Periferal (talk) 14:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Remsense: Hi, I wanted to ping you to explain a revert I just executed. You left a message reverting Periferal saying that the edits there were unnecessary WP:puffery and editorializing. I disagree.
The vast majority of the commit reduces puffery. Eg important influence... wrote more than three-quarters of extant Latin literature... it has been said that subsequent prose was either a reaction against or a return to his style → greatly influenced... substantial percentage of his work has survived... admired by both ancient and modern authors alike; introduced into Latin → adapted. Re ditorialising: Romans often chose down-to-earth personal surnames → omitted. This is also the correct outcome for that passage; cognomina were not always chosen, not always common (Mark Antony; Gaius Marius), and we shouldn't paint them in this character, which is regardless not supported by Plut. Cic. 1.3–5.
Periferal's edits also fix some rather old problems like reliance on an outdated and fictitious "optimates faction", which your revert returned. The fictitious "populares" and "optimates" are a cancer here on Wikipedia driven largely by editors' anachronisms and ignorance of Roman republican politics. We should make between it. Ifly6 (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers and thanks for the explanation, I agree. Remsense诉 16:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, an IP reverted my revert of your revert of an edit which I think is reasonable, on the grounds there's too much refactoring of sourced material which I definitely think is, if it is to be at all relevant, an exaggeration of WP:SUMMARY's requirements. If someone else wants to revert that IP revert go ahead. Ifly6 (talk) 20:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't expect to cause an edit war; I really need to just make a new version of the article and hope it's accepted. Agreed on the optimates/populares thing. They're useful categories, but Cicero wasn't going around calling himself an optimates as a political party! Periferal (talk) 21:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you're interested in doing something like that – rewrites can be challenging – I'd be happy to offer feedback. The Oxford Classical Dictionary Online now has some seriously excellent articles on Cicero:
We have access to all the OCD Online articles via WP:LIBRARY, which is very useful.
The standard biographies in English, if I recall correctly, are Tempest Cicero (2011), Habicht Cicero (1990), Rawson Cicero (1975), and Stockton Cicero (1971) (both getting rather old). The somewhat recent Cambridge Companion to Cicero (2013) is also useful, as is the somewhat older Brill volume by analogous title. Ifly6 (talk) 23:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re Plutarch specifically, Lintott's commentary Plutarch: Demosthenes and Cicero (2013) may also be helpful. If you already know all these things, my apologies, perhaps they might be useful to someone else reading the talk page. Ifly6 (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some of these I know but I appreciate it! I'm still in my Master's program, but that does mean I have institutional access to these things! And if I do indeed do a rewrite--though Catullus's page is a higher priority for me--thank you for the offer! Periferal (talk) 23:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-3 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
