Talk:Pro Milone

Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for Pro Milone has failed, for the following reason:

The article is unreferenced. Worldtraveller 13:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Does it really need references? And what, references to chapters in the Pro Milone, precise references to Asconius' commentary...? I was going to add a few in, but it seemed rather pointless and superfluous given that this is just a general overview of the Pro Milone, nothing particularly specific. If I were attempting to explain its social and constitutional repercussions in the late Roman Republic, then yes, references would be helpful; so too if I was talking about the reasons for its more-regular-than-most analysis by academics; but as an overview I feel it pretty much stands for itself. Nevertheless, I'll add in some references when I have the time... Ω μα Δια! Davers 14:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly - what can you cite? Chapter numbers in Asconius seem about the only thing one can reasonably reference to. Anyway, I'll see if I can find time to get around to doing something. O mi deus!Moreschi 18:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC) (and I hope that that Latin grammar is correct).

It's close enough. :D I'll stick some Asconius chapter numbers wherever I can. As it's my first Wikipedia article I didn't realize that it was necessary to go so in-depth, especially offering references. Possibly some Quintillian stuff could be relevant? Di immortales! Davers 13:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it's all a bit silly, but if we do the work we can renominate again. After all, by Jove, the great Scipios and Sullas of this world never let little objections stand in their way, Mehurcule! Moreschi 08:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, article has been revamped, a lot of new information has been added, as well as references to Asconius' account of the proceedings. et numquam rursum de hoc dicite! :D Davers 17:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Are there any images that might be added to this article? Right now it is giant blocks of text.--SomeStranger^(t|c) 11:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

A bust of Cicero, perhaps? Otherwise, this is hardly a topic that lends itself well to images. Moreschi 08:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for Pro Milone has failed.

Some of the prose in the article is very weak, and in some cases rather hard to comprehend because of its odd style. I have tried to take out some of the more glaring errors, but there are still many cases where a rewrite would be very welcome. In addition there was one instance where "Caesar" was used without explanation (is it Julius Caesar, or is it just the Caesar of Rome at the time?) [I have listed the line below]

in order to pursue an illicit affair with Pompeia Sulla, the wife of Caesar.

Complaints aside ths is still a solid article, and for good article status, compelling prose is a suggestion (as opposed to being a requirement for FACs).

I think that the more blatant issue is the assumption that Asconius has the "correct" report of the events. In the third paragraph in the content of the speech section, the article says that Caesar is wrong in his depiction of Milo's relationship with Pompey. This reeks of POV. Asconius and Cicero should be presented equally, as two different opinions on the subject. I would even say that most of this article presents Cicero's speech in a rather sarcastic manner, with the pretense that "Of course he is just saying these things to make Milo look good". This article comes off as being anti-Milo.

Thanks for adding the picture to the article and I hope that in the future the POV in this article can be removed.--SomeStranger^(t|c) 13:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Eeeh, yes and no. Forgive me for being flippant, but surely one man's compelling prose is another man's doggerel. Personally I have no problem at all with the prose style of the article, and for such a purely subjective criterion to be a Wikipedia requirement for GA and FA status seems to me to be wrong.

However, I also find some of the accusations of POV to be a little misplaced. There is surely a difference between POV and merely implying what every serious Ciceronian scholar will tell you in 5 minutes flat. Cicero was a defence lawyer and therefore has a very obvious agenda to push; Asconius, as far as we know, had no reason to fake the record. Perhaps some of the article is too POV, but in accordance with the reasons above I feel that there ought to be a minor bias towards Asconius in terms of space given. On Wikipedia, mainstream views, facts and theories are supposed to take up more space. Other opinions are represented, but take up less space. However, I will give the article a re-write at some stage broadly in accordance with your complaints.

SomeStranger, I do disagree with you, but, as ever on Wikipedia, it's business, not personal. Moreschi 19:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

First to clarify, when I said the prose was weak, I was really refering to the text from a more grammatical stand point. In more than one location the sentences are too long and tend to run-on, and some word choice is rather awkward. Honestly, looking at it for a second time, I think the prose is probably passable under the good article criteria, but if you want something more, a copyedit by someone unfamiliar to the topic would work wonders.

Now, in regards to the POV complaint I made. Prior to reading this article I had no knowledge of this topic whatsoever, meaning that I can not possibly review it on the standard of content. I had no idea that so many scholars thought one way, and therein this article fails. The article currently only references the speech (and that one other reference to what seems to be a scholar from Cicero's time), therefore there is no text covering the modern views on the speech. If it is true that scholars all believe that Asconius is telling the truth, then instead of just placing it in the middle of the text as assumed fact, give it a source.--SomeStranger^(t|c) 12:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I had typed up a long response to this a couple of days back but thanks to computer troubles, my box froze just as the mouse pointer was hovering over 'save page'. Oh, the irony. I'm not going to type all that again, just address the main points.

Firstly, re: the 'weak prose'... this is a common feature of Wikipedia due to the fact that there are usually numerous people authoring single articles. Having read through the article many times now, I really can't see what you're getting it. Long sentences are really the only option when explaining legal proceedings. If I broke up the sentences it would resemble a 5-year old's school project. Grammatically there is very little wrong with the article: if you want to pick out specific syntax errors, more power to you. But dismissing the article as 'weak prose' full of 'glaring errors' is simply a generalization that is not true. Long sentences do not indicate that something is badly-written if the sentences are themselves syntactically sound.

Re: the 'unexplained' Caesar... it is obviously referring to Julius Caesar. Read the sentence beforehand along with the one you quoted and things become patent:

Fortunately, there was plentiful material for Cicero to build this profile, such as the Bona Dea incident; involving Clodius stealing into the abode of the Pontifex Maximus of the time, Julius Caesar, during the ritual festival of the Bona Dea, to which only women were allowed. It is said that he dressed up as a woman in order to pursue an illicit affair with Pompeia Sulla, the wife of Caesar.

Did they even have the title of Caesar in the late Roman Republic? I thought that title was only coined after Julius' deification and the imperial institution of Augustus. Caesar was used to address emperors. There were no emperors in Republican Rome. I may be wrong, but that was my first instinct when you brought up any possible ambiguity in that statement.

Re: sarcasm... naturally any sarcastic undertone is utterly unintentional. As for your statement, "the pretense that "Of course he is just saying these things to make Milo look good": this is surely indicative of the Roman legal system of the time. An established tradition of Roman advocacy, borrowed no doubt from the Greeks, was to persuade the jury of your client's innocence by using not only argument, evidence and testimony, but also your own reputation as a basis of assurance. Somewhere along the lines of "Of course he's innocent, I'M defending him!". Cicero frequently uses this tactic throughout his orations; being as he was the greatest exponent of rhetorical technique throughout the late Republic (many would say throughout Roman history), his mere involvement in the case would have been enough to persuade some. The political scene of the Roman Republic was all about the individual; it was about personality and popularity, not policies. The fact is that often Cicero is saying these things just to make Milo 'look good': it's an established rhetorical technique, which, in many of Cicero's other speeches, happens to work surprisingly well (thinking of the Pro Caelio, Pro Rabirio Posthumo, Pro Caecina and others, in which Cicero mainly makes use of his own successful consulship and how his clients aided him throughout). Cicero also often makes emphatic mention of his role in the Catiline conspiracies of 62BC; being defended by the self-proclaimed 'saviour of the Republic' would be a major advantage even in modern legal cases, least of all in an antiquated legal system in which the reputation of your advocate was several times more critical.

Re: Asconius & POV... you have a point here in that there are no references to modern studies of the Pro Milone: this could be viewed as an oversight, but as I have stated before this is meant to be an overview of the Pro Milone, not an in-depth study. I have attempted as best I can to make the article simple and to concentrate on the basics: the events surrounding the case, the speech itself, and the repercussions (which haven't even been extended to place the Pro Milone contextually as a critical and vital event in the denouement of the Roman Republic). The article would start taking on a worryingly extended appearance if I were to start delving into modern discussions and arguments: the Pro Milone is the apex of Cicero's oratory and has been studied and written about far more than any other of Cicero's speeches. Although this is the 'golden age' of Roman writing in that we have so much surviving Cicero, there is still a great deal of ambiguity surrounding the true facts of anything you choose to study. I think that the average Wikipedia user is looking for overview rather than overkill.

Having studied this text in detail I can safely say that, if indeed anyone does bother, it will not be me who will add modern references to this article. In my mind the references to Asconius are themselves somewhat worthless, and I'd prefer to keep the article from setting out on frenetic bearings. If somebody else wants to do it, then fine: I recommend the following sources, all worth citing:

MacKendrick, P. The Speeches of Cicero, London, 1995

Rawson, B. The Politics of Friendship: Pompey & Cicero, Letchworth, 1978

Berry, D.H. Pompey's Legal Knowledge - or Lack of it, Historia 42, 1993 (article: pp.502-504)

Clark, M.E. & Ruebel, J.S. Philosophy & Rhetoric in Cicero's Pro Milone, RhM 128, 1985 (article: pp.57-72)

Ruebel, J.S. The trial of Milo in 52BC: a chronological study, TAPA 109 , 1979 (article: pp.231-249)

Stone, A.M. Pro Milone: Cicero's second thoughts, Antichthon 14, 1980 (article: pp.88-111)

The fact of the matter is that Asconius, although not a contemporary of the Pro Milone, still had access to ancient sources which are no longer extant. Thus while we cannot trust his commentary on the Pro Milone as a 100% accurate source, it is the best we have. Besides, when mentioned obliquely in the article I have tried my hardest to imply that Asconius is only asserting such details, not confirming them. "Asconius refers to", "Asconius describes", "Asconius reveals"... these are not sweeping statements, they are in many ways mirroring exactly the style you say should have been applied: showing the arguments and presenting them equally.

As for 'reeking of POV', I have to disagree. "the article says that Caesar is wrong in his depiction of Milo's relationship with Pompey" - I assume by Caesar you mean Cicero - OK, perhaps 'Asconius reveals' is a somewhat poor choice of words, implying a more definite assertion, but there is no intentional POV here. This is purely showing the discrepancies in the speech and the actual events as a point of interest. Yet again I broadened the evidence of the point; showing that the emnity between Pompey and Milo was brought about by Plancus and his incendiary presence at comitiae.

I'd also like to say that this is my first Wikipedia submission, and was not at all expecting it to be nominated for GA status. I'm flattered that it was even considered. I have already linked this article to friends and coursemates who are currently studying the Pro Milone and as yet not a single one of them has brought up any of the points you have; whether it be the long sentence structure, ambiguity, intimations of inherent sarcasm, or subjectivity. True, they are classics students and thus have much of the historical context under their belts already, but my point stands. I am not fighting for GA status - far from it; I am not responding to criticism with vitriol - even further from it; I am merely defending what is primarily 'my' article (with valued assistance from Moreschi) against claims of it being three of the properties I was intending to avoid, namely it being badly-written, biased and ambiguous: claims which I believe to be fallacious, especially given that you yourself have said that you had zero prior knowledge of the topic. I think you are perhaps being too critical of what is only meant to be an overview: a detailed overview, I grant you; but the complexities of the case and surrounding circumstances do not lend themselves well to a simple bulleted list. Davers 21:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I am being too critical, maybe not. I try to uphold to my own standards when reviewing articles. As it states on the Good articles page, "the standards of GAs are only as high as the standards of the most lenient reviewer." Before I say anything else I believe it is necessary to remind you that none of the statements made previously were intended to be personal. As I said before, I am not a student of the classics, and looking back on my decision to review this article, I believe it might have been better left to one with more background knowledge.

I have to admit I made mistakes when reviewing this article. I did not leave specific examples of what I thought to be problems, and instead attempted to explain my reasoning using sweeping statements, an attempt which failed miserably. More importantly I did not leave myself a sufficient amount of time to clearly lay out the problems which I thought to exist, and more importantly, to force myself to question whether there really were problems. In my effort to not be “the most lenient reviewer” I found problems that now I realize did not exist.

However, I still maintain my belief that this article is in need of a copyedit, and whether or not that should hold it from GA status should be left to the next reviewer. Instead of listing the things with which I still have problems, I went ahead and copyedited the article myself. I still maintain that a lack of references, no matter the subject matter, will eventually result in more "trouble" down the road. Wikipedia is considered an illegitimate source by many people around the world, which means that the referencing of credible sources is the only way to confirm Wikipedia’s validity as an encyclopedia. Sure, you know that what you say is correct, yeah, your friends who you have linked to the article also know that you are correct, but what about the average reader? Are they supposed to just trust your word?

There are still a few places where clarification is needed.

• In the first paragraph the article says ‘’Initially it seemed that Clodius was wounded during a fight started by his slaves and those of Milo.’’ When you say initially, do you mean at first everyone thought that it was Milo’s slaves who had done the deed, or that at first the slaves did not kill Clodius, wounding him instead?
• In the fourth paragraph the article talks about “revolutionary repercussions”, can you elaborate? (I think this may have to do with my lack of background knowledge again)
• In the sixth paragraph you skip the third and fourth days of the case. Are the events that occurred during these two days insignificant? If so, is there a minor note that we could leave there to quickly summarize what happened during those two days?

As a side note, if you would like to have this article reviewed for GA status again, go ahead and nominate the article as if it had never been reviewed in the first place. I don’t feel it would be appropriate for me to promote this article without receiving the opinion of another editor. Regardless, I wish you luck in your future endeavors on Wikipedia, and hope that in the future we may meet again at another article. --SomeStranger^(t) 18:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Points one and two have been dealt with fairly decently, I think. I agree that the article needs one or two more references as regards modern critical commentary. Point 3 will be sorted out as soon as I get my hands back onto my copy of Asconius, as I think he might cover that terrain. Best to all, Moreschi 20:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

SomeStranger, thanks for your reply.

Firstly, I realise that your comments were not meant to be taken personally, and I assure you just as I did in the final paragraph of my last post that they haven't been. I can always appreciate constructive criticism, which as a reviewer is clearly what you are offering; I was just defending some of the afore-mentioned sweeping statements because I thought they deserved a defence.

Re: clarification issues. I didn't write that sentence starting 'Initially', I figure it is implying along the lines of 'after the initial brawl': the point is that he wasn't killed immediately - he was wounded and then promptly finished off.

The revolutionary repercussions basically hinges on the increasing tendency in the Late Roman Republic (133-49BC) in 'justified political killings'. This dangerous precedent was set in 132BC with the murder of Tiberius Gracchus due to his attempts in securing his contested land bill were interpreted by some as revolutionary. In fact Cicero makes frequent mention to this event as well as other leaders of politically-involved killings (e.g. Servilius Ahala, Publius Nasica, Lucius Opimius, Gaius Marius etc.) in the narratio section (the announcement of the charges against his client) of the Pro Milone. Though this increasing affection for killing in the name of 'public benefit' was by no means the only component in the eventual fall of the Republic, it was key in the increasing use of violent mobs to garner political support and eliminate rivals in the gory later stages.

The first day of the trial was only mentioned in order to explain Pompey's decision to post guards around the forum during the trial. The final day of the trial was dedicated to the final arguments of the advocates on each side: Cicero was especially good at this 'sympathetic summing up' game, and as the content of the Pro Milone demonstrates he was pretty much king of it as far as we know, despite the final verdict against him. The second and third days were witness testimony, just like the first day, according to ancient sources.

I understand what you said about Wikipedia being commonly criticised for its lack of authoritative sources due to the open nature of the beast; but I can't help feeling, stupid as it sounds, that Wikipedia should embrace this rather than try to stamp it out. It's a 'problem' that is always going to exist in a project of such a kind. As long as it accepts contributions from every Tom, Dick and Harry it will never achieve the status of a primary resource - though I have always greatly admired the concept.

Oh, one last thing, an explanation for one of your edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pro_Milone&diff=58753248&oldid=58753007

'Critically' makes perfect sense in that context, as Asconius is pretty much the only source which has survived that deals with the circumstances of the Pro Milone in such detail. The ancient sources he had access to are sources that we don't have, being as he was writing around 75 years after the events. We're talking about it 2050 years after the Pro Milone, and all we have to go on is Asconius. It is rare that we have an ancient text that is not only complete, but has a wealth of extant ancient information about the background. It is 'critical' to the fact that Asconius had a much clearer perspective about the case than we could ever hope to achieve.

Like I said, I'm not going to go to the library to get out those books just to put some footnotes on a Wikipedia article. I have better things to do, like sleep. But then again I'm not particularly bothered about the article achieving GA status either (like I said, I'm flattered it was considered): Moreschi, wanna take one for the team? :) Davers 22:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The removal of the word 'critically' was more of a, "This sounds awkward when I say it aloud" than a "This is bad content let me remove it." Go ahead and readd it if you want, but that sentence will need a rewrite to make the word fit (right now it could either mean that it was crucial that he had access to the documents or that his review of the documents were carefully compiled)--SomeStranger^(t) 00:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Davers's comments concerning references. It may sound strange, but they're over-requested on Wikipedia. I remember seeing a "cititation needed" template beside the statement "Many people consider Purcell to have been the greatest English composer" - or something similar - which made me think "Entirely true, but how on earth do you reference?" Anyway, I've already said that the prose of the article isn't really a problem, and on reflection I don't think that POV is really a worry. I'll nominate again for GA. Moreschi 08:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges

The Latin phrase meaning "In time of war, the laws fall silent" was said by Cicero in Pro Milone, according to Wikipedia, and phrased as "Silent enim leges inter arma". There should be a link, and the context of Cicero's expression should be briefly explored, either here or in that article. --Wetman 17:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Added. Hope it meets with your approval. I didn't want to go too in-depth but I agree that it deserved citing. Davers 14:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

GA passed

Great article, if really possible, more citations (meaning various sources) could be good though it's fine for now. Work on trying to give more about the criticism and it will help it just a bit. Great prose though. Lincher 00:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I have added citations to Plutarch and Appian as well as further (more accurate) references to Asconius. I also stuck in a few referenced quotes from the speech itself, to backup the new paragraph on inter arma enim silent leges. To be honest I'm surprised it managed to achieve GA status in the state it was in before today's edits - whoever has been trying to 'correct' the grammar of the original article, I admire your efforts, but please proof-read your own edits before submitting! For such a relatively short article, there was a plethora of badly-placed punctuation, half-corrected sentences, attempted spelling corrections (an iteration of 'Clodius' replaced by 'Clodious' being my favourite amongst those), and perhaps most distressing of all, somebody deigned it worthy to 'correct' a couple of the British spellings to American spellings, for example 'humour' to 'humor' (if you really feel that you have to do that and further the gross mutilation of my mother tongue, do it to the whole article, not just a few paragraphs!). I can now just about understand how edit wars can start!

PLEASE edit carefully! I know that I write in long, rambling sentences, but most of the time you will find that they are grammatically sound. If you really feel the need to correct them, finish the job! Davers 14:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Alleluia! Thanks. All credit to Davers for his amazing work. Moreschi 09:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank YOU for your valuable assistance, Moreschi! What a team we make. :D Davers 14:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Interesting point about long sentences; they tend not to be flavour of the month on Wikipedia, but it is the way I write as well and on good days I believe such prose to be majestic and sonorous. On bad days, however, I gaze at my mire of subordinate clauses and wonder how any else other than me will possibly decipher it. The advantages and disadvantages of a Latinate training, I suppose.

Thanks again, Davers, and congratulations. See you over at the Pro Caelio. Moreschi 17:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The thing about the long sentences is kind of ironic as it's one of the main features of the Pro Milone, if not Cicero's work on the whole. I wanted to mention in this article the technique of periodicity used by Cicero; that is, the way he stretches out huge sentences, placing subordinate clause within another subordinate clause within another subordinate clause, and making it so that the listener has to pay attention right until the very end of each sentence to get the full meaning and context of what he's trying to say. However, I found that Wikipedia didn't have the relevant article on that sense of the word periodicity, so I didn't want to make a huge fuss. I can see why the article doesn't exist: periodicity is extremely difficult (though not impossible) to do in English - Latin is far more concise in its grammar and with the flexibility of word order it was simply part of the rhetorical style at the time.

I think it's around chapter 72 or 73 of the Pro Milone where the longest exstant Latin sentence begins. It goes on for about 3 chapters, if I remember right. It's a huge, sprawling mass of stupidly complex clauses that made me weep when trying to make sense of the damn thing during my final year. I did think that was worthy of note, too, but I wanted to draw out some of the periodicity in it and that would have needed a far deeper analysis of the text - perhaps too deep for a Wikipedia article. For another day, perhaps. For now, perhaps it might be worth mentioning that the Pro Milone contains the longest surviving Latin sentence, give a chapter reference, and leave it be.

I'll give the Pro Caelio a go when I find my college notes. I think they're back home somewhere. I'll have a search when I get back (end of this month). Davers 13:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

eum qui...eum qui.. eum qui.. eum qui... eum qui...are the nightmares beginning yet? I just checked and it starts at 72 and goes onto the end of 75, so that's 4 chapters inclusive. However, I didn't know that it was the longest surviving sentence in Latin literature; if so that should definitely go into the article.

Over the next week I'll give us a start on the caelio. What's currently there is mostly trash that's difficult to expand, so I'll delete most of it and rewrite so that it can be expanded and actually contains some useful and organized text that allows for further development. Best, Moreschi 14:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: whether it's the longest surviving sentence; I certainly can't think of a longer one, and I'm pretty sure one of my lecturers told us that it was. That may not be a good enough citation for Wikipedia though :P Davers 11:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

GA on hold

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.

The issues:

1) Inline citations should be after punctuation marks not before.

Done myself. Ruslik 06:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

2) The article is referenced unevenly. I marked unreferenced paragraphs and claims with {{fact}} tags.

3) The lead should be expanded to at least two paragraphs.

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, Ruslik 08:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You do know this will not improve the article in any sense of the word, right?

Ok, I'll dig out some refs and I'll see what I can do. Don't expect miracles. WIAGA is such a joke, changes every 5 minutes...Moreschi ^Talk 17:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any changes. Are they going to happen? Ruslik 07:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I will delist the article for now. However I am ready to review it again when the changes are made, because like it. Ruslik 06:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Not that I'm having a go, but these seem almost amusingly silly reasons to delist the article. Thank you for moving the citations, I was not aware of that and will be from hereon in. However, re: references - a battle I feel that those involved in the writing of this article have been fighting from the start - just to discuss a couple of the {{fact}} tags, which I feel are fairly indicative of the pointlessness of constant citation...

- "We can assume from the fact that the jury did indeed convict Milo, that they felt that although Milo may not have been aware of Clodius's initial injury, his ordering of Clodius’s butchering warranted punishment."

The sentence begins "we can assume". Do assumptions require citations? Really? We have to assume, because there are no contemporary sources indicating. If this is considered POV (which I don't think it is, it's purely an attempt to fill a gap in our knowledge, hence the "we can assume"), then it should be removed. As it stands, I really don't see how (or why) this needs citation.

- "Irony is omnipresent in the speech, along with continual appearances of humour and constant appeals to traditional Roman virtues and prejudices, all of these tactics designed solely to involve and persuade his jury."

How on earth am I meant to cite this? Is this not what an advocate or lawyer does? Tries to persuade a jury to his/her way of thinking? The point is that Cicero was in many ways a 'modern-day' advocate in terms of his rhetorical techniques - and in this case, particularly in his use of pathos. Or do you want particularly ironic or humourous parts of the speech cited?

As per usual, I agree with Moreschi on this subject. I do not see how any of these changes are going to 'improve' this article, and even if citations are added, somebody will come along and mark it up with plenty more {{fact}} tags.

I will make a few changes over the next few days - there is one citation that is deserved I think, and it's an easy Plutarch reference once I find my copy; and the lead could well be expanded (even though I think much more introductory information would be made obsolete by the Events surrounding the case section).

Regardless, thank you for your comments and recognition of the work that has gone into this article - it's been about 2 years since I started filling it out, and Moreschi jumped in soon afterwards, but I still recall the hours spent digging through text after text - including the original Latin - in order to ensure an accurate end result. Hopefully the soon-to-be-made amendments will make the article worthy of GA status once again. Davers (talk) 12:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

These statements (especially one with "we can assume") are not POV. I have never said this. However without citations they are original research. I think you can cite them to reviewer papers published in respectable journals (if they exist). Instead of " we assume" you should say "in the opinion of modern historians jury convicted Milo because ....". I actually added a {{cn}} tag at the end of every uncited paragraph. So what I actually asked for was to add a general reference (a reviewer paper?) that can support the claims made in this paragraph. My review was actually rather formalistic. Ruslik (talk) 12:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thank you for your near-instant reply!

I understand what you mean about the assumption citation. I suppose this sentence should be either rewritten or an adequate source found: sadly since I'm no longer at uni I don't have the resources available to get this information without trying :P

Re: the other citation query quoted above, perhaps it needs more information about the way law was practised at the time (e.g. the reputation of the advocate was of great importance, as well as their rhetoric), though I'm sure this will attract further "citation needed" tags... Davers (talk) 14:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

POV?

The article seems to be very pro-optimates, with all the talk about fickle mob, etc. If that's the consequence of Cicero's stand, then that should be made more explicit. If not, it should be made more neutral. Zocky | picture popups 03:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this should be considered POV. Clodius was popular with the plebeian mob for many reasons (an ex-patrician adopted by a plebeian family; his rank as a Tribune of the Plebs; his pushing through of the Leges Clodiae, the 4th of which involved free handouts of corn to the poor; etc.). Besides, aren't all mobs fickle? It's the very derivation of the word, from the Latin mobile vulgus, meaning "the moveable/changeable people".

Fact is, Clodius was a popularist with a tendency towards orchestrating mob violence. Cicero cites many examples of this (the burning of wooden benches in the Curia being one of the most memorable). He was adept at riling up a crowd. This is made explicit throughout the article, so I don't really see what the problem is.

I think Wikipedia has a bit of a hard-on for anti-POV — I can see why, of course. But there is bias in everything, and when discussing 2000 year old topics with limited sources, it can be near impossible to deliver a completely unbiased account. Davers (talk) 12:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

That said, coming back to this a year or so later, I can see how it needs rewriting. There's a few more items that need sourcing: the discrepancy between the written speech as we have it and what Cicero actually delivered on the day needs to be made more clear, and the overall influence of Pompey on the trial (picking the jury, the bodyguards warding off the mob, etc) needs to be made clearer also. Essentially the trial was a fix, and while the bodyguards were designed to ward off the mob they are also probably doubled as useful intimidation of the defence. By using the incident to convict Milo Pompey got rid of a rival who had once been his protege, as Holland in Rubicon makes clear.

Nothing too major, really. I'll come back to this soon with some more sources and clean everything up a little. Moreschi (talk) 01:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

use of language

"Cicero even goes as far as to paint an amicable relationship with Pompey. Asconius, as he does with many other parts of the Pro Milone, disputes this fact, claiming that Pompey was in fact afraid of Milo, ..." Cicero claims that Milo and Pompey were friends. This is not a 'fact'. The only 'fact' involved here is the one that Cicero makes the claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pamour (talk • contribs) 21:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)