Talk:Cicero

Semi-invalid

The use of semi-invalid is confusing because it's an uncommon term to use and his disability is not stated. 65.211.3.153 (talk) 16:29, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I've expanded this. Thanks for the suggestion. AntientNestor (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 20 May 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jeffrey34555 (talk) 20:33, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

---

Cicero → Marcus Tullius CiceroMarcus Tullius Cicero – On Wikipedia, articles about people are nearly always located at the full name, even if the person is usually known just by their last name (Beethoven). TheLatinNerd (talk) 22:15, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose Wikipedia uses one-word names for many famous Romans: Virgil, Pompey, Livy, Lucretius, Sallust, Juvenal, Terence, Nero, Ovid and indeed, most of the famous ones. This is in accordance with WP:COMMONNAME and the five WP:CRITERIA: recognisability, naturalness, precision, concision and consistency. NebY (talk) 23:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose, not because there's anything really wrong with using the full name, but because we consistently use the most recognizable name as the article title when there's little chance of confusion; I realize there are still some contentious cases, but this isn't one of them. Many of the most famous people in history are referred to mononymously, even though they had other names, and this is frequently the case for people up to the middle ages (not including modern celebrities).

Even today, we usually don't use someone's full name if there are more than two names, except when the person is known by his or her full name. If you check the guidelines for article titling, I'm sure you'll notice it mentioning the titles of articles about U.S. presidents: "Bill Clinton", not "William Jefferson Clinton"; "Jimmy Carter", not "James Earl Carter". Other examples: "Winston Churchill", not "Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill"; "Michelangelo", not "Michelangelo di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni", "Erasmus", not "Desiderius Erasmus".

Among Romans, and besides the examples given above, a high percentage of emperors and generals are typically known by one, or sometimes two names, omitting their full nomenclature even when it's well-documented. For there to be a strong case to move Cicero to his full name, there'd need to be a chance of confusing him with other Ciceros; but neither his son, Marcus, nor his brother, Quintus, though notable, are well known today, or likely to be confused with him. While some people in the modern age may have been called "Cicero", all are better-known by other names, and few of them are known nearly as well as the subject of this article. P Aculeius (talk) 23:26, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Cicero, as such, is instantly recognisable. You need a "stop and think" moment for Marcus Tullius Cicero. AntientNestor (talk) 06:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose: Cicero is mainly referred to as just 'Cicero' in most reliable sources. KnowDeath (talk) 06:40, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose Common name is just Cicero and has been for over 2000 years. Same reason Julius Caesar isn't at Gaius Julius Caesar.★Trekker (talk) 15:06, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose per NeBY. Ifly6 (talk) 02:22, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose No real reason to change to his full name, given that there are no other Ciceros that most readers would be thinking of. His full name redirects to this page anyways. Garsh (talk) 19:17, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:37, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

September 2025

@Nicknack009: How are you going to argue that he was not executed? Antony had him proscribed, and the article uses the word "executed." You're muddying the waters on what "execution" and "assassination" mean. GOLDIEM J (talk) 08:23, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

It was an extrajudicial killing. Proscription was not a legal process. --Nicknack009 (talk) 10:27, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

IPA Transcription

Earlier this month there was a revision (by BidensHyperborea, dated Feb. 12, 18:25) of the IPA for Cicero's name, reflected in the most recent version of the article, which has the vowel reductions of the previous versions' transcriptions removed ([ʊ] to [u], and [ɪ] to [i], also [o] to [ɔ]). The revision merely states "Dated IPA for Latin: vowel quality." without any citation to whatever scholarship may have altered the previous consensus.

This seems to reflect a larger disagreement across other articles as to the occurrence of reduced vowels in Classical Latin among those writing transcriptions. Obviously it's unlikely for a consensus sitewide to be determined in this single article's talk page but for whatever it's worth to express it here there should be at least some prerequisite discussion and concurrence accompanying these efforts to revise transcriptions of historical pronunciations whose phonologies are still somewhat subject to conjecture and speculation, such as Classical Latin. ~2026-10281-04 (talk) 00:38, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

The most contemptible scoundrel in history?

Just want to raise some suspicion about the authenticity of the Engels quote. Parenti's referencing throughout his book is really patchy. For this quote, instead of referring to Engels directly, he cites it as a quote from a 1990 article in 'Monthly Review' by Arthur Kahn (Parenti, chapter 5, note 5). I'm unfortunately not in a position to verify the authenticity of whether or not Kahn cites Engels directly because as far as I can see the Monthly Review is locked behind a paywall. I think until it can be verified as a quote taken directly from Engels (despite scouring through his works, I have not yet been able to find anything even like it), it might be worth removing. A lot of people seem to believe this to be a real quote from Engels and while it does sound characteristic of him, the keeping of this detail could be responsible for a massive amount of misinformation if it turns out not to be true - I believe the quote has been part of the article for quite a while. Even if it turns out to be directly from Engels then surely we should be citing him directly and not through Parenti, who is in turn citing him through Kahn. ~2026-28214-91 (talk) 07:26, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

This seems to be Kahn's 1990 article; it's brief and doesn't tell us where Engels wrote that. Searching for the phrase only gives me references to Parenti, which I fear might have been gleaned from Wikipedia; the phrase has been in our article since 2010, first without a citation, then tagged as needing one, deleted as lacking one, and reinstated with one[1] with the edit summary "Engels notorious quote in in Michael Parenti, The Assassination of Julius Caesar". Sadly, that editor died in 2023, so we'd need some other way of finding whether it was notorious before Parenti published in 2003, or even before Kahn wrote "Not having lived through the twentieth century, Engels can be excused for calling Cicero "the most contemptible scoundrel in history.""

If we can't find it - or a German original for it - in Engels, I suppose we could preface it with "Arthur D. Kahn quotes Engels as having described ..." and cite the Modern Review. NebY (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Parenti's book is trash. I don't think keeping this supposed quote in is at all due weight. Ifly6 (talk) 01:38, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the help on this. It is crazy to me that two different academic sources (well, as academic as one can call Parenti - I agree with his viewpoint, but both his citations and sense of narrative cohesion are dire) have referenced this so poorly and have escaped notice for so long. This quote has been almost unanimously accepted as fact in online circles, at least in my experience. I also fear that this is because it has been popularised by this article. I think keeping at least a brief mention of the quote would be a good idea, considering how widespread acceptance of its credibility has become. Its also worth noting that, considering the fact that Engels' entire literary corpus is available online, if a good amount of searching can't produce a direct source for the quote, we can safely assume incredibility for now. Most search engines are in complete disarray these days, however, so it is possible that its out there, but incredibly hard to find. ~2026-28214-91 (talk) 01:56, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

It's possible Kahn wrote in good faith but misremembered, or even that Engels said it without writing it down. I've found people citing Wikipedia for it, so I do feel tempted to provide some sort of correction or clarification in the article. I was thinking of changing the text to

Arthur D. Kahn wrote that Engels called Cicero "the most contemptible scoundrel in history.^[1][a]

citing Kahn's aricle in the Modern Review but also footnoting

a. Kahn provides the quotation without any citation; Parenti cites Kahn;^[2] others cite Parenti or Wikipedia.^[3]

But I see @Ifly6 has simply deleted it so I hesitate. NebY (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't see anyone in the literature (contra online) citing Kahn or Engels, so I'm disinclined to think it's due weight. Moreover, Parenti's polemic is not a serious piece of historiography and is riddled with basic errors of fact and interpretation. It's not a reliable source, has no bearing on what due weight is, and shouldn't be used as if it were reliable or reflected due weight. Ifly6 (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2026 (UTC)