Talk:First Catilinarian conspiracy

First Catilinarian conspiracy has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: December 19, 2022. (Reviewed version).

A fact from First Catilinarian conspiracy appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 25 January 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that modern sources believe that the first Catilinarian conspiracy was fake?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2023/January. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/First Catilinarian conspiracy.

Wikipedia

Classical Greece and Rome Mid‑importance

	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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:First Catilinarian conspiracy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Iazyges (talk · contribs) 21:05, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

GA Criteria

GA Criteria:

1
1.a Y

1.b Y
2
2.a Y

2.b Y

2.c Y

2.d Y
3
3.a Y

3.b Y
4
4.a Y
5
5.a Y
6
6.a Y

6.b Y

No DAB links Y
No dead links Y
No missing citations Y

Discussion

You might consider adding some small pictures of involved parties such as Catiline and Cicero, but it's not necessary for good article quality.

If you have any – even vaguely contemporaneous – ideas for Catiline, I'd be happy to hear them. Ifly6 (talk) 22:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prose Suggestions

Please note that almost all of these are suggestions, and can be implemented or ignored at your discretion. Any changes I deem necessary for the article to pass GA standards I will bold.

Lede

The so-called first Catilinarian conspiracy was a fictitious conspiracy which while the article basically lays out the conspiracy is very likely fictitious, it seems a bit off to label it directly as so in the beginning only to elaborate that some view it is possible, however unlikely; suggest qualifying it with probably or almost certainly.

Ifly6 (talk) 22:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

in some tellings, Catline is nowhere mentioned suggest in some tellings, Catline is not mentioned for ease of reading.

Autronius and Sulla had been elected consuls for 65 BC but were removed after convictions for bribery. New consuls were then elected. The supposed goal of the conspiracy was to murder the second set of consuls elected for 65 BC and, in their resulting absence, replace them. suggest linking this together more, perhaps The supposed motivation for the conspiracy was that Autronius and Sulla, who had been elected consuls for 65 BC, were removed after convictions for bribery. After new consults were elected, the conspiracy was allegedly formed to murder this second set of consuls and replace them.

Ancient accounts

Publius Autronius Paetus and Publius Cornelius Sulla, followed by the results' invalidation. suggest Publius Autronius Paetus and Publius Cornelius Sulla, followed by the invalidation of the results. for simplicity.

Ifly6 (talk) 22:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accounts

His description then includes a further conspiracy to murder plerosque senatores suggest providing the literal translation of plerosque senatores here, such as His description then includes a further conspiracy to murder plerosque senatores (lit. many senators)

Just omitted the Latin and translated it. Ifly6 (talk) 22:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

the senate voted bodyguards for the consuls and the establishment of an inquiry (the inquiry, however, was vetoed by a tribune) suggest the senate voted to provide bodyguards for the consuls and to establish an inquiry; the inquiry, however, was vetoed by a tribune. for easy of readability.

Ifly6 (talk) 22:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ifly6: A neat little article on a niche topic, well done. I've left some minor suggestions for readability, feel free to implement or ignore them at your leisure. Passing now. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:30, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Ifly6 (talk) 22:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 00:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that modern sources believe that the first Catilinarian conspiracy was fake? Source: Wilson, Mark (2021). Dictator: the Evolution of the Roman dictatorship. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. ISBN 978-0-472-12920-1. OCLC 1243162549. Page 303 , https://www.jstor.org/stable/4435521#metadata_info_tab_contents. page 441, and others.
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Terbium compounds

Improved to Good Article status by Ifly6 (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 22:03, 21 December 2022 (UTC).[reply]

— Article is long enough and promoted to GA, making it eligible for a DYK nomination. Hook is interesting, within prescribed limits, and is well sourced. Image has Creative Commons license. Earwig's Copyvio Detector shows only one similarity -- a quote. Suggestion: you might want to change the term "fake" to 'fictitious', which comes across more academic and is consistent with the language in the article. In any case, the article is good to go. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:28, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Onegreatjoke and Gwillhickers: I can't access all of the sources, but given the number of citations on this claim, I gotta ask – do any of the sources directly claim a consensus of modern scholars, or is the article editorially assessing consensus of the sources on its own? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 10:53, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well I would have to ask Ifly6 for that answer. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is the consensus of modern scholars that the First Catilinarian conspiracy did not happen: Seager 1964, p. 338 n. 1. "It is now widely held that the conspiracy is wholly fictitious"; Berry, DH (2020). Cicero's Catilinarians. New York. p. 17. ISBN 978-0-19-751081-0. OCLC 1126348418. "The 'first Catilinarian conspiracy' was accepted at face value by ancient and modern historians alike until the myth was exploded by Robin Seager and Ronald Syme (independently) in 1964".

Also, to be entirely clear about the scholarship and what I mean with "consensus", I don't mean "literally everyone". There was a paper published rather recently in 2021 which argued it did happen. This is not the consensus. That paper even says so: First Catilinarian Conspiracy of 66-65 BC, described by Sallust at BC 18-19, is not ‘fiction’ (as is almost universally assumed) (my emphasis).^[a] Woodman, Anthony J (2021). "Sallust and Catiline: conspiracy theories". Historia. 70 (1): 55–68. doi:10.25162/historia-2021-0003. ISSN 0018-2311. Ifly6 (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps change to "did not happen" rather than "fake"? Ifly6 (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's my concerns resolved! feel free to mess around with the semantics of the wording on that one. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

^ Edit. I got a copy of Woodman 2021 from my library. In the body of the article on page 56, Woodman further concedes the first Catilinarian conspiracy is dismised by almost every modern historian and in footnote five thereat, he cites Seager 1964, Syme 1964, Waters 1970, Phillips 1976 ("fictitious"), Ramsey 1982 ("no basis in historical fact"), Crawford 1994 ("myth"), Lintott 1994 (a "direct lie"), Levick 2015, Tatum 2018 ("fictitious"), and Berry 2020 ("myth").

"Almost certainly"

Surely these words should be removed from the first paragraph. These seem like weasel words. If the conspiracy was fake, then these words are superfluous, as the reader knows that this conspiracy never happened. If the conspiracy was real, then the entire article would need rewriting. As such, the two-word phrase present in the first paragraph of the article should be deleted. CitationsFreak (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CitationsFreak: It is the correct wording for the degree of certainty; most sources agree it is fictitious. That said, there exists some scholarly debate on the matter, with some reliable and non-fringe scholars arguing it could have been real. Thus "almost certainly" represents that it is the general view of scholars that it is fictitious, but a reliable minority does exist. Per Sherman Kent, "almost certain" is roughly 93±6% probability. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the conspiracy was fake... If the conspiracy was real .... We do not know with certainty whether or not it was fictitious. The article goes into detail about this, and our article summarises that per WP:LEAD. NebY (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I meant "if [nearly] all modern scholars think that this was fake", etc. CitationsFreak (talk) 19:45, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CitationsFreak: The phrase exists to explain in short that there is severe doubt, per the function of the lede (short, less detailed summation). Virtually the rest of the article exists to discuss it. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Iazyges: Fair enough. Maybe there could be a "Scholars say that...", just to make it not look weird (to me).

@CitationsFreak: I'm not sure how to incorporate that easily into the sentence; it's already somewhat wordy. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Edit. I got a copy of Woodman 2021 from my library. In the body of the article on page 56, Woodman further concedes the first Catilinarian conspiracy is dismised by almost every modern historian and in footnote five thereat, he cites Seager 1964, Syme 1964, Waters 1970, Phillips 1976 ("fictitious"), Ramsey 1982 ("no basis in historical fact"), Crawford 1994 ("myth"), Lintott 1994 (a "direct lie"), Levick 2015, Tatum 2018 ("fictitious"), and Berry 2020 ("myth").

[a]