Talk:Pro Caelio

Classical Greece and Rome Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

[Untitled]

putting the full latin text in the article seems a little excessive seeing as the external link to an english version (perseus project) brings you literally one click away from the latin text.

it really needs to be edited. Deb 21:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry bout that, I guess I just forgot about it. I dont know if I have the time any more, because me real life Latin classes are draggin it al out of me.. so I might help but I can't do the complete overhaul I was planning. Articuno1 02:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to go ahead and remove the entire text. I'm not opposed to people adding important portions, however. 69.137.234.44 00:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wikisource

Please be sure to put this at s:la:Pro Caelio as the links on the template lead to the English Wikisource.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 16:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I can see that it may be a little excessive putting the latin text on here, to be honest the only people who will search for Pro Caelio and use this article are those who are studying the works of Cicero or the Pro Caelio itself. Therefore having a copy of the text on Wikipedia can be extremeley useful for those who need it.--Lockster2004 20:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How many encyclopedias do that though? OsFan 21:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But the text isn't actually there; I'm going to remove the template. 84.64.119.75 14:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that copy and paste . It's pointless that it be here. It only makes the page bigger and it seems to have no other purpose than to lengthen the space between the article itself and the references. It's absurd that it's here. It should be at wikisource (which people that are familliar to wikipedia will go directly to) so it won't be a surprise to see it here.

--Agreatguy6 03:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone needs to remove the concerns at the top of the page because citations have been provided and the warning's concerns are void now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HIST3311 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Organization

I've tried to organize the background by breaking it up into paragraphs and subheadings. The "Scholarly Observations" section still needs to be organized this way. I will try to do what I can, but help would be greatly appreciated! Thanks, Quae legit (talk) 02:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Water and Clodia

The lengthy paragraph entitled "Connection between water and Clodia", added in 2010, really has no place in this article. Bruun's argument is entirely speculative; and the section is barely relevant, since it aims to explain a single phrase of five words ut tu ea (aqua) inceste uterere 'so that you could use that water unchastely' (§34). It certainly does not deserve such a verbose and badly written exposition as it has here. It might do as an appendix in a commentary on the speech, but it unbalances this article. For this reason I am deleting it.

Incidentally, it is surprising that after nearly 20 years since this article was started no one has thought to make use of any commentary on the speech, in particular Austin's well known commentary published by the Oxford University Press. Kanjuzi (talk) 14:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]