Talk:Brutus (Cicero)

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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. Books This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles Latin Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Adangonzalez395.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A recent reversion has got rid of a detailed summary of the Brutus by Cicero1989 on the grounds that it is "unsourced, too detailed, and non-encyclopedic". Well, it is too detailed for an encyclopedia, and it uses the primary source rather than secondary ones. I don't plan to reinstate it en bloc. But I enjoyed reading it - thanks Cicero1989 - and I suggest that it could usefully be cut down and might then represent a great improvement to the article. For a start, perhaps it should name only those orators who are notable enough to have Wikipedia pages of their own, and use the standard spelling of Tully's name. What do others think? Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]