This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
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.
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.
This leaves out the considerable body of scholars (especially Mary Beard) who think that Marcus does not, in fact, equal M. Tullius Cicero in any substantive way. I'd refer you to the article in question, but my citation is in my other desk.
Happened to be looking at this issue recently. The appropriate references are:
Cicero and Divination: The Formation of a Latin Discourse Mary Beard, Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 76, 1986 (1986) , pp. 33-46
Cicero for and against Divination, Malcolm Schofield, Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 76, 1986 (1986) , pp. 47-65 Zeusnoos 19:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
The tag isn't appropriate for what you're suggesting; it's not the "factual accuracy" of the article that's in question, it's the interpretation of it. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you (or Mary Beard, for that matter), I'm just saying that the tag is misleading. By all means include another section; I'm no expert on Roman philosophy, I just happened to be reading this a couple of years ago in Latin. --CaesarGJ 08:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)