Talk:Lucius Cornelius Sulla (consul 5 BC)
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lucius Cornelius Sulla (consul 5 BC) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Untitled edit
This is completely made up. The Early Roman "Principate" is very poor in information. This kind of biography would be the find of a century. The best source(secondary) in English would be Syme's work on the Augustan Aristocracy. It is very thorough. The chapter on the Sullae is smaller than this wikipedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.0.136.172 (talk) 14:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
The * List of Roman consuls states that Lucius Sulla had 3 suffet consuls which means he probably died around 5 BC. So the rest is probably confusing him with another Lucius Sulla possibly his son. Or he was removed from office for gross incompetence, though why he was made an Augur afterwards make this unlikely. Blood 3 22:53 3rd November 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blood3 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually, without a citation, we have no evidence to indicate that the wives and kids ever existed. My poor searches didn't come up with much. But some Romans had many names... so who knows... regford 23:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
The lewd remark has a figure for weenie length that exceeds the record as denoted by a world-famous source, Wikipedia. Given that no source is cited, I provisionally term that line as vandalism. Of course, I stand to be corrected. Actually, I will sit and wait, and then stand, if I am corrected. But who knows yet if the whole article is not plagiarized..... no citation. regford 17:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I didn't write this stuff. It had the flavor of being copied manually from some book. There were a number of spelling mistakes, also some Britishisms such as 'favour'; and the narrative ended with a lewd-ity. It needs a citation badly. regford 06:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
While an interesting tale, there appears to be simply no source or citation for this. I would not include much, if at all, of this in Wikipedia. Something about it strikes me as being strictly fictional.
I have some excellent source material at home. Perhaps this weekend I will give some of this information a cursory review for accuracy. --Cjcaesar 12:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Britishisms? We invented the language so what we say is what is correct!