Talk:Cassius Chaerea

What do you mean "citation needed"?
The article talks about a "possible wound to his genitalia" and then says there is a "citation needed" to this claim. However, there can't be a need to show a citation for any claim of anything being a mere possibility. Yes, he was POSSIBLY wounded in his genitalia, just like he was POSSIBLY not, and there is no need to prove that... just like the reader of the article is from the perspective of my limited knowledge about him / her possibly reading this in Europe (and possibly not) and there is no reason for me to back up my statement because either way (whether the reader is or isn't in Europe) I am right... I can't go wrong.

The only reason to include that statement of a possible wound to his genitalia then is to give the reader an idea or example of one of the things that could have caused the problem he had of having a feminine voice. Therefore, it is both adequate to have that statement and needless of a citation to back it up. I think we should thus remove the "citation needed" thing and effectively have. You will possibly agree with me.


 * Firstly, I am unable to find reference to a wound to the genitalia in Suetonius or Tacitus. Since Cassius Chaerea has been featured in fiction, it could be that this is the invention of some author. Secondly, I don't think that your argument about the use of the word "possibly" making a citation unnecessary will stand up to much scrutiny. I could add the phrase "possibly a martian" to every biography on wikipedia, without any sort of citation if I used your logic. To put it another way, there is nothing to distinguish the claim that he had a high voice (itself unsupported by the citations provided) because of a genital wound, from any other random claim about him. "Cassius Chaerea possibly had twelve toes" is just as valid a claim as his supposed genital wounds, but to include such a claim in the article would be unjustified because we lack any evidence of it (or more importantly for wikipedia, any citation from a reliable, scholarly source for it). Revcasy (talk) 15:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I have also just checked Josephus (by far, the most detailed account of the assassination) and there no reference is made to wounds or to a high voice. Revcasy (talk) 15:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Seneca does mention a high voice, but makes no mention of a wound. I would like to add that the use of all of these primary sources is problematic from the viewpoint of WP, even if they supported the claim to a wound, which they do not. Revcasy (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Untitled
The opening paragraphs of this article seem somewhat dubious. Unless the author would be so kind as to provide adequate citations for the more detailed and seemingly personal information listed I will go ahead and remove it. Alot of related information on this subject on wikipedia appears to have been lifted directly from films. Anyone object to this? Yaxchilan (talk) 22:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is all from Suetonius. And yes, it sounds dubious, but not unusual for ancient sources. Stan (talk) 02:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Graves/Teutoberger
No verfication is given for asserting that Graves made up Chaerea's service @ Teutoberger. He has a bad reputation among academic classicists, but that doesn't substantiate the assertion. Tapered (talk) 08:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

A little research revealed that Tacitus did record Chaerea's distinguished service under Germanicus in Germany. Hence my article change today. Tapered (talk) 09:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

one of the few assassins to be actually condemned
This phrase is ambiguous and unsourced, and the paragraph it appears in has a [citation needed] tag. What does the phrase mean? Does it mean that Cassius was one of the few conspirators in the plot to kill Caligula to be condemned, or does it mean that he was one of the few assassins of Roman Emperors to be condemned to death? 2001:630:3C1:90:F8DF:5EB0:3DBF:C37E (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2020 (UTC)