User:Adangonzalez395/sandbox

Wikipedia is alright. I wonder why this is called sandbox if there's no sand involved.

Evaluating Articles and Sources --

I am currently looking at the article titled Second Punic War. The introduction is easy to read, but the first line has a citation error when it states that the Roman's referred to it as War Against Hannibal. The one part I would removed is the last line of the introduction. It states, "All battles mentioned in this introduction are ranked among the most costly traditional battles of human history..." The main reason I would remove it is that it is an opinion. Without any citations or references to back it up, the line read as an opinion and appears that the write is trying to state an argument.

The article is structured in a way to help you understand the chronology better. There is a part in the section Hannibal's Overland Journey that should probably have a citation (the last line of the last paragraph). The other part that was concerning was how much attention was given to certain parts over others. The editors have given a huge portion of writing to the Gallic uprising section but less to other parts like the Navy raids and expedition.

One thing I did like about the article was the last section titled Opinions on the war. However, this section is marred since it only includes an opinion by Livy and is succinct to that matter as well.

Wikipedia Project ~Draft~

Summary: Cicero opens his work by lameneting the death of his friend Hortenfius. He then proceeds to ponder on whether he, or if anyone, should be sad that he died. His work then proceeds to discuss a moment where he came across Brutus and T. Pomponius. They begin to discuss a letter that reveals that the Roman State has suffered numerous losses and that Rome is going through tumultuous times. Narrator wants to write universal history.

The characters want him to go over what he is working on. He once again states that the liberty of the state received a fatal overthrown and that now it is his task to go over the History of Eloquence. Brutus states that he does not like eloquence. Cicero says he disagrees and says he cannot find anyone who has been made an orator by military success. He goes on to say that eloquence is a difficult thing to acquire. Cicero begins by saying that oratory and eloquence first appeared in Atticus hometown: Athens. Oratory, or an attempt of it, does not appear in the infancy of Greece,but rather at the maturirty of her power. Oratory could be traced from Pisistratus and Solon, to Cleisthenes, and then Themistocles and finally Pericles and Cleon. Followed by Alcibiades, Critias, and Theramenes. Quick aside about how Socrates challenged them and created philosophy. AFter some decline in Greece, Isocrates appeared and opened the School of Eloquence. Before Isocrates, there was no harmony and structure. After him, came Lyfias and Demonsthenes was so close to approaching you may as well call him that. Basically eloquence developed throughout Greece and prior to Pesistratos and Solon, there were no successful orators. He pays close attention to Pericles and says that the Athenians not only liked him for his charm and fluency, but also feared himder. Interesting note: Oratory was only limited to Athens and to the entire Greece state. Spread from Greece to other parts of the world like Asia. Then begins back to talking about Brutus (the original one! ) and other figures like Curius, M. Popilius, Quinius Metellus. First person we have an account for being an orator is Q. Ennius. Starts talking about how Cato and Lysias the Athenian resemble each other in their elegance, character, and brevity.Really likes Cato cause he praises him a lot. Let's look at his qorks and why they are eloquent: Antiquities. Cato is overshadowed ny other people. I.e. we perceive the Greeks as amazing, but overlook Cato as somehthing prominent. Cato isn't perfect, but is still noteworthy. Begins to ramble about the age of orators. Then lists people who were contemporaries with Cato. When Cato was in the decline of his life, a bunch of new orators appeared. Servius Galba was the most respected among his age. Advanced on topics like prudence and morality. Galba was a really impressive figure who managed to win the court over with an amazing eloquent speech that his people were acquitted of the charges. Brutus, why is there so much merit, but no trace of itin his orations. Most orations were written after they were spoken. Orators saw it as unnecessary. Continues with another long list, but he does mention how art is pivotal for an orator. He continues by describing a court case of bribery and discussing the difference of the stoircal and antique craft (both forms of eloquence). He goes on to discuss that the stoics are very judicial and crafty in arguments, but are poor public speakers. Cato is the only exception. There poor performance of speaking arises from the fact that they devoted their lives to logic.

Look up two things: 1) What is oratory, and who is an orator? 2)What is eloquence and how does Cicero define it?