This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism 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.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
This redirect 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
Does this page need a link with populares? They were meant to be opposing parties. Also, I'm not sure where this would go, but there has been a lot of recent scholarship discussion about the terms "optimates" and "populares" - it is now a fair consensus that they were not parties as we see the term, but more degrees of a way of working. Many of the optimates used fairly popularist (not sure that's the right word but...) tactics at some point in their careers, or at least could use populares politicians for their own ends. It sometimes sounds as if they were opposed parties - it was more a way of doing things. However, this might be a bit in-depth as it would involved a lot of names and scholarship debates...Tbarker 10:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the entries on populares and optimates should be edited to reflect a more contemporary understanding of Roman politics. The idea that the two groups were anything like 'political parties' as we know them, or that they were driven to any significant degree by ideology, has long been abandoned. I'm willing to take this task on, but it does seem to require a merge between the two entries. The argument that the two entries shouldn't merge because people don't want to read anything very long strikes me as absurd. Nobody is proposing to make a 20 page entry, and if people can't read a little bit more, then they shouldn't bother to read at all. -- djr [14 Nov. 2007] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.127.2.114 (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
