Jump to content

Talk:Marcus Junius Brutus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Whatsthecity.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed name of article

[edit]

A discussion has been occurring at WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome over the best title for this article, which, if memory serves, used to be at "Marcus Junius Brutus the Younger" and is currently at "Brutus the Younger". After some debate, I think we're probably closing in on a consensus, but for the sake of completeness I think the matter should be decided here, so that people with this page on their watchlists will have the opportunity to weigh in, and so there's a record of the discussion on the article's talk page. Given the article's history and the options under discussion at CGR, the choices seem to be, in alphabetical order:

  1. Brutus, on the argument that he was the most famous/important person of the name;
  2. Brutus (Caesar's assassin), similar in disambiguation format to some other articles on Wikipedia;
  3. Brutus the Younger, the article's current title, on the theory that he needs a little more disambiguation to distinguish him from the other Junii Bruti, as well as pop culture references;
  4. Marcus Junius Brutus, the tria nomina, on the theory that he is at least the most famous/important Marcus Junius Brutus;
  5. Marcus Junius Brutus (Caesar's assassin), providing more disambiguation to distinguish him from all other persons with the same name; and
  6. Marcus Junius Brutus the Younger, the article's former title.

I suggest we indicate our preferences below this comment, keeping them as succinct as possible. P Aculeius (talk) 15:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You could have also added Brutus (Caesar's assassin), like the number of other "Brutus (...)" articles on WP. T8612 (talk) 20:07, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, will add that as an option. Renumbering the replies accordingly. P Aculeius (talk) 20:50, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like option 4, Marcus Junius Brutus, since it's clear, concise, and consistent with our usual article title policy for Romans; I don't think that 1, 2, or 3 are adequate given the number of Junii Bruti who were equally or more historically significant, and because Decimus Brutus was one of the principals in the assassination; but as this is the most significant Marcus Brutus, I don't think the additional disambiguation in 5 or 6 is necessary. P Aculeius (talk) 15:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"more historically significant" doesn't really matter when it comes to Wikipedia notability or what someones COMMONNAME in sources is. There's a reason there are hundreds of paintings, statues, plays and books about Marcus Brutus (often called just Brutus), and zero of Decimus.★Trekker (talk) 19:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Who would be then? I have a hard time thiking that if I talked to some random people outside of Wikipedia they'd even be able to name Decimus or Lucius Brutus.★Trekker (talk) 19:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brutus To me clearly the most famous person by the name and as far as I've been able to find it's increadibly common to refer to his as just "Brutus". I have already made my argument in detail on the Ancient Rome and Greece project page where I cited a mass of books.★Trekker (talk) 19:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is supposed to be a simple poll of the options, not a complete rehash of the topic from the other page by the same people. Can we please try to limit the arguments instead of replying separately to every comment that somebody else leaves? P Aculeius (talk) 20:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see the what help this is going to be of if it's only goint to be a poll, it's just attracting the same crowd that is at the WikiProject. The best thing to do would be to ask for input from more people, possibly admins or those in charge of naming conventions on Wikipedia. This discussion so far seems to be very split.★Trekker (talk) 15:00, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For one thing, this is the best place for any discussion that might decide the matter; otherwise people seeking clarification about the reasons for the page move wouldn't find them on the talk page. Not everybody in CGR watches this page, and not everyone involved with this page checks CGR talk. That's why I clearly linked the two at the beginning of this discussion and the ending of that one. However, as the topic was raised nearly four weeks ago and was discussed vigorously there before being brought here almost two weeks ago, I think we've got as much participation as we're likely to see in the short term from people interested in the title of this page. As for whether it's "very split", we only have two potential titles on the table: one is supported by two editors and opposed by twice that many; the other is supported by four editors and opposed by one. So opinion is clearly leaning in one direction. Just as importantly, a closely divided opinion would be more important if leaving the article at its present title were an option; but nobody has spoken in support of the present title, so the question isn't whether a majority of all editors who've weighed in favour a particular option (although it looks as though there may be a majority), but which option has the strongest support. The topic is still open for a couple more days if other editors who haven't yet voiced an opinion want to. P Aculeius (talk) 16:07, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a week (and a day), with no new replies in nearly a week. Before closing this I'll summarize the current opinions from both here and the CGR talk page, and ask if anybody else wants to weigh in (updated 19 November).

  1. First, there seems to be a consensus that the present title, Brutus the Younger, is not ideal. The most that could be said of it was when Septentrionalis asked if it wasn't the common name; nobody has spoken in favour of keeping it here. Nobody has expressed any preference for the old title, Marcus Junius Brutus the Younger, either.
  2. In favour of Brutus as the title, we have ★Trekker and Furius as "yes" votes. There are also three or four people who think that this is too vague: me, Andrew Dalby, T8612, and if I interpret his comment at CGR correctly, Llywrch.
  3. In favour of Marcus Junius Brutus, Dimadick, Andrew Dalby, T8612, and I have indicated that this is our preference, so four "yesses". ★Trekker is opposed.
  4. Marcus Junius Brutus (Caesar's assassin) was proposed by T8612, who reminded me to include it as an option here. So there's one definite "yes". I would support this as an alternative to the present title or to Brutus, which makes two "yesses". Nobody specifically opposed this, but I'm sure that ★Trekker would not agree with this option.

Septentrionalis did not express a clear preference; nor did Llywrch, except that he did not like Brutus. Based on these results, I would say we don't have a strong consensus for which title to move the article to, but a small majority prefers the tria nomina. So, why don't we leave this open for another week, in case somebody else wants to have a say, or someone has changed his or her mind, and if we still have the same basic outcome in a week's time, move the article to Marcus Junius Brutus. P Aculeius (talk) 13:35, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really like "Brutus" alone and have nothing against Marcus Junius Brutus; I therefore support the latter to build a consensus and change the current title. T8612 (talk) 15:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Another argument in favour of Marcus Junius Brutus that hasn't already been made is that the vast majority of other language wikis use this form. T8612 (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Updated the above tally accordingly. P Aculeius (talk) 13:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note Another thing which I think needs to be mentioned is that whatever way this goes Marcus Junius Brutus the Elder (main man's father) should be moved to Marcus Junius Brutus (father of Brutus) since that is the naming convention for notable relatives of far more famous ancient people (for example his mother is at Servilia (mother of Brutus) and his wife if at Porcia (wife of Brutus)). "Marcus Junius Brutus the Elder" is a name I have never once seen outside of Wikipedia (discouting places that clearly ripp from Wikipedia).★Trekker (talk) 15:00, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but technically a separate issue, and one for which there may be a different argument (for instance, "Marcus Junius Brutus (father of Brutus)" is very near a tautology, since any son of his would naturally be Brutus) in favour of the current name. But let's try to keep that discussion separate from this one, and in a predictable location (such as that article's talk page). P Aculeius (talk) 16:07, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion seems to have died down, with no new comments in three days, and most of the opinions having been given over a week ago. To summarize the results, nobody in the discussion here or at CGR likes the present title or the previous title. Although a couple of people didn't indicate what title they preferred, everyone else has indicated their support for one of two proposals, both of which are theoretically consistent with our naming policy on ancient Romans. The opinions differ largely according to which title editors think is sufficiently specific to avoid confusion with other figures from Roman history.

  • Two editors support Brutus for the title, but four others think this is too vague.
  • Four editors like Marcus Junius Brutus, with only one opposed.

I believe this is sufficient consensus to move the page to Marcus Junius Brutus. P Aculeius (talk) 20:19, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crawford claim verification

[edit]

@T8612: Hello there! I don't have a copy of Crawford's book on coinage. I believe, however, you do? There's a claim in the article: M. Crawford (1971) Roman Republican Coinage 502.2 shows that Brutus issued coins bearing the inscription Q. CAEPIO BRVTVS PRO [COS] (Q. Caepio Brutus, proconsul) in 42 BC. Could you verify? Thanks. Ifly6 (talk) 20:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ifly6:, I couldn't find this statement so I removed it. Brutus revived his Caepio name on his later coins though, but Crawford doesn't say why. I made a subsection on his term as moneyer. As an aside I think he was appointed moneyer by the consul Appius Claudius Pulcher, also his father-in-law, but that's OR. T8612 (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your edits! I did some normalisation here and there, I hope nothing of yours was mangled. Re Ap Cla Pulcher, I was under the impression that the 26-viri (of which the IIIviri monetales would have been a part) were elected by the people. How could he have been appointed? Ifly6 (talk) 23:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's debated whether they were appointed or elected, but I think it was the former, because there is a strange number of moneyers with family links to consuls of the same year. See Burnett's article (to which I could add several other instances). T8612 (talk) 23:55, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. I don't know much about Roman coins. That said, I can see both sides: coining is a relatively minor post, I could imagine that a consul commending his nephew or something would be influential before the tribes when the field of people who wanted to be elected is large (I'm imagining something like a municipal election in which almost nobody knows or cares about who wins crossed with a messy primary where there are twenty or thirty, or even more, candidates all trying to stand out). Ifly6 (talk) 00:58, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Marcus_Junius_Brutus&oldid=1193913217"