Talk:Marcus Junius Brutus (tribune 83 BC)

chronological problem
The article says:

In 77 BC Brutus was placed in command of the forces in Cisalpine Gaul following the death of Lucius Cornelius Sulla who had been dictator.

Sulla had resigned the dictatorship before his death in 78, so this is somewhat unclear. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Article title
For its entire existence until today, this article has been at "Marcus Junius Brutus the Elder", a slightly clunky, but fairly clear description of the subject. Today it was moved to "Marcus Junius Brutus (father of Brutus)", which in my opinion is somewhat tautological, since any son of any Roman surnamed Brutus would necessarily be named Brutus. This undiscussed move was carried out by an editor currently involved in a dispute over the title of the article about the younger Brutus, and who has vigorously insisted that Brutus unambiguously means Marcus Junius Brutus, the tyrannicide, although there were several other Romans named Brutus whom other editors feel to be of equal or greater historical significance—as well as at least one familiar pop culture figure of the name—whom they believe make "Brutus" somewhat ambiguous as an article title.

In support of this move, the editor in question cited (on another article's talk page) the existence of articles titled "Servilia (mother of Brutus)" and "Porcia (wife of Brutus)", which I think is fairly read as an argument for consistency; however, I think those are plainly distinguishable from this article for two reasons. First, the tyrannicide is the only Brutus we know of whose mother was named Servilia or whose wife was named Porcia, and that makes "(... of Brutus)" sufficient disambiguation. Secondly, since neither of those articles is about one of the Junii Bruti, neither one repeats the name Brutus or is ambiguous in the way that the present title is: the subject of this article was called Brutus. His son was called Brutus. His father was called Brutus. His grandfather was called Brutus. Every paternal ancestor he had going back five hundred years was Brutus, including Lucius Junius Brutus, probably the most historically significant of all the family—whose father was named Marcus Junius Brutus. Neither father was particularly distinguished, and one might reasonably wonder which of them this article refers to—which was not the case at the former title.

So I strongly doubt that this title is an improvement over the old one; I think that the old title was clearer and that the move was motivated entirely by a discussion occurring on another article's talk page. I propose returning this article to its former title, unless someone can come up with a better alternative. P Aculeius (talk) 16:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I came because of a recent mention on the Project talk page. "Marcus Junius Brutus (father of Brutus)" seems tautologous because (as P Aculeius says) the same could be said of any Marcus Junius Brutus who had a son. Names such as "... the Elder" are also not without problems. If there were a consensus for "Marcus Junius Brutus (tribune 83 BC)" I would support it. Andrew Dalby 13:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * That would be a better title than the present one, although I still think that the former title was clearer. I generally prefer to distinguish different types of tribune, since there were several, even though tribune of the plebs (in various formulations) is the one that comes to mind when people use the word by itself—having worked on some of the articles distinguishing the various other tribunes, it rather grates on me using the word by itself and out of context, but Marcus Junius Brutus (Tribune of the Plebs 83 BC) is a long title by comparison.  Still, either version is preferable to ...Brutus (father of Brutus).  P Aculeius (talk) 14:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Pagenames should be brief; some non-specialist readers would understand that "tribune" is a title of office, many fewer would be able to make anything of "of the Plebs". Hence I doubt that the words "of the Plebs" earn their place, but for the sake of agreement I'd agree to them! Andrew Dalby 12:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Tribune is already used in a number of pages, including Lucius Cassius Longinus (tribune 105 BC), tribune of the plebs, and Gaius Octavius (tribune 216 BC), military tribune; there is no distinguishing here between the types of tribune. There is Lucius Cassius Longinus (proconsul 48 BC); a promagistracy is, to my knowledge, even less common a disambiguator than a tribuneship; though this person in particular was also tribune of the plebs in 44 BC. If someone doesn't like Marcus Junius Brutus (tribune 83 BC), the death date could be used instead: Marcus Junius Brutus (died 77 BC). I believe any of the two options is good enough. One could even argue for Marcus Junius Brutus (father of tyrannicide) (analogous to Publius Licinius Crassus (son of triumvir)), though tyrannicide is a rather politically loaded term. Aforst1 (talk) 14:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Just because it's already used doesn't make it a good choice. A great deal of confusion is created when "tribune" is used generically or out of context, given that there were many different types of tribune carrying out very different functions.  A proconsulship is a higher rank, and more useful for disambiguation, where it's available, unless the person is notable primarily because of another appointment/office.  I don't object to the use of "tyrannicide" in running text, but think it should be avoided in article titles—at least with reference to third persons.  I might have suggested "legate of Lepidus", but apart from it not being very recognizable, due to the relatively small role that he and his commander played in Roman history, Broughton isn't sure about his title.  My preference is still for "the Elder" or "tribune of the plebs 83 BC", but either "tribune 83 BC" or "died 77 BC" would be preferable to the present title.  P Aculeius (talk) 16:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)