Talk:Mark Antony

Requested move 13 November 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Consensus against moving per WP:COMMONNAME. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 05:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

---

Mark Antony → Marcus Antonius – Google Books search hits since 1965 has 330 in favour of 170. The neologism popularized with Shakespeare goes against consistency in other Roman articles. Zoupan 22:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

• Uncertain. Personally I'd like to, and to move Pompey to Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus as well, but as many experienced editors have pointed out, Wikipedia policy is to place articles under their most familiar forms, even if the person's name was something else. The classic example is that we have Bill Clinton rather than William Jefferson Clinton, but many other names could be cited for the same proposition. I don't believe that Google hits demonstrate the familiarity of "Marcus Antonius" to English speakers. Perhaps that's the form most commonly used in scholarly literature today, but it's far from the most familiar. I also disagree with the characterization of "Mark Antony" as "Shakespeare's neologism." That's an ahistorical view of English rendering of Latin names. Standard practice for hundreds of years was to drop -us and -a endings, and change i-stems to terminal y's. Shakespeare didn't invent it and doesn't deserve to be blamed for it merely because most people are familiar with that linguistic fashion as a result of his plays. Getting back to the issue at hand, readers wouldn't be harmed by the proposed move, since there'd be a redirect to this article. But many people might be surprised to find it under the proposed title, including editors who've stuck by Wikipedia's policies for user-friendliness reasons. If a majority agree that this move would be okay, then I'll support it. But I'd like to hear from the many other editors who've contributed to this article over the years. P Aculeius (talk) 00:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. The nom's numbers don't make sense to me. Since 2000, I get 34,800 Gbook hits for "Marcus Antonius" -llc compared to 50,600 for "Mark Anthony." -llc This type of search is what the guideline tells us to do. These results are almost 99 percent ghost hits, so I don't consider them terribly meaningful. This ngram suggests that the two forms are about equally common. Fernando Safety (talk) 01:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• Tentative support it is a bit odd to have just one Roman general at a Shakespearean name. Sources actually dealing with Roman history do appear to use the Latin. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Not just one. As I pointed out, we have "Pompey", who was arguably a much more significant figure in Roman history, if much less Romantic. There'd probably be others, but most Roman generals aren't as well known as these two, and are first encountered when studying history rather than literature, where their proper names (or at least parts of them given in Latin form) are more likely to be used. And as I've also said, Shakespeare didn't originate this, so let's stop using his name as shorthand for "archaic and irrelevant". P Aculeius (talk) 14:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support Almost all other Roman biographical articles use the Latin forms of the name. Redirects should remain however and notes about how the name is rendered in older English texts. Dimadick (talk) 07:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose far more known as "Mark Antony" than Marcus Antonius. TheAstuteObserver (talk) 09:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, per WP:COMMONNAME. The most well known name in English is clearly Mark Antony (ask the next random ten people you meet on the street, hence Britannica's article's name of "Mark Antony"). Whether or not "Mark Antony" is a Shakespearean neologism is irrelevant. That many other articles use Latin rather than anglicized forms is also irrelevant. Obviously the more obscure a figure is, the less likely their name will have a popular anglicized form. The only relevant issue is what is the most well known name in English. Paul August ☎ 13:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: the specific policy we're really going under is WP:Romans, which supports the current name. Of course, exceptions and changes to either policy can be made by consensus. I doubt we'll achieve consensus for this move, however! And as I said earlier, the Anglicization of Greek and Roman names didn't originate with Shakespeare, and it's not fair to call it "neologism"; it was just the standard practice of English at the time, much as the shifts in the pronunciation of Latin names in English. Those are perfectly valid; so while having studied Latin in college, I refuse to pronounce alumnae as though it were alumni, as a historian I'm equally adamant about not saying Yulius Kaiser. And that sort of idiosyncracy is just fine. We don't need to enforce some notion of orthodoxy. The article opens with the name given in its proper form, explains what the common form in English is, and has an explanatory footnote. This is a messy area, and the tendency may be to clean it up, but we have a good compromise in place, and unless one side can convince the other to change, let's leave it at that. P Aculeius (talk) 14:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, Wikipedia uses the most common name. In English he's commonly known as "Mark Antony" and not as Marcus Antonius. Roman names were often commonly Anglicized (often by dropping the "(i)us"). The same naming principle applies to Pompey the Great, writers Juvenal, Livy, Lucan, Martial, Ovid, Quintilian, both Pliny, Terence, and Virgil, both Roman Kings named Tarquin, the emperors Aurelian, Diocletian, Domitian, Gratian, Hadrian, Jovian, Julian, Trajan, Vespasian, the theologian Tertullian, and so on. The emperor Augustus in his pre emperor days is referred to as Octavian,... --Fdewaele (talk • contribs) 15:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, Wikipedia uses the most common name. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Fdewaele. We have many less famous Romans with Anglicized names. Maybe they should all be moved, but this title is in line with current practice. Fernando Safety (talk) 04:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Oh please, his common name is still the Anglicised version. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose as per commonname. Tiggerjay (talk) 17:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

LEADSENTENCE

There's seldom→never a good reason to start off an article "XYZ, commonly known in English as ABC...". I understand some online Romans above were pushing to change the article's title but, until the time comes that the page actually is moved, it should start with the English common name and list the Latin original second rather than vice versa. — LlywelynII 04:50, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Similarly, M·ANTONIVS·M·F·M·N is not a name—it's an inscription. Fixt. — LlywelynII 04:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Not so. Bill Clinton, to use the standard-bearer for WP:COMMONNAME, begins "William Jefferson Clinton (born William Jefferson Blythe III; August 19, 1946), commonly known as Bill Clinton...", as I'm sure do many other articles where the subject's proper name and most familiar name differ. Also, as previously stated, the current lead for this article is the product of a reasonable compromise between sides that have differing views on how the article should be named, and how the subject should be referred to in the body. Such a compromise ought to be respected, not challenged each time one side or the other wins a victory or suffers a defeat with respect to the issues that led to the compromise.

As for the "inscription," the use of small capitals and interpuncts is one convention for rendering Latin names, but without it, "M. Antonius M. f. M. n." would be equally valid, without being mistaken for an inscription. As the article on Roman names states, praenomina were regularly abbreviated (in fact more often than not) in writing of all sorts, and the filiation was regarded as part of the name, even though it could be used or ignored at the will of the writer, much as patronymics and middle names are today. Of course, the Romans didn't use minuscule letters the way we do today; that's a modern convention for rendering Latin. So if you want to be "typographically authentic", use all capitals and interpuncts. But as with many such matters, it's really a matter of style, in which different authors prefer different conventions, and many are happy to use one convention for a specific purpose (such as giving the "authentic" version in the lead) and not others (repeating it every time the name is used would be distracting).

My suggestion is to focus on the content of the article, rather than the form in which Mr. Antonius' name is written in each instance. As long as there's some legitimate reason for giving his name one way in some places and differently in others, and doing so won't cause unreasonable confusion, there are better ways to improve this article. P Aculeius (talk) 06:19, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2016

This request is to correct a few grammatical or typographical errors.

1. In the first paragraph, "...Pacorus' conquest had capture much..." should become, "...Pacorus' conquest had captured much...".
2. In the third paragraph, "...this is what Ventidius hoped would occur..." should become, "...this is what Ventidius had hoped would occur..."
3. In the third paragraph, "...assassinated Orodes II in late 38 BC and succeeding him..." should become, "...assassinated Orodes II in late 38 BC, succeeding him..."
4. In the fourth paragraph, "...if he invaded Parthian territory, and thereby steal..." should become, "...if he were to invade Parthian territory and thereby steal...".
5. In the fourth paragraph, "...so he instead attacked and subdue the eastern..." should become, "...so he instead attacked and subdued the eastern...".

216.243.130.246 (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Mostly done. #2 seems fine the way it is. Did the others either as suggested or with slightly different wording, and reworded the end of the last sentence for clarity. Thanks for catching these mistakes and awkward passages! P Aculeius (talk) 23:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Name of article

I know it's been thoroughly discussed and ruled upon but there is one argument I didn't see mentioned. Marcus Antonius is his proper, historical and correct name. Isn't (shouldn't) one of the major goals of WP to espouse knowledge? By allowing "Mark Antony" to be used as the title is misleading as to his true name. What's wrong with just having a redirect to his proper name? I understand the argument that most only know his anglicized name but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. We, as the learned, should be doing all we can to stop the ignorance that seems to plague the world today. It's simple to place "anglicized: Mark Antony" in the first paragraph. Solri89 (talk) 18:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind the move at all, but at the same time we might need to reconsider current policy on Roman article titles, which supports the Anglicized name. I doubt there would be a consensus for that. And while I certainly prefer Latin for names like "Marcus", "Antonius", and (especially) "Pompeius", a lot of people prefer the versions with which they're most familiar. And then some writers vary the forms they use a little or waver between one and the other; for instance, "Tarquin" vs. "Tarquinius".

We haven't been too dogmatic on Wikipedia, enforcing one person's preference on everyone else; while there's just one article title, references to a person within each article often vary according to the writer's preference. A degree of flexibility allows more people to feel comfortable about contributing, and doesn't really cause that much confusion. Too much rigidity isn't a good thing; I'd hate to see all the J's turned into I's, or the V's into U's (or vice versa). So, I really think we need a strong consensus before moving this article or changing the policy. P Aculeius (talk) 23:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)