Talk:Mark Antony

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)

You make a very good argument on rigidity. And since the article does state his birth name, I'll agree and concede to your point. Solri89 (talk) 01:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

If the non-english version was used in the title, too many english language speakers might not be able to find the article or identify it. The name "Mark Anthony" is the one most common, familiar and popularly used by the UNEDUCATED and native english speakers, as well as entertainment and other media,at least in the USA; the uneducated need to find this info maybe more than the "educated and enlightened". So in order for it to be findable and recognizable by the most people who use english as first language, the name most commonly known is the one that they should be able to locate. Good thing though, that his real Latin name is the first one used in the article to tell who he was. That's essential and educational. and

Meat Eating Orchid (talk) 12:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mark Antony. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716100018/http://www.tyndalehouse.com/egypt/ptolemies/cleopatra_vii.htm to http://www.tyndalehouse.com/Egypt/ptolemies/Cleopatra_vii.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121012091837/http://www.ancientlibrary.com/smith-bio/0272.html to http://www.ancientlibrary.com/smith-bio/0272.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

everyone's a Cretic

His cognomen is mentioned only obliquely (in his father's name). Why? —Tamfang (talk) 07:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Not all cognomina were hereditary; in fact a great many were never passed down to subsequent generations, especially those that were derisive, and became attached to rather infamous individuals. In the case of Antony's father, it was a personal cognomen. He was supposed to clear the sea of pirates, and attacked Crete, where the pirates had been given safe harbour, but he was defeated and made a treaty with the Cretans—thus earning a surname that would normally mean "made of chalk", but resembles a cognomen ex virtute, which would have meant "conqueror of the Cretans". Not the sort of name that could be vindicated by a glorious career—and Antony's father died in ignominy soon after it was bestowed upon him. There was no particular reason to apply it to his sons, and no reason for them to want it—so like many cognomina, it was ephemeral, and never applied to Antony. P Aculeius (talk) 13:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Descendants

Hello:

what are the sources for the Bosphorus descendants listed here?

thank-you

norenxaqNorenxaq (talk) 20:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norenxaq (talk • contribs) 20:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)