Talk:Tribune

message: Shouldn't the term of office of the tribunes of the plebs be mentioned (with reference to the sources) ?
One assumes it's one year, as in other magistacies, but since it's actually not a magistracy per ce (not part of the cursus honorum), and it does not hold imperium, the one year's limit is not evident.
Ronbarak (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Term of office of tribunes of the plebs ? 

message: Isn't it true that sacrosanct implied not only legal protections from harm, but religious as well?
Yep.  At the time, in fact, there wasn't really a difference between the two.  I'm not sure how to work this into the article as it stands, however.
There is a chronological error. It says the office of tribune was founded 15 years after the founding of the Roman Republic (494BC)it gives the date 509BC. However since it is BC years should be subtracted and it should 479BC instead.
There is a growing paragraph at the begining of this article pointing to alternative meanings, should this page now become a redirect to those other definitions? Giano | talk 10:52, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  discussion 

message: The "tribuni aerarii" is not a military officer; the "Tribune of the soldiers" is not a tribune at all. The whole section should be erased. Ori Redler 11:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm willing to look into this if you elaborate. On the face of it, your statement is hard to understand. What sense of "tribune" do "tribune of the soldiers" not satisfy? Is the whole section fiction? If not, what is a more appropriate place to put info on "tribune of the soldiers"? If "tribuna aerarii" aren't military officers, would they be more appropriate in the previous section somewhere? I don't know enough about them to say what they did. Did you mean get rid of the whole "Roman Military Officers" section? That would be fine if the info was put into a more appropriate place, such as one of the many articles on Roman army organization, and briefly referenced here. It does seem a little out of place in this article, which seems to concentrate more on the civilian office. Kiaparowits 16:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  some tribunes are not tribunes 

message: Some references are not references. This article has none. Haploidavey (talk) 03:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: references

message: The recent changes by another editor made many minor alterations, often unsupported by the references which he left in place, and included a blanking of a perfectly reasonable section on the French institution which was named for the Roman institution of tribunes.  I've reverted them, as the edit tags did not support or describe most of the changes made.  I would be happy to discuss the particular changes, provided especially they don't materially alter text while leaving references intact, which creates an inadvertently incorrect citation--a particularly pernicious problem.  06:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent changes 

message: The number of tribunes is extremely unclear. In the intro it says the title was shared by 10 elected officials. Then later in the same paragraph "In about 450 BC the number of tribunes was raised to Nine." So how can ten be "raised to nine" ? Why is Nine capitalised ? Salsa man (talk) 15:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Nine" was introduced by a vandal recently; it should be "ten" of course.  Thanks for catching it. Tb (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: So it was raised from 10 to 10? Thanks for clearing that up! ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 23:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  number of tribunes