Talk:Appius Junius Silanus

Serious Problem
The Wikipedia biographical articles about Roman aristocrats of the late Republic and early Imperial periods are full of dubious overstatements, errors and contradictions. This article is an example: it alleges that Appius Junius Silanus (famously executed under Claudius at the instigation of his wife Valeria Messalina) was the husband of Aemilia, the great-grand-daughter of Augustus Caesar, and the father of her children, the Silani persecuted under the Emperor Nero. Yet, other articles mention Marcus Junius Silanus Torquatus as the father. Most historians will say that we are uncertain, but, if pressed, the majority who do make a claim, say that it was Marcus Silanus.72.199.110.160 (talk) 18:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed it.72.199.110.160 (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You didn't even provide a source for the allegation that "most historians claim that Marcus Junius Silanus was the father of the persecuted Silani," and you then deleted the material that you challenged without giving other authors who have contributed to the article a chance to review your claim. I searched through the sources for this article, and found no reason to suspect there was another Marcus Junius Silanus.


 * There was indeed some confusion about Junius' praenomen, which could conceivably result in the assertion, made under Marcus Junius Silanus Torquatus, that his father had the same name. But contrary to your assertion, all of the other articles relating to this family assert that the father was Appius Junius Silanus, and in fact the article on Torquatus said the same thing before being substantially rewritten by another author last year.  No source was given for the assertion that his father was named Marcus.


 * The Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology clearly sorts out the various members of this family, and unless some clear source can be found stating that the father of the Silani was a completely different person from Appius Junius Silanus (and not merely assigning him the praenomen Marcus, which could simply be editorial preference; the issue is not what his praenomen was, but whether he was the same person as the consul of 28), the article should have been left as is. Even then, the proper procedure would be to compare and discuss the sources, not to act unilaterally based on a different interpretation.  But you can't simply assert that "most historians would agree" to support deleting widely-accepted biographical details, without providing any details.  P Aculeius (talk) 00:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * One of the most commonly used Stemmas in recent histories may be found, for example (and there are many instances), in Anthony Barrett's 'Caligula: the Corruption of Power' (Touchstone, 1989), viii-ix. It names "M. Junius Silanus Torquatus" as the husband of "Aemilia Lepida," the descendant of Augustus, and father of the Silani persecuted under Nero, Marcus, Lucius and the Junias, their sisters. All of the articles which say otherwise should be changed. The text of many histories, including Barrett's, agrees with the Stemma used. See page 122 of his text, where Barrett states -- as if there is no controversy whatever -- that "Marcus Junius Silanus" the consul of 19 AD (clearly not Appius) was the husband of Aemilia, the daughter of Julia minor. The source you use doesn't really support you clearly, as you seem to admit, and is out of date in any case.72.199.110.160 (talk) 04:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, it is not correct to cite for a negative in the article text, i.e., that Appius was "not the husband" or father of someone. That would require an infinite text for all subjects. The articles on Aemilia Lepida, however, do now have the requested citation.72.199.110.160 (talk) 04:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You're still just arguing about his name and not that he was a different person. The fact that a recent history, or several recent histories, use one form of his name, does not constitute a claim that Appius Junius Silanus and Marcus Junius Silanus were two different people.  However, the original Latin historians cited as sources in this article clearly refer to him as Appius and, as far as I have been able to find, not as Marcus.


 * I don't understand why you assert that the "source I use doesn't really support me clearly, as you seem to admit," since I have never admitted such a thing, and find that the sources, plural are clear in their identification. Moreover, repeating the canard that the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology is "out of date" does not in any way refute its identification, any more than the sources cited by it.


 * You can't simply revise an entire biography based on the inference that recent historians consider him to be a different person, particularly when the only basis for that inference is that some sources assign him a different praenomen. That circumstance was already provided for in the original article, because even Roman sources frequently substituted common praenomina for uncommon ones.  So far you've given no other basis for your inference that two different people were involved, and even if you could find a source that clearly states that to be the case, and provides a proper source for that assertion, it isn't appropriate to delete the existing biographical material merely because there's disagreement about its accuracy.  The proper procedure would be to indicate what the controversy is, and explain the source of the uncertainty, without removing it from the article.


 * I also note that your assertion that "other articles mention Marcus Junius Silanus Torquatus as the father" is clearly mistaken. The article on Marcus Junius Silanus Torquatus clearly identifies him as the son and not the father.  It is true that the article now states that he was the son of a man of the same name, but in fact this is a change from a previous version of the article, which identified him as the son of Appius Junius Silanus, rather than an otherwise unidentified man of the same name.


 * Please do not delete this material again. If you can find a clear assertion that Marcus Junius Silanus and Appius Junius Silanus were two different people, that should be mentioned in the article, without deleting the biographical details.  If you can find a source that clearly explains that there was only one such person, and why we should believe that his name was Marcus instead of Appius, cite that.  If all you have is that some sources refer to him as Marcus, with no explanation, then that fact is all that should be added to the original article.  P Aculeius (talk) 05:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I've found a good source which sorts out this family somewhat better, and will be revising this and other articles accordingly this morning. P Aculeius (talk) 12:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I think I've got them all sorted out now. P Aculeius (talk) 17:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks good.72.199.110.160 (talk) 20:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)