Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiberius Junius Brutus

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tiberius Junius Brutus

Reason why the page should be deleted I noted the discussion page for this entry on the 22nd May with the view that it was an invention. I invited verification from the author. None has been forthcoming. I therefore conclude that whoever wrote the page has no interest in defending its legitimacy and so the page should be deleted unless, at this eleventh hour, proper verification is forthcoming. -David91 7 July 2005 18:14 (UTC)

• Interestingly:
  • The article tells us that Tiberius Junius Brutus "was the younger son of Lucius Junius Brutus", "rebelled against his father's wishes along with his brother Titus Junius Brutus", and "aided [...] Lucius Tarquinius Superbus in attempting to reclaim the Roman throne"; that "Tiberius and Titus were captured and brought before the embryonic Senate of Rome", and "brought to trial"; and that "Lucius Brutus called for their execution, and they were beheaded".
  • The nominator, in the aforementioned talk page tells us that "LJB was killed in battle having killed his two sons", which does not contradict what the article actually says.
  • The entry for Brutus, L. Junius in L'Emprière's tells us that "His sons conspired with the Tuscan ambassador to restore the Tarquins; and when discovered, they were tried and condemned before their father, who himself attended at their execution.", and cites several sources, albeit in the almost undecipherable manner that the constraints of paper cause to be used.
  • Lucius Junius Brutus also discusses the tale of his execution of his sons.
• Even though I cannot immediately verify the name of the son, and even though the story may be an outright creation of Roman historians, this is the story as apparently related by Roman historians (albeit reported in a little more detail than reported in L'Emprière's). The major thing that worries me is that the original version of the article has the tell-tale signs of a copyright violation from a paper book. As long as that is not in fact the case, Keep, albeit possibly trimming any of the details given that are not verified either by the above or by direct reference to the histories written by Lavilius and Livy (whom the article does attribute information to). Uncle G 14:26, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Keep. As dearly as I love a truly good hoax, this, alas, is not one of them. The story is substantially true (Livy ii.5) and was commented on in Antiquity already. Very quickly, I also find it alluded to in passing by Claudian (IV Cons. Hon. 611) (and see the Loeb editor's note to the English translation there). I can also confirm the connection of Tiberius Brutus with the famous Brutus, both his father and the far later assassin of Caesar. I didn't check the details. Copyvio of course is another matter; I don't recognize it, if it is, but I'm not the world's best classicist. Bill 15:53, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, I've found the same references as Bill (hi Bill, nice to see you here). I would however suggest a tweak. This period is not documented by any contemporary sources, so by he time it was written down it was the stuff of legend. So making it clear that this is accordring to later sources and not necessarily the true story would be a good idea. Cnyborg 16:05, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi Chris, yes. Taking some time out from my little churches in Umbria.... Your tweak is a good idea, yes. Bill

• Keep, this is more-or-less verifiable. R. Leigh Merritt wrote a play "Lucius Junius Brutus; Father of his Country" in which the dissenting son of Lucius Junius Brutus is named Tiberius. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I'm with Bill on this one, and maybe Cnyborg. Useful for those looking for information on this topic. -mysekurity 18:21, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Thank you everyone. I no longer have my reference texts and so could not verify the material. I am relieved that I was wrong and that the entry is substantially correct although some of the detail and the style does seem to lack conviction at times. -David91 18:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.