Talk:Mithraism

message: - I reverted the change from BCE to BC for the following reasons:
*WP:ERA states, “Seek consensus on the talk page before making the change.” Consensus was not sought.
*The change to BC has been made and reverted to BCE at least 6 times: in May, 2018; three times in December, 2017; in November, 2017; and October, 2017; indicating a strong preference for BCE/CE.
*The archived Talk discussion referenced in the edit does not justify the change (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mithraism/Archive_5#BCE_or_BC).
*There are no direct quotes using BC/BCE within the article.
*There are direct quotes using BC/BCE in References; however, the direct quotes cannot be used as guidelines as there is no consistency in the sources. I was only able to verify two sources: Turcan (note 22) uses BC, while Beck (notes 119 & 169) uses BCE – so there are conflicts in the Referenced quotes. It is not clear if BC or BCE is used in the other sources due to changes and reversions. The other unverified uses of BC/BCE in direct quotes in References are Hopfe (note 4); Vermaseren (note 105); Barnett (notes 109 & 110); Legge (note 210 – in title of work, not on page cited).
*As the worshipers of Mithras were not Christian it makes more sense to use a secular dating system, in accordance with Neutral Point of View. – cheers - Epinoia (talk) 18:26, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Re the WP:ERA requirement that consensus should be sought: It's not me who changed from the established era style. The original was BC/AD, somebody else changed it without seeking a new consensus, and (as I said in my edit summary) I was restoring. Re the number of times that there have been reversions: I do not understand how that shows a preference, since the number of edits and the number of reversions must have been the same. Re the archived talk discussion: The justification for the restoration, as stated in the discussion, was "it is apparent that other editors, who have contributed a lot to the article in the past, prefer BC-AD. So I think that perhaps we should stay with that", with reference to WP:ERA, and the resulting consensus was for the established era style, i.e. BC/AD. Re direct quotes: Whoever made the changes from BC/AD to BCE/CE caused errors. Example #1: the book title "Forerunners and Rivals of Christianity, Being Studies in Religious History from 330 B.C. to A.D. 330" was changed to "Forerunners and rivals of Christianity: being studies in religious history from 330 BCE–330 AD". Example #2: The direct quote of Robert Turcan's words "We find him invoked with Varuna in an agreement concluded c. 1380 BC ..." was changed to "We find him invoked with Varuna in an agreement concluded c. 1380 BCE". Re Christianity: The Wikipedia archives have long discussions about whether the guideline is proper, and the place for such discussions is the talk page of the Wikipedia guideline that includes WP:ERA. Epinoia was wrong to re-insert, according to that guideline. Anyone else have an opinion? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  is correct that we should not change era styles that are in titles of works cited or in direct quotes. As for which system to use elsewhere, we can start a discussion on the subject. I personally prefer BC/AD dates, but I do not feel strongly enough on the subject to be willing to embroil myself in a huge argument over it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, WP:ERA states, "Exception: do not change direct quotations, titles, etc", which means it is ok to have exceptions to the main article style in direct quotations, thus, the era style of direct quotes does not determine the article style - Peter Gulutzan points out that Turcan was changed from BC/AD, but he neglects to include that his edit changed direct quotes by Beck from BCE/CE to BC/AD - all the references need to be restored to their original source style - and for clarification, "the number of edits and the number of reversions must have been the same" - the majority of edits to BC/AD were from anonymous IP accounts, while the reversions to BCE/CE were made by established editors, showing a clear preference for BCE/CE among established editors - also, "Epinoia was wrong to re-insert" - it's not about being right or wrong, but what is most appropriate for the article - this article is best served by following the scholarly convention of BCE/CE, rather than the traditional style of BC/AD, as the reconstruction of Mithraism has been the result of scholarship, not traditional knowledge - Epinoia (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Roger Pearse, who inserted the material in note 119, quoted Beck as using "BC" and "AD". Are you saying that he misquoted and Beck (bizarrely) wrote "BCE" and "AD", which is what you re-inserted? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  ERA 

message: Is it worth mentioning (and are there any interesting/useful sources) that this is the religion in the HBO sci-fi series Raised by Wolves?  I honestly didn't even know this was a real historical religion and had thought it was made up for that show.  Wclark (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, it looks like there may be some good sources that have written about this..  this article on den of geek Wclark (talk) 17:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Raised by Wolves