Talk:Passion of Saints Perpetua and Felicity

message: Bold text== Signature ==
Moved signature for initial work (Graham Pope BA Theology BTh (Hons)) here.  You will find, Graham, that we generally don't sign articles, as they quickly move from one person's work to the work of many -- hopefully in an incrementally improving way. -- Someone else 09:28 Dec 31, 2002 (UTC)
What you can do if your name is important as a researcher is to quote yourself in the article.  I'd like to see more about the motives behind the interest in discounting the Perpetua and Felicitas story.  I'd like to see more of her story.  I'd like to read about internal marks of authenticity or fraud within the story.  Hawstom 21:48, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The Acts does not once mention a husband for Perpetua. Does her having a child immediately make her married? I can think of a number of reasons why she would have one outside marriage (rape, carrying for someone else, widowed). Does anyone have any specific evidence of her marriage? -- Mjwilco 15:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Married? 

message: As you can see from the bibliography, there is now a reference for possible Montanist influences in the hagiographic literature. Might I suggest that the controversialists, or someone else, contacts the author and avails themselves of any additional documentary evidence about whether or not Montanist influences existed.
User Calibanu 14:44, 29 May 2006
The people who wright this page should be more causious about who can wright on here!!! For people who can read this may get the wrong info.  And HOW IS THAT FAIR. People how read this need to be causious and know what there reading.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.190.117.62 (talk) 17:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Montanism

message: Wetman: Thank you; however, your response doesn't address the question  raised, which is: If there is an original "surviving" document, who is the source who says they have seen/reviewed this document?
 
That is, please provide --in the article-- the relevant statement or quotation from a published author who has seen and described the contents of the "surviving" physical document; then provide the citation of that source/author, publisher, etc., in the customary manner. Or you could write of the person (or institution) who holds the document, and its location, then provide the customary citation of source. 
Without such information, why say there is a "surviving" text that exists (somewhere)?  Unless one or both of these data can be produced, it is misleading to write of an "earliest surviving text". 
(BTW, which of the references is the source of the phrase "earliest surviving text"? My oversight, no doubt, but I did not find it in searching the references cited in the article. Please say where you found this phrase.) 
The lack of authentication (for an "earliest surviving" document) means an NPOV encyclopedia shouldn't repeat such  phraseology as "earliest surviving text".--Jbeans (talk) 08:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation needed

message: "The next day the trial of the six took place, before the Procurator Hilarianus. All six resolutely confessed their Christian faith." But in the second paragraph it lists only five.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.25.55 (talk) 02:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many were killed with her? 

message: Would be nice if we could somehow combine refs to the same work, especially Shaw. I'm not sure how to do this and keep the page numbers for the individual citations. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Combine refs? 

message: The text mentions Saturus having a vision of Bishop Optatus of Carthage. This name is linked to a Wikipedia article about a Bishop Optatus of Milevis (Numidia) in the fourth century. Unless Saturus was really having a vision of the future (I think not!), I suggest that the link be removed, or an article created about Optatus of Carthage, distinguishing him from the later Optatus in Milevis, Numidia, and the present article linked to the correct Optatus.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.131.155 (talk) 09:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Visions of the future? Or wrong Optatus? 

message: Barbara Ellen Logan, whose doctoral dissertation is cited, is my sister. Bearian (talk) 21:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disclosure 

message: The article said " The Severan Persecution of 202-203, was the first calculated attempt through edict to suppress Christianity across the empire. Thus, the martyrdom may have occurred in the aftermath of Septimius Severus’s decrees of 202 that forbade conversion to Judaism and Christianity." This is not believed by contemporary scholars any more to be accurate, the persecution of Perpetua and Felicity was local,not part of an empire-wide persecution and there was never any such decree, see .Smeat75 (talk) 00:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed reference to spurious persecution and decree of Septimius Severus 

message: I put a tag which says "This article's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia." It reads like a sermon rather than an encyclopedia article and the section "Summary of the Passion text" is far too long and written like a novel - "Then having asked for a pin she furthered fastened her disordered hair....The five marched with 'gay and gracious looks' into the arena...And what of Felicitas? etc". And it appears to be a word for word copy of something by one Marianne Dorman. I am going to remove the whole section and redo it, I think it could be a copyright violation ( as well as being totally inappropriate for an encyclopedia).Smeat75 (talk) 21:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that section "Summary of the Passion text" has largely been copied word for word from  so it could well be a copy vio, and anyway it isn't any good, so I will remove the whole section and redo it shortly.Smeat75 (talk) 21:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: So I worked out that someone had just inserted a long discursus from Marianne Dorman's website, I just removed it, slightly revised the lead and added a paragraph about how it is no longer thought that this persecution was as a result of a decree from Roman emperor Septimius Severus.Smeat75 (talk) 02:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Tone" tag put on article 

message: Captain James Cook spotted a cape on the Pacific Coast while searching for the NW Passage.  He named it Cape Perpetua, since his sighting was on St. Perpetua's day.  The US Forest Service manages this as Cape Perpetua Scenic Area, with a visitor center on the highway; all just south of the town of Yachats in Oregon.  Should this get a mention in the article? Is a Legacy section appropriate? Larry Koenigsberg (talk) 14:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Cape Perpetua relevant? 

message: I am requesting consensus to split the article in two. The new article: Acts of Perpetual and Felicity will cover the text as this article will keep veneration, popular culture, and a new section that will briefly cover the Acts of Perpetual and Felicity. There are plenty of sources to support an independent article. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:04, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article split 

message: In the introduction they are described as 'Catholic Christian martyrs'. This seems to be a conflation of two ideas. They may be Roman Catholic Christian saints (because they are venerated in the Catholic tradition), but the term 'Catholic' is anachronistic prior to the Nicene creed. It's either tautologous, if the term is used in the sense of 'part of the the entire church', or misleading, if used anachronistically, or potentially wrong, if the arguments about Montanism are accepted. I propose removing the term 'Catholic' and sticking with 'Christian martyrs'.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinTurner (talk • contribs) 22:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: MartinTurner I’ve removed “Catholic” as it presents a bias. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catholic? 

message: The article stated in the lead "The text also purports to contain, in his own words, the accounts of the visions of Saturus". An editor did not like the word "purports" and changed it twice so that it said "it contains in his own words". This is too definite, we cannot be sure that it is really his own words, as the rest of the article makes clear. I have changed it to "The text also appears to contain, in his own words, the accounts of the visions of Saturus".Smeat75 (talk) 18:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Purports to contain"