Talk:Julian (emperor)/Archive 1

message: Gore Vidal explores the social, philosophical and religious tensions of the time, but uses modern imagery such as ‘secret police’ to dramatize the known ethics and events. An entertaining and informative read, it is unlikely to appeal to those of a conventional Christian persuasion, for it links many of that culture's beliefs and rituals to their precursors. Although fiction, Vidal is a thorough researcher and one of the finest writers from the USA. Publisher Little, Brown & co. in GB  Hienemann 
:Added a reference to Julian (after consulting Claudius to see how and whether i Claudius was described), then saw this note.  Must concur with the above assessment of Vidal. -SM 19:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is duplicative.  Vidal's novel and other works were already noted in the last paragraph of the section on Julian's death.  It's there because the discussion of his death flowed naturally into the "Vicisti, Galileae" line, which flowed naturally into mentioning Swinburne's poem, which flowed naturally into Ibsen and Vidal -- but, admittedly, by that time we're somewhat far from Julian's death.  Perhaps a separate section for fiction is a good idea.  The commentary on Vidal's work, though, seems to me to be opinion, and should be omitted unless it can be attributed to a notable source (historian or literary critic). JamesMLane t c 02:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm confident that it can be (and yes, I've read it), however I cannot pull this off from memory.  I can also direct you to the forward of Julian itself (which I do have to hand), where Vidal carefully describes his research done at both the American Academy at Rome and the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, several primary sources consulted (which he would have read in the originals), and where he has taken what few liberties he allows himself.  I think it falls to reputation and verifiability, for the moment. I am comfortable out on that limb.  -SM 04:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read it also, but it was a long time ago.  My recollection is that he discussed his research, while modestly saying that he hadn't done as much as Graves did for I, Claudius and Claudius the God.  I'm not comfortable with going out on the limb of stating, as a fact, that Vidal's research was careful, based only on his own report.  For all I know, there could be experts who've criticized the book for gross inaccuracies.  Going into detail about his research would be more appropriate in the Gore Vidal article than in this one. JamesMLane t c 18:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Your memory is good, however Vidal's modesty was in comparison to his characterization of Graves' listing, "...every relevant text which has survived from the ancient world...".  He then goes on to outline his incontrovertably careful research, and directs the reader to his own bibliography (remember, we are talking about a comparison to Robert Graves here, modesty would suit anyone in this case). -SM 08:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Julian - a novel by Gore Vidal 

message: Here are two interesting sources which give a somewhat different picture.   Jayjg (talk) 18:55, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent anonymous and unsourced insertion re: Temple

message: At Talk:Julian (disambiguation) there is discussion about making Julian redirect to Julian the Apostate. --Commander Keane 06:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move: Julian to redirect here 

message: The "Thou has conquered, Galilean" phrase in the section "Death", appears to be described first by Ioannas Malales two centuries after Julian's death and was originally drawing it from Philostorgius an ecclesiastical writer of the fifth century, who apparentally promulgated several versions of Julian's death.  But in the World J. Surg. article it is reported not as "Thou has conquered, Galilean", but "You defeated me, Christ; feast on this, Nazarene" and he apparentally sprinkled his blood in the air.  L Hamm 19:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apocrypha 

message: $1 says that Julian was not wearing his armor in battle, in the desert, under the blazing son, for the simple reason that he was over-heated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.235.44.73 (talk • contribs) 04:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Armor

message: I was under the impression that the 'adventure' as it is called in the article was started by Shapur II and Constantius - with Julian merely inheriting the political and military situation of his predecessor.  If that is the case, its hardly correct to say it was Julian's adventure.
L Hamm 17:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not correct. Shapur retreated in 360. Julian ignored the persian embassies and was eager to renew the war (cf. Ammianus 22,12). Constantius' strategy was strictly defensive, Julian preferred a more aggressively strategy - that was a failure. Cf. Bowersock, 106ff. and Wirth's important article "Julians Perserkrieg. Kriterien einer Katastrophe", in: R. Klein, Julian Apostata, Darmstadt, 1978, 455ff. --Benowar 14:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death 

message: Taken from the eighth paragraph of "Julian and Religion": ". . . not to mention a satirical attack at what Julian may have viewed as a hypocrisy: Christian schools teaching the Bible as the sole source of knowledge while simultaneously teaching classical pagan texts as well, knowledge of which was needed for success in Roman society."
When has Christianity ever taught that the Bible was "the sole source of knowledge"? There are some Christians, now, who believe that the Bible is the sum total of all religious knowledge, but even this substantial portion of Christianity is not the majority. This far-fetched claim sounds like it came from some non-Christian who wanted to give some sort of veiled barb against Christianity in this article. More POV than you can shake a stick at. IamFingolfin 14:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that was Julian thinking.--Panairjdde 15:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually it was conjecture as to what Julian was thinking. IamFingolfin 15:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You forget we have his writings, as well as the ones of his friends/foes.--Panairjdde 17:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The "may have viewed as hypocrisy" clause indicates fairly conclusively that it is speculation not taken from his writings. If it is, in fact, taken from his writings, feel free to point out the relevant passage. IamFingolfin 18:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: We don't have all of his writings, nor all of those that would be relevant to a question, such as Against the Nazareans (or Galileans?) L Hamm 20:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was Not moved to Julian. The varying worth of other possibilities may be discussed otherwise and, with consensus, moved, but keep in mind that it is not the place of Wikipedia to independently correct bias in the historical literature. —Centrx→talk • 04:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Sole Source of Knowledge"?

message: Should "Pagan" be capitalised? Wiktionary does not seem to indicate that it is capitalised. It is a generic term for a type of religion, not a single religion, much like monotheism and polytheism being non-capitalised; it would only really be capitalised if it were referring to a specific type of paganism, which the article does elsewhere. Just wondering. --Grimhelm 01:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be, just like we write Christianesim, even if it might refere to several religions (Donatism, Orthodoxy, Arianism...) Note also that here it is referred to Roman Paganism in particular, which is one religion.--Panarjedde 01:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're unlikely to find a single scholarly reference which capitalizes the word pagan in this context.  I'm going to restore the lower case unless there's serious objection (and a good argument for keeping the capitals).  I can cite loads of references, if anyone is really interested. Dppowell 02:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is you who should give a serious objection to remove the capitals. I gave mine, and you did not debunk it.--Panarjedde 11:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I did.  In the field where this topic is discussed professionally, the capitals are not used.  Here's another: the Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford University Press, 2005) lists pagan as an improper noun, i.e. it's not capitalized.  There's nothing wrong with the phrase "Roman Paganism" as a proper name in an informal discussion about Roman religion, but in an encyclopedia article, capitalizing "pagan" gives the false impression that Roman religion was monolithic (of course, Julian tried to make it so, but...) "Roman Paganism" doesn't necessarily refer to one religion, but to a huge smorgasbord of beliefs that included the Greek gods, Mithras (Persia), Isis (Egypt), and countless other imports. Dppowell 12:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This does not mean it was not a single religion, and that it is a proper noun for it.--Panarjedde 13:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by "single religion"?  Dppowell 14:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That it was a "single religion" as it is Christianesim.--Panarjedde 14:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, you mean Christianity?  Forgive me for being blunt, but if you can't get that one right, you really shouldn't be taking strong stances on wordsmithing issues like this one.  I've restored the lower case usage. Dppowell 16:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I'm not getting into a revert war with you.  I'm going to cool off for a while.  When I fix the article the next time, don't revert it unless you're prepared to go into formal dispute resolution. Dppowell 16:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What does this mean? You are simply delaying the edit war?--Panarjedde 17:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm following the Wikipedia conflict resolution guidelines; you're simply reverting edits (mine and others) you don't agree with.  There won't be an edit war. I'll eventually make the change again, and if you re-revert, I'll deploy the mountain of authoritative evidence to back up my position and build a consensus.  If, after that, you continue to revert, the admins will deal with you (as I see they have in the past). Dppowell 19:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: And again, to be clear, I have no problem with the use of "Roman Paganism" as a proper name in the context of an informal discussion. But it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. The editorial tone should be primarily academic with some concessions made for general readability. Dppowell 14:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a proper noun, in this case, since it refers to a particular belief not to paganism in general. And this in any context.--Panarjedde 14:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't mind it either way. --Grimhelm 12:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd just like to note that I agree with Dppowell, and find it strange that there's even a dispute here. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem comes from the fact that on Wikipedia, all religions are to be capitalized. If you write "paganism" you are supporting it is not a religion, if you write "Paganism" you are claiming it is: how will you write it?--Panarjedde 16:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pagan Capitalised 

message: I see, Panarjedde, that in addition to your reverts of my decapitalization edits, you also reverted an accurate historical edit made by another user, with the comment that it's an "unreferenced claim."  90% of the material on Wikipedia is unreferenced; that doesn't mean it gets removed.  This particular user's edit was, in fact, supported by the text of Ammianus Marcellinus, the most important primary source for Julian. You seem to have an inappropriate sense of ownership over this article.  Please step back and reconsider your position before clamping down on others' efforts to improve it. Dppowell 16:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If this is true, it won't be difficult to re-insert the text, with the appropriate citation of Ammianus. Furthermore, you will also need a citation for the fact that he won also out of luck.--Panarjedde 17:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of accurate historical info re: Julian's study of Caesar 

message: Panarjedde, sorry to be getting into the subject with you again as we did on the Theodosius page, but what evidence do you have that the drawing currently foregrounded on this page is of a 4th century statue?  I don't see any information about the origin of the drawing on the image page.  I'd be curious as to where the original is located. --Jfruh (talk) 15:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There exists a nice statue of Julian, a free version of which is lacking, and from which this picture was derived. You can see it here.--Panarjedde 16:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the info.  Any idea where the statue is located?  We need to dispatch a wikipedian with a camera! --Jfruh (talk) 16:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is at the Louvre. --Panarjedde 16:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Julian.jpg