Talk:Sergius and Bacchus

message: I separated the paragraph under legend into two as I felt it made the article easier to read - but I accept that it means the Woods reference becomes lost from the second para. But I wasn't clear why the dating of 303 from this section was removed. Otherwise the problem is that someone reading for the first time would have absolutely no idea of which time period the legend is set. Who dates the martrydom to 303 CE - is it Woods? Contaldo80 (talk) 12:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Woods doesn't give the 303 date; in fact he says the passion narrative is full of contradictions and anachronisms that make trying to determine a date pretty meaningless. He says some descriptions seem to fit the Great Persecution of 303, but at the same time the text claims Galerius Maximianus was the emperor. However, he wasn't in the East at the time, nor was he the only emperor during his reign, despite what the text implies.--Cúchullain t/c 18:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What confuses me is that 303 C.E is in the info box at the top of the article. I agree dating is difficult so I think the first thing to do is to remove that - otherwise it gives a misleading introduction. The next question is how to anchor the legend text so it sits in some sort of dating context. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the death date in the infobox to "4th century" and added a line about it in the article body, attributed to Woods. Hopefully that helps.--Cúchullain t/c 13:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Date

message: Someone in an edit stated John Francis Harvey is not an historian.
He was a priest and thus has some expertise on the subject of what the church believes
You can read his bio here
http://couragerc.net/Memorial.html
Montalban (talk) 17:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: He's not a historian, so he can't be cited as one. We already have citations to plenty of other historians.--Cúchullain t/c 17:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

text: First, it doesn't matter what a historian is "for me" or for any other Wikipedia editor, it matters what others in the field think. To be cited as a historian on Wikipedia, he'd have to be regarded an authority on history, preferably in a closely related area, by other scholars in the field. Your link makes no indication that this was true of Harvey; it says that he was a theologian by training who evidently ran an ex-gay organization.--Cúchullain t/c 13:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: A joke. I studied 4 years at the University of York for a modern history degree (speciliasing on the history of the church in Europe). If Harvey's books had ended up on our reading list we would have chucked it out of the window! Not a historian. A priest, with a very specific personal agenda. He cannot be respected for objectivity or meaningful analysis.Contaldo80 (talk) 09:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Francis Harvey 

message: I have removed 
Criticisms note that his interpretation of the word flies in the face of traditional theological interpretation which Boswell himself acknowledges, "Boswell admits that the Byzantine theologians would never have consented to view adelphopoiesis as marriage."
I had stated above that I would leave it out pending further talk and was not aware that it hadn't been removed yet again. As it was my stated position to leave it out, I myself have removed it
Montalban (talk) 14:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for this show of good faith. This cancels your WP:3RR violation; hopefully we can now move forward in a more productive way.--Cúchullain t/c 15:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: A move forward. Perhaps next we can debate whether Galileo's assertion that the earth goes round the sun "flies in the face of traditional theological interpretation". Contaldo80 (talk) 09:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The offending reference 

message: As I've explained to the editor on their and my talk page, the material removed here is relevant and cited, and should not be removed without discussion. Thanks,--Cúchullain t/c 17:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: And again

message: I moved the article from Saints Sergius and Bacchus to simply Sergius and Bacchus per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (clergy), which says to remove the "Saints" title unless the subject is always known with it. That's clearly not the case here, so hopefully this is an uncontroversial move.Cúchullain t/c 17:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Good stuff. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they're not. They're just "Sergius and Bacchus" in the Catholic Encyclopedia, and the published version of David Woods' article is titled "The Emperor Julian and the Passion of Sergius and Bacchus". The naming convention says to eschew "Saint" "unless they are only recognisable by its inclusion"; that's not the case here.Cúchullain t/c 01:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: when I clicked on the link to 'icon' below the image by Robert Lentz, I found that the article on 'icon' doesn't really match Lentz's image.  The word 'iconic' as used in the last sentence of the lede seems more appropriate. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 12:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems perfectly consistent to me. Lentz paints icons. Where's the confusion? Contaldo80 (talk) 07:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

text: The article says "icon" not "iconic". Stop wasting my time. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

text: The reliable source cited in this article describes the work in question as an icon. I don't see any obvious way in which Lentz's icons don't qualify as icons, and that seems like it would be a matter of WP:OR for us to delve into.--Trystan (talk) 13:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the cited source calls it an "icon". I don't see anything in the general definition of "icon" that would exclude it, and, as Trystan says, it would be original research anyway.--Cúchullain t/c 14:21, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robert Lentz's 'icon' 

message: Is Sergius the same person as Saint Sarkis the Warrior?  Please can a subject expert take a look?  I don't know enough about the subject to propose a page merge myself. If we do get a merged article then redlink Saint Sarkis, which has incoming links, should probably redirect to it.  Thanks, Certes (talk) 20:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't look to be the same. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saint Sarkis the Warrior 

message: What is the problem with the Woods section? Why is it controversial? Contaldo80 (talk) 15:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Woods 

message: The sources state that the name Sarjun is the syriac variant of the name sargon, even clearly linking it to its usage in context of sergius and bacchus, when this information is added, its reverted, but the sources are still kept. 2A01:C22:855F:9700:84FF:1620:8934:A73E (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Please point to the place where the source says that an English name for Sergius is Sargon. Just because Syriac uses Sarjun both for the Roman soldier Sergius and the Persian ruler Sargon doesn't mean that English uses Sargon to mean Sergius. --Macrakis (talk) 16:28, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources kept but reverted info