Talk:Julian (emperor)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Theurgy

I for one am not clear what theurgy really meant in the 4th century, but that's what folks call it in books. Christianity was not yet the state religion. Paganism was only sporadically banned. --MichaelTinkler.

Julian - a novel by Gore Vidal

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 ISBN 0 349 10473 5

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Naming

There seem to be a fair number of voices rightly claiming, and I agree, that the title is innacurate. How about switching to 'Julian II'; and the introduction can clarify that in Christian tradition he is refered to as 'Julian the Apostate'.

Shouldn't this article have a more specific name? Just calling it "Julian" seems a little vague -- since he clearly isn't the only historical figure to bear the name. Perhaps his full Roman name would be better? --Wolf530 01:27, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

Who else is commonly known as simply "Julian"? Adam Bishop 01:32, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Julian of Norwich, for one. "Julian" is also similar to "Julian Calendar." There may not be many, but I think that assuming the only Julian people will be looking for is this one is assuming too much, don't you? --Wolf530 05:03, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

Maybe...but Julian of Norwich is usually known as "Julian of Norwich." On the other hand, I almost always hear this Julian called "Julian the Apostate" rather than just "Julian." Adam Bishop 06:45, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I can accept either title, but much prefer simply "Julian" as the term "Apostate" was meant as an insult, and certainly not one that was used to designate him in any official way within his lifetime. ~ Achilles † 18:29, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

He is, however, indeed most commonly known as "Julian the Apostate" nowadays. Gestumblindi 00:29, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Its not about what he was called but what his name was, referring to him as Julian the "Apostate" is assuming that he converted away from Christianity or "backslid", for this is what it means to be an Apostate, which is impossible to know and even denied by he himself, i.e. Was he even an Apostate, probably not?. Titling this article "Julian the Apostate" is, on this basis, simply incorrect. -- (the previous comment was unsigned)

"the Apostate" is a slander, and should not be the article title. Let us move it to "Flavius Claudius Julianus", his true and proper name, and make "Julian the Apostate" and "Julian the Blessed" (by which he is known among modern pagans) redirect there. "the Apostate" is not NPOV. MattHucke^(t) 19:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Apart the fact that his real name was "Flavius Claudius Iulianus", I am against this move. I do not like this "apostate" thing, but he is actually famous with this name; I therefore think we should stick with this name, which is more common, but cite the others.--Panairjdde 13:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've heard simply "Julian" and "Julian the Philosopher" much more often than "Apostate". "Apostate" as a specific meaning and is only meaningful to a narrower band of people than simply Julian. Having all those terms redirect to "Flavius Claudius Julianus" is much more appropriate. "Apostate" is more of medeval term than one that belongs in an encyclopedia. 71.200.83.199 00:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that a redirect (to Flavius Claudies Julianus or Iulianus) makes sense. While he may have been famously remembered as "the Apostate", then that appellation is relevant in the introductory paragraph, and perhaps in reference to his studies in philosophy. Using the full name preserves historical accuracy, rather than a particular ideological color that can be noted more appropriately in the opening paragraph. L Hamm 07:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I would also strongly approve a redirect to Flavius Claudius Iulianus. "Apostate" is a slur, and "Julian the Apostate" assumes not only a Christian audience but one that would agree with this assessment of Julian as an apostate. A redirect from this page would take care of the practical issue. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 00:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

If a more NPOV name were felt to be needed, "the Emperor Julian" has the merits of being neutral, unambiguous, and fairly commonly used. J Heath 18:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Recent anonymous and unsourced insertion re: Temple

Here are two interesting sources which give a somewhat different picture. [1] [2] Jayjg ^(talk) 18:55, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The first one isn't interesting its a religious web site meant to convert people to Judaism. The second one appears slightly more legitimate but with all the things written in real books by real historians like Bowersock, Head, and even Gibbons why do we need questionable internet sources?--Just Me

German article

The article in the German Wikipedia is much more detailed and all-around better than this one. Maybe someone is feeling like translating/adapting it into English? Although German is my native language, I think my English isn't sufficiently good. Gestumblindi 02:37, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In progress. Varana 28 June 2005 10:54 (UTC)

Thanks a lot :-) Gestumblindi 21:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

As I didn't have much time during the last months, and because this won't change for some time, I have put the already translated parts online at User talk:Varana/Julian. Please correct what you think is wrong (esp. style), and feel free to add. I'm going to continue the translation and will put new sections on the site. Thanks, Varana 19:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Julians tolerance vs rumors of murders

I deleted a statement that "Julian carried out a similar policy relating to the killing of Christian priests during his reign." I am aware of no such "policy" by Julian, and the only accounts that I am aware of that he had anyone killed for their opinions or religious views are rumours that he "secretly" ordered the killing of a couple of priests. Almost all modern historians consider these to be slanders concocted many decades and even centuries after his death, by hostle Christian historians, to counter the popularity of an Emperor who had been almost universally acclaimed for his noble and tolerant behavior. The account that he killed members of his guard for failing to carry out a ridiculous and contemptible directive also seems absurd, but I am not very familiar with the basis for this account, or where it comes from. ~ Achilles † 18:25, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Noble" and "tolerant" is propaganda, too - he wasn´t tolerant toward Christianity, that´s a fact. Read Bowersock, "Julian the Apostate", then you will come to a more balanced judgement. At least he tolerated the murder of christians - like before christian emperors tolerated the murder of pagans. And indeed: the german article is more balanced than this one (example: the catastrophic persian campaign).

There is also the issue of Julian's edict of January 362, in which he allows the return of all Christian clergy who had been exiled by Constantius. And letters sent to philosophers inviting them to court including Aetius and Basil of Caeserea, both Christians. The list apparentally also included Cynics, strict Platonists, Aristotelians, such as Aetius, and appointed the younger brother of Gregory of Nazianzus as chief court physician. L Hamm 20:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Julian was tolerant of xtians in the sense that he didn't actively persecute them. He didn't like them (a-duh, one of his works is "Against the Nazarenes") but he didn't carry out a program of killing them either. He did look the other way if one happened to kill another one but then again other emperors looked the other way while xtians ransacked pagan temples. By the by Bowersock's work relies heavily on biased xtian sources and is no longer the standard in the field. I reccommend Constance Head's book on the subject. But all that is beside the point, this is an encyclopedia article not a place to debate or enshrine the merits of some historical figure. Just the facts ma'am. As to the story of him "ordering his guards killed" it should be mentioned but only in the context that its a made up Catholic story (kind of like the Nubian legion, the seven sleepers, or hey, the crucifixion) with no historical basis.--Just Me

Beliefs & Politics

I made some changes to the paragraph in which Julian's subscription to Theurgy is then followed by his small campaign to starve Christians. From reading Jonathan Kirch's "God Against the Gods" I believe that there is a logical progression. His actions, such has sprinkling idol-worship blood and outlawing the use of classical literature in Christian schools comes more from his keen political sense to both harrass Christians and sincerely (and possibly to his amusement) question their motives and actions (many of which to him seemed hypocritical).

Julian was tolerant of xtians in the sense that he didn't actively persecute them. He didn't like them (a-duh, one of his works is "Against the Nazarenes") but he didn't carry out a program of killing them either. He did look the other way if one happened to kill another one but then again other emperors looked the other way while xtians ransacked pagan temples. By the by Bowersock's work relies heavily on biased xtian sources and is no longer the standard in the field. I reccommend Constance Head's book on the subject. But all that is beside the point, this is an encyclopedia article not a place to debate or enshrine the merits of some historical figure. Just the facts ma'am. As to the story of him "ordering his guards killed" it should be mentioned but only in the context that its a made up Catholic story (kind of like the Nubian legion, the seven sleepers, or hey, the crucifixion) with no historical basis.--Just Me

Christianity as the official religion

I quote: "Constantine had not yet made Christianity the official state religion, which would not happen until Theodosius I in the 380s" Does that make sense? How can Constantine, in the 330s, not make Christianity the religion until someone else does it instead in the 380s? --Mr. Pigeon

"state religion"! That didn´t happend until the time ot Theodosius the Great. Constantine fostered Christianity and the bishops, but not more. Read the DIR-online biographies: http://www.roman-emperors.org/conniei.htm and http://www.roman-emperors.org/theo1.htm

Move: Julian to redirect here

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

Time as Caesar in Gaul

As has been pointed out the details of Julianus life not concerned with the growing conflict between religion is sorely lacking. I've found an article relating some events after his appointment to Caesar, and being sent by Constantius to reorganize the legions in Gaul. The article that I found indicates that, though he had little formal military training he was able to learn quickly. That in the winter of 355-356 he was besieged by the Germans in Augustodonum.

He was one of two generals involved in Constantius II offensive against the Alemmani (the other was Barbatio), using the forfex strategy:

While the Romans were preparing for this maneuver, another German tribe, the Laeti, passed between the two camps and attacked Lyons. As soon as he learned of the raid, Julian sent three squadrons of cavalry to watch the roads by which the Laeti would return to their homes. His men attacked the raiders, killed a large number of them and captured their booty. The survivors fled past Barbatio's camp--unchallenged, even though Barbatio was aware of the situation. Barbatio escaped punishment by lying to the emperor.

The article is explicit that Julian was not expected to last long as Caesar. And the actions of the general Barbatio seem to confirm this.

The citation is: Military History Vol. 16(5): 12-15. L Hamm 20:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

"Laeti" are no germanic tribe - it is a latin terminus technicus for people living in the empire, who were not free, see federates. The situation between Constantius and Julian is not clear, see Bowersock, pp. 38ff.

In Failure of Empire: Valens and the Roman State in the Fourth Century AD by Noel Lenski published in 2003: "Unfortunately for Valentinian, Barbatio was waging an open vendetta with the Caesar, and Valentinian found himself caught in the middle. Barbatio ordered him to stand down from a roadblock Julian had organized against a group of raiders, with the result that they escaped, and Valentinian was blamed for the bungled mission, dismissed, and sent home. ²⁰⁶ This incident was probably at the root of the legend that Julian had persecuted Valentinian for confessing Christianity." (pg. 49)

You are correct, this book identifies the group as 'raiders' not as a Germanic tribe, and does not implicate Constantius as supporting Barbatio's vendetta.L Hamm 17:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

This is from Late Roman World and Its Historian: Interpreting Ammianus Marcellinus by David Hunt, published in 1999: "The justice of Constantius, and its display in the context of usurpations, were sensitive issues for Julian: most of his family had been eliminated in 337, his brother Gallus succumbed in 354, and his own position as co-ruler was likely to arouse suspicions, however much Themistius might stress the philosophic compatibility of the imperial pair". (pp. 80-81). This would indicate that the situation between Constantius and Julian while not clear, as you say, was hardly blessed. L Hamm 17:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Edward Gibbon, in his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, put the situation of Julian even more ardently than the previous works:

"Besides the reigning emperor, Julian alone survived, of all the numerous posterity of Constantius Chlorus. The misfortune of his royal birth involved him in the disgrace of Gallus. From his retirement in the happy country of Ionia, he was conveyed under a strong guard to the court of Milan; where he languished above seven months, in the continual apprehension of suffering the same ignominious death, which was daily inflicted almost before his eyes, on the friends and adherents of his persecuted family. His looks, his gestures, his silence, were scrutinized with malignant curiosity, and he was perpetually assaulted by enemies whom he had never offended, and by arts to which he was a stranger. ²⁶ But in the school of adversity, Julian insensibly acquired the virtues of firmness and discretion. He defended his honour, as well as his life, against the ensnaring subtleties of the eunuchs, who endeavoured to extort some declaration of his sentiments; and whilst he cautiously suppressed his grief and resentment, he nobly disdained to flatter the tyrant, by any seeming approbation of his brother’s murder. Julian most devoutly ascribes his miraculous deliverance to the protection of the gods, who had exempted his innocence from the sentence of destruction pronounced by their justice against the impious house of Constantine. ²⁷ "

The two sources that Gibbon cites are Ammianus Marcellinus, and an oration translated by the Abbé de la Bleterie, Vie de Jovien, tom. ii. p. 385-408. L Hamm 17:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but we have to remind us that Ammianus was "pro-Julian" - this is quite a problem. The spanish historian Pedro Barceló has investigated the reign of Constantius in his book Constantius II. und seine Zeit. Die Anfänge des Staatskirchentums, Stuttgart 2004, and has shown that Constantius wasn´t a "bad boy" (cf. also Klaus Bringmann, Julian, Darmstadt 2004). It will be interesting how Klaus Rosen (who has worked on the field of late antiquity historiography for a long time) will describe the situation between Julian and Constantius in his new Book Julian. Kaiser, Gott und Christenhasser. However, it is problematic. --Benowar 18:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC) (now logged in)

Thank you, you are quite correct about Ammianus relationship to Julian. (I am interested to read those two German articles you cite, do you know of accessible english translations?) I'm am only an amateur in history, I suppose we must look at all histories of Julian but his contemporaries or near contemporaries and weigh their commonalities. The situation vis Barbatio is notable in Julian's life but only one historian, that I have found, casts Barbatio's actions as directed by Constantius. L Hamm 07:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Bringmanns and Rosens (his book is really impressive) biographies are only available in german. But read David Hunts article in the "Cambridge Ancient History" (2. ed., vol. 13, pp 44ff.; an excellent survey). --Benowar 08:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Apocrypha

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)

Armor

$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).

According to Marcillinus it was because they were retreating and did not suspect they were being pursued. He was just suprised. Someone with a copy handy could look up the reference. Since good old Ammianus was there maybe we should trust him. --Just Me

Death

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)

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)

About paganism

In the article it is clearly stated that Julian was a "pagan"- I have some doubts about that. Julian believed in a more or less philosophical religion. Of course he tried to revive ancient religious rites, but I doubt that he actually believed in the Gods of Olympus. I think that to describe him as (neo) platonist might be more precise. --Greece666 13:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

When talking about Late Antiquity, "pagan" is generally used for "anyone not Christian or Jew". It usually doesn't tell anything about the specific brand of "paganism".

OTOH, restricting the sense of "pagan" to the Olympic gods (what in this context would be called "traditional (Roman / Greek) religion" or "state religion / cult"), would have never occurred to me. Where is that notion commonly used? Varana 15:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Well this is what the Oxford Shorter dictionary gives for pagan: 1. A person holding religious beliefs other than those of any of the main religions of the world, spec. a non-Christian; (derog.) a follower of a polytheistic or pantheistic religion. Also transf., a person holding views not consonant with a prevailing system of belief etc. (now rare); a person considered as being of irreligious or unrestrained character or behaviour. LME. I had in mind the second meaning(follower of polytheistic religion) , but was unaware of the first one (non christian). Anyway, the use of the word in the article is correct, i was confused by the (negative) greek connotations of the word. --Greece666 19:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I know I have no sources before me here, but I remember reading that Julian was actually converted not to Hellenism but to Mithraism, which would make him something like our modern New Age people. Does anyone have any details on WHICH group Julian converted to? Badbilltucker 19:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Julian is usually described as a pagan Neoplatonist, which means that his Neoplatonism gave a philosophical framework in which the Olympian gods and the other pagan (i.e., non-Christian) cults of the empire could be incorporated. The Olympian gods and Platonism make him therefore a "Hellenist". He was initiated into Mithraism, and perhaps other cults - membership of these was not considered mutually exclusive. J Heath 18:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

"Sole Source of Knowledge"?

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)

I understand that was Julian thinking.--Panairjdde 15:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually it was conjecture as to what Julian was thinking. IamFingolfin 15:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

You forget we have his writings, as well as the ones of his friends/foes.--Panairjdde 17:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

The offending passage has been edited. IamFingolfin 00:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

Requested move

Julian the Apostate → Julian – By far the most important "Julian"--Ahrarara 23:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support, as per nomination.--Ahrarara 23:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose There are several other well known uses for "Julian". Also, I don't think your vote counts since you nominated it. TJ Spyke 00:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • His vote only counts once; but there's nothing wrong with a nom voting as long as it's clear it shouldn't be counted twice. Septentrionalis 00:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose This may well be the most important Julian; but he's most commonly called Julian the Apostate. Also, having Julian as the dab page is a very good thing. Septentrionalis 00:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The disambig page is valuable, Julian the Apostate is pretty common, and plain Julian is too ambiguous. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose this page occupying the Julian namespace but Support finding a name other than "the Apostate" as this is clearly a pejorative title applied by later Christians--Hraefen ^Talk 16:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support - "the Apostate" is extremely non-NPOV. MattHucke^(t) 17:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The time when calling Julian "the Apostate" was POV is about 1700 years past. We do not need to fight the battles of the 4th century again. Therefore, I agree with the reasons Septentrionalis mentioned above. Today, it's simply a descriptive epithet setting him apart from other Julians. Varana 17:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose He is best known as "the Apostate"; when persons search for him, they'll be putting "julian the apostate" in their search engine. While 'apostate' was given him as a pejorative, its no longer seen as such. It is simply a handy way of distinguishing among Julians. Also,Julian should be a dab page, per Septen. Carl.bunderson 19:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Julian the Apostate would become a redirect indefinitely, so the search engine argument holds no water. The charge of apostasy (literally "standing away (from)") [3] is inherently POV because it assumes that the position stepped away from (in this case Christianity) is the "right" or "normal" position. No one is suggesting that his "apostasy" can't be metioned in the article, we're just saying that a pejorative name with 1,700 years academic and historical use is a pejorative name nonetheless and it violates the spirit on NPOV.--Hraefen ^Talk 21:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment No, it does not necessarily mean that Christianity would be more "right". It says that Julian "stood away" from a position (here: religion) which he held earlier; that is: he was a Christian and converted to "paganism", which is simply a fact. It is a way of saying "Julian the convert"; originally meant pejorative, sure, but not today anymore. Sorry, but to me, this is not about "POV", this is "political correctness" in its most useless form. Why, by the gods, is there such a buzz on Julian, while the talk page of the (for today's standards) equally pejoratively named Charles the Fat is absolutely empty on that? The NPOV policy is about conflicting views on a subject, and to avoid presenting opinions as fact. No one (afaics) doubts that Julian did convert, and that he was given the epithet "the Apostate" because of that, and I think there's no doubt yet that he is mostly called by that epithet in English. So what? Varana 21:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Of course the charge of apostasy assumes that Christianity would be more "right." Have you ever heard of a pagan converting to Christianity (happened all the time) and then being called "the Apostate" by historians (the vast majority of whom were/are Christian) as a result? As far as the non sequitur Charles the Fat goes: The treatment of overweight historical figures on Wikipedia does not concern me, but the fair treatment of people of all types of religions and beliefs does. It is a fact that he was called "Julian the Apostate" and the article does and will continue to mention that and the redirect will remain. But this does not mean we should forever continue to call him by a disparaging name that was not given to him by his parents or himself just because biased historians have. I think we should use his given name (Flavius Claudius Iulianus), leave Julian the Apostate as a redirect and add "also called Julian the Apostate" on the disambig page. This will not make finding him any harder and it satisifies NPOV.--Hraefen ^Talk 19:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. (Marginally.) "Julian" is too ambiguous. J Heath 00:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. On the other hand, I agree that "Julian the Apostate" is too POV. Views on Julian are still surprisingly strongly divided after 1,700 years. Historians still seem to take different sides: Browning (pro), Bowersock (anti), Athanassiadi (pro), etc. How about "The Emperor Julian", anyone? J Heath 00:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - the article should be titled with the man's name, Flavius Claudius Iulianus, with all the others being redirects... Dave Null 00:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose "Julian" is far too common, and this Julian isn't prominent enough to be primary because of uses of "Julian" having nothing to do with people named Julian. Rename the article to Flavius Claudius Iulianus or Julian, Constantinian Emperor of Rome or somesuch. 132.205.44.134 00:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Julian the Apostate is one of the primary ways he has been recorded in history, and is on that basis easier to remember and more specific than any of the alternatives proposed above. Badbilltucker 14:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support At the moment, only 2 Roman emperors have a surname -- Julian & Philip the Arab. I have always thought this incongruous. However, I don't think moving this article to "Julian" is the best solution (I agree with the reasons above), & the only other established precedent would be to move this article to Julian (emperor) -- no other entry for a Roman Emperor uses his full name as a title -- but we would have to agree to changing Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ancient Romans) to accomidate this, because Julian the Apostate is the shortest unambiguous name for this person. -- llywrch 17:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Based on llywrch's above suggestion, it looks like Claudius Iulianus is the shortest unambiguous name; shorter than Julian the Apostate and inherently NPOV--Hraefen ^Talk 19:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• SUPPORT It should be Flavius Claudius Julianus an "...the Apostate" should be a re-direct as its the derogatory name christians gave him and not his proper name for goodness sake come on, why is this even being talked about? It should just happen. Terrasidius (talk) 21:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

On Christian Charity and Roman Philanthropy

I have expanded the section on Julian's State-instituted pilanthropy in opposition to Christian charity, and added further quotes and citation. At the moment, however, much of the rest of the Julian and religion section is lacking in similar citation - I feel it may be necessary to tag the section until something is done about it, such as adding references or removing unreferenced statements where a citation is not possible.

The section is also relatively long compared to the rest of the article - perhaps it would be best to split it up into further sub-sections? Grimhelm 20:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I reverted to my last version, because I feel it states Julian pov better. His reason for the institution of charities was the will to put the emperor figure at the top of a pyramid involved in everything in a citizen's life.

I think the article would benefit from a rewrite, with better citations, but this rewrite should be more focused on Julian's vision, rather than presenting mostly the pov of his enemies on him.--Panarjedde 11:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I think a total revert was a bit excessive; and most of what I had written is not the point of view of his enemies - the quotes given were said by Julian himself. I see no reason why you removed them, as the article has a distinct lack of his actual quotes. The references cited were not those of his "enemies" either - they come from reliable sources; one of them, for example, credits him with his "enthusiastic" attempts to restore paganism. The concept of consilidating power in the Emperor and having a pyramidal hierarchy were much the same, so a simple reword was all that was necessary - rather than a full revert to the previous form that lacked citation, and refering to it as a "better version" in the edit summary.

And while on that point, there is a difference between philanthropry, charitable organizations and charity as a virtue. No one denies that there was philanthropy in Roman times (and indeed the ancient world), but charity is considered by historians to have been started with Christianity. The very fact that Julian's "charity" was aimed at making the Emperor the central figure of the Empire is what makes it philanthropy in the philosophical and governmental (as opposed to the religious) sense. Some historians would go so far as to give Julian purely economical motives for his philanthropy (in contrast to, say, the charity of Bishop Nicholas of Myra - a contempory of Julian), but I'm not trying to argue that. My point is that the Christian charity Julian tried to replace is in the sense of the virtue rather than the charitable organization; the quote where Julian refers to it as "agape" supports this. The article on charitable organizations is potentially misleading for the time in question, and the virtue of charity in the sense of agape was noted throughout Roman times

Agape was translated as "charity" in the King James Bible, but it certainly has a different sense from philanthropy and charitable organization, especially in their respective Wikipedia articles; quoting from the present charity (virtue) article:

In Christian theology charity, or love (agapē), is the greatest of the three theological virtues:

Deus caritas est - "God is love".

This is what Julian was refering to in his sense of charity/agape. So, if you understand, I will 'partially' restore some of the quotes, and reword your analogy of a pyramid. Grimhelm 17:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I think a total revert was fit, since you put down, as you did later, an essay on the Christian charity (you even insisted to talk about charity as a virtue, which is clearly a POV), backed by the Christian Encyclopedia, which is clearly written by Julian's "enemies".

My last edit removes the disquisition about Arianism being a heresy (which is meaningless in this article) and, the disquisition about philantropy and charity (Julian wanted to create charitable organizations).

Note also that in Wikipedia the "<blockquote>" tag is not used, since there is the ":" syntax.

--Panarjedde 18:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree on virtually all those points. An essay on Christian charity would be considerably longer, and not one that I would attempt to undertake; what I had stop given was an appropriately referenced background to Julian's views of Christian charity. Nor did I "insist" on discussing charity as a virtue - I would have thought it evident from my response in the talk page that it was simply the closest article to the ancient Greek concept of Agape.

On a minor point, it is not called the "Christian Encyclopedia" - it is known as the "Catholic Encyclopedia", and has been around since 1913 (which is why it is so widely used as a reference for Christian topics). On a more important point, I did not use it to back the supposed charity essay - I quoted from it in a relevant manner: that Julian applied the events of his early life to his hatred of Christianity. I can't see how you could deny that, as it is written in other parts of the article (only in this case I gave it a citation). And that it is written by Julian's "enemies", Wikipedia is supposed to written objectively about a topic - not purely from one person's point of view or even the subject's point of view; it does not matter that you view a source as opposed to the person in question, as long as all sides of the argument are given with proper citation. If you really feel they were Julian's "enemies" (although that in itself is blatant POV), then simply express so in the citation or the article.

Also, the "disquisitions" you speak of are too short to be called disquisitions; and the point about Arianism being considered a heresy by the Nicene Council at the time is anything but meaningless or irrelevant to the article. People such as GK Chesterton have long asked the question, "Why would different Christians be fighting each other if they were all the same?" The answer, of course, is that Arianism was viewed as the Great Heresy of Christianity by the traditional Church: saying Julian was forced to convert from Christianity to Christianity is a bit absurd, and out of context. The part about Julian receiving a "strict Christian education" is misleading, as Arianism is not generally regarded as Christianity in the conventional sense. I can't understand why you refuse to clarify the distinction between the Monophysite nature of Arianism and the Athanasian belief of traditional Christianity in this article. And as a last point on Arianism that I can't begin to comprehend, why do you keep changing the link from [[Arianism|Arian]] to [[Arian]], which is to a disambiguation page?

About the other so-called "disquisition" ("about philantropy and charity"), what is wrong with mentioning earlier Roman philanthropy (financing the baths, etc.)? Your version of the article makes it appear as if the only two forms of charitable organization in Rome were the Church's charity and Julian's philanthropy.

And on your last point about the "<blockquote>" tag, I suggest you look through the list of "Wiki markup" in the edit tools beneath the "Save Page" button. Grimhelm 20:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Julian saw his father, brother, cousins and other relatives killed by his cousins, who styled themselves as "Christians"; he saw the Roman Empire weakened by "Christians"; he saw Pagan temples destroyed by "Christians". There is no point in saying that most of them were Arians or heretics, since they shared a lot with other Christians to be considered as such. (As regards Chesterton's answer, what about Monophysitism, Donatism, and all the others heresies that caused so many deaths, were they all the "Great Heresy of Christianity", of a religion promoting "love" for others?)

The "Catholic Encyclopedia" has been written by people who called him "Apostate" when he converted, but said nothing about the fact he was raised in Christian religion by a murderer (Constantius): I think it is fair to call them "enemies" of Julian, with quotes. And yes, Wikipedia is to show every POV; But his "hatred" was originated by all those things I listed above, and pointing out that he grew hatred against Christians because they were better in charity is a subtle way to dismiss his vision of reformation, even after he failed politcally. And this is blatanly POV.

As regards tags, I expect you to fill up texts with <i></i> instead of '', to be consistent.--Panarjedde 21:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not unfair to say that the murderers of his family styled themselves as Christians, but it is important to note in the article that the Christian education they gave him was Arian - and therefore non-Chalcedonian. This article is a biography of Julian, so it is important to note specifically the beliefs he was taught - especially since much of the turmoil after Constantine's death was because of his opposition to Arianism at the Nicene Council. Arianism is referred to by historians as "The Great Heresy", because:

"The conflict between Arianism and the Trinitarian beliefs was the first major doctrinal confrontation in the Church after the legalization of Christianity by the Roman Emperor Constantine I." (from Arianism article)

While Monophysitism and Donatism are considered by Chalcedonian Christians (Catholic, Protestant & Eastern Orthodox) as being heresies for being non-Chalcedonian, Arianism is the one that is regarded as "The Great Heresy" (on a minor note, you will find that Arianism was Monophysite in its outlook, as both believed that Christ only had human nature - in contrast to the Athanasian creed held by Christianity's three main branches).

And the Catholic Encyclopedia is justified in calling him an Apostate, as the very definition of the term "refers to renunciation and criticism of, or opposition to one's former religion" (something which Julian certainly did, and thus earned him the title "Apostate" among historians as his most well known characteristic).

It does not say he grew hatred because of Christian charity, but that he sought to replace Christian charity with Roman philanthropy because he already hated Christian influence in the Empire (and aimed to consolidate the power of Paganism and the Emperor) - this, whether it is POV or not, is still a belief held by reliable historical sources (which were cited in the article); and if you feel it to be an unfair dismissal of his reforms then you should write that in the article itself rather than reverting the comments altogether; Wikipedia is about improvement of articles, not reverting to retain a static version.

On a few minor notes, changing the emphasis of the quotes with italics necessitates writing "emphasis added" afterwards. The picture you added was good for illustration, as it adds more variety compared to the number of coin-images in the article. Also, in the section on Julian's death it says the old Sibylline Books were "mailed from Rome" - "sent" or "posted" would probably be more appropriate (the Latin word was Posta). Finally, your point on <i></i> is flawed, though, as that form of HTML code is not in the Wiki markup box, while "<blockquote>" is used in other articles (for example, see History of Science, which is rated as a "Good article" and "Featured Article Candidate").Grimhelm 10:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is not unfair to say that Julian's relative were Arian Christians, and nobody wants to remove the fact Julian was Arian, but stressing everywhere that he was Arian, and that Arianism was the Great Heresy, and that Constantine opposed Arianism (so what? the turmoil was because a struggle for power, not because of religious matters, otherwise why Constantius had not Constans, and Orthodox, killed?) is a subtle way to say that if they had been non-heretic, things would have been different (POV, and even speculative). The point is that he was educated by Christians, grew up as Christian, and later converted: the fact that he was Arian and not Chalcedonian has no relevance in his conversion.

As regards the CE, you are right that Julian is an apostate, by your definition. But is Paul of Tarsus an apostate as well, according to CE? Or all of those who converted to Christianity and later criticized their previous religion? If CE does not apply the definition of apostasy to every converted, then it is a POV publication: after all, it has been written by his enemies (see the way he has been depicted by Christian sources, as the images I found show).

Reverting wrong, unfit, or POV sentences is a way to improve.

"Many historians agree that prior to the advent of Christianity, there was a distinct lack of true charity in the ancient world, and the Roman Empire." So what? Charity, as a virtue, has been introduced by Christianity, so stressing it was lacking in a Pagan environment is POV. So I removed this text.

--Panarjedde 11:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not it is relevant to his conversion, it is relevant that he was Arian, and not Christian in the modern or convential sense of any of the three Christian branches; therefore, the line on "strict Christian education" is potentially misleading to modern Christians. (Note this matter need not be pursued any further) There are also theologians who believed the rationalism of Monophysite Arianism was a factor of conversion (Chesterton, for example), but this is not what I am trying to argue.

The definition of Apostasy is not just mine, but that accepted in the English language; Julian is most commonly referred to by historians as "the Apostate". QED.

Reverting "unfit" or POV sentences is not an improvement when merging with other POV sources is an option - simply state in the article whose POV it is.

Christian charity was motivated by love, while Roman philanthropy is viewed historically as having alterior motives;

"Nearly all relief [in pre-Christian Rome] was a State measure, dictated much more by policy than benevolence"

- William Edward Hartpole Lecky, History of European Morals From Augustus to Charlemagne (whose POV is critical of the Church, you may may wish to note)

What the point was saying was that philanthropy in ancient times was not out of love, which charity was (accounting for its volume and impact). These differences are attested by contempory Romans such as Pachomius and Seneca. There were philanthropic acts that could have been described as charity motivated by agape; read, for example, the Meditations of the second century Marcus Aurelius. However, such acts were generally lacking in the pagan environment (including even Stoicism) - the vaccuum was only filled by Christianity - so it is not irrelevant POV. Julian wanted to replace this charity with his own philanthropy - that is not POV, and differentiating between the two is an important point to give background to Roman policies. Balance of content is what is needed to bring this article up from a "B" rating.

Grimhelm 12:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

On the matter of Third Opinion;

1) I am not opposed to marking sources from its point of view, I am opposed to the deletion of points when they could be successfully merged with other points to improve the article.

2) I am not arguing the relevance of the fact that Julian was Arian and not Orthodox in the process of his conversion, but that he was simply not Christian in the convential sense of the three main branches. This matter has already been put to rest, and can be removed from the summary.

3) On the third point, it is not in underlining that charity as a virtue did not exist before Christianity, but that there was a difference between love-motivated agape and philanthropy in the Roman world - thus giving background to Julian's policies. Grimhelm 12:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let discuss better this matter. These are three blocks of text I removed

• (Arianism, which had been opposed by the Emperor Constantine at the Council of Nicea, was regarded as the first "Great heresy" of Christianity).
• he later "extended this hatred to the Christians in general." <ref name="Hatred">[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08558b.htm Catholic Encyclopedia]</ref>
• Many historians agree that prior to the advent of Christianity, there was a distinct lack of true [[charity (virtue)|charity]] in the ancient world, and the Roman Empire. <ref name="Charity>Gerhard Uhlhorn, ''Christian Charity in the Ancient Church'', (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1883), 2-44</ref> <ref name="Woods">[[Thomas Woods]], ''How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization'', (Washington, DC: Regenery, 2005), ISBN 0-89526-038-7.</ref> That is not to say that there was no [[philanthropy]] in the history of the Empire ([[patrician]]s long before Julian's time had been expected to finance the [[bath]]s and public buildings, for example); but due to Christian charity througout the Empire, within Julian's project of revival of the Pagan religion,

What is the problem with them being removed? The first was removed because Arianism being considered a heresy by the Council of Nicea bears no information. The second because this supposed two-phases evolution of Julian's hatred (first against Arians and later against Niceans) is supported by a biased source, without any reference to the bias. The third because it is pointless, as I already wrote, to underline that there was no "Christian" charity before Christianity.

I am also against a statement of yours I did not understand before. I am referring to your claim that "he [Julian] was simply not Christian in the conventi[o]al sense" (the two inserts are mine: if they are wrong, do not consider the following). Julian was Christian, as Constantius was. The fact that Arianism is now defunct and considered a heresy does not take away from it the fact that it is a Christian faith. If you think that the article should present the idea that somehow Julian was not Christian (in his early life, I mean), take note I am strongly opposed to it. After all, if Arianism is not a Christian faith "in the convential sense", nobody would have called him "Apostate".

As regards the difference between charity and philantropy, it could be interesting to put it in a footnote, but I am against (as you can guess) against putting in the text. Julian wanted his Paganism to be a strong alternative (and a winning one, as a matter of fact) to Christianity. One way was to avoid Pagans to rely on Christian charities, which did not depend by the emperor. The fact that Christian charities were "love-motivated", while Pagan ones were philatropical has no place here.

--Panarjedde 13:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

To chime in:

Why is it necessary to stress the non-Chalcedonian confession of Constantius and Julian *in the context of the 337 murders*? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I suspect a motivation like "the perpetrators of 337 were Arian, that is not orthodox Christian; so "real" Christians need not be troubled that Christians committed such atrocities". Therefore, if a reader stumbles over "Arian Christian", he can click through to Arianism. If not, he'll know what the article is talking about. To stress that Arianism is considered a heresy today, is not exceptionally relevant to this article. During Constantius' and Julian's times, that wasn't as clear-cut as we see it from hindsight. I tend to agree with Panarjedde there.

On the other hand, I do not understand "Charity, as a virtue, has been introduced by Christianity, so stressing it was lacking in a Pagan environment is POV." Where is that non-NPOV? It is a statement about a historical situation, and it explains why Julian's efforts were introducing something new to "Paganism".

It is non-NPOV in the sense that it implies that Julian was envious (or something like that) of Christian love-based charity, while his will was to remove an aspect of the life of Roman Empire inhabitants that was outside of the emperor direct or indirect promanation. On the other side, he did not care about the inner motivation of charity, that being love or philantropy.--Panarjedde 13:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Only related to this discussion: It is far from proven that Constantius was the mastermind of the purge of 337. Sources don't allow a complete reconstruction of the events, and it can be argued that the murders were orchestrated by military officials and more or less willingly tolerated by Constantius. I'd like to modify the text in this regard somewhat. Varana 14:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not proven, but widely accepted. Would you expect an emperor to allow his soldiers to kill his relatives by their own will?--Panarjedde 13:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[Note: The following was being written before Varana made his post; some it may conflict or have been made redundant by that post. The following is replying to Panarjedde.]

The first one being removed I don't mind anymore, because the distinction is made that he was Arian - however, the original does explain that there were Christians who thought him a heretic. The second one being removed is not too much trouble either, but I have no problem with you saying it is from a Catholic source in-line if you think it affects the POV.

On the statement, you are correct in the two inserts; apologies for the spelling errors. It was my understanding that Julian's family was Nicean, and that Constantius was trying to re-educate him in the Arian tradition, so I would not deny that he was Christian in his early life. (Also, if he was Nicean originally, then his conversion to either Arianism or Paganism could be considered Apostasy). I simply want it expressed that he was Monophysite and not Trinitarian after the instruction of Constantius - I am not denying that Arianism lacks Christian elements, and Julian's apostasy involved a criticism of Christianity in general. [Note, to Varana: Based on my previous assumption, expressing that the killers were Arian does give them a motive for killing Niceans, and it does help explain the turmoil after the death of Constantine, who endorsed the Nicene Council and the Athanasian Creed.]

The problem is that the killers were also Niceans, as both Constantine II and Constans did not move a finger to avoid this massacre of members of their family. It was clearly a dynastical, rather than religious, problem.--Panarjedde 13:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The point about the footnote is certainly an amicable suggestion. The love-motivation of Christian charity (as opposed to the cold philanthropy of the Stoics), however, was what gave it such an impact on the ancient world and (to Julian's mind) caused conversions: "See how they welcome them into their agape…" Aside from that, your suggestion could be good because it provides depth of background without interrupting the flow of the article; therefore I will try to work the background into a footnote as you recommend. [Note, to Varana: On the point about the agape-motivated charity, I have to agree; do you support the inline background or the footnote approach?]

I still believe that this distinction is useless. But I am willing to find a compromise, and accept the text to go into footnote.--Panarjedde 13:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

On two points of style; one, I think the section on Legacy should be retained, as it allows provision for dealing with modern interpretations (factual and fictional), as well as the impact of his writings. Two, the ref-small style I used was intended to give the quotes a smaller font (which I believe is done by block-quote already), but although it was probably not the best way it was the first that came to mind. Perhaps you can offer another method? Thanks

I would agree on a legacy section as you plan it. But currently, the section about his works is just a discussion of their content, rather than of their legacy (which I doubt they left behind), so the two sub-sections should not be gathered under a same section.--Panarjedde 13:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[Note, in general: I think the issue has been for the most part resolved. In just this section of discussion, we have increased the size of the talk page from 35 Kilobytes to 58 Kilobytes; now if we could only get these five pages of dicussion converted into expanding the article, it would certainly be of good quality.]

Grimhelm 14:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The question of the religious adherence of Julian's family is interesting; I'd have to check that. The German article says that his mother Basilina had been Arian (though he only knew her as a small child). On the other hand, I wouldn't draw such a sharp line between Arianism and ortodox Christianity. Despite Nicaea, things had been in a state of flux already during the later years of Constantine. Constantine himself endorsed Trinitarianism at Nicaea, but later exiled Athanasius and was baptized by an Arian bishop (which was probably due to geographical circumstance). Constantine was interested in the unity of the church, not in Christian theological finesse. That 337 had something to do with Arians vs Trinitarians, is a possibility, but not much more.

On the topic of philynthropy and charity I'd tend to put it into the main text, as it is one of the reasons why Julian's "pagan church" never really took off; but one sentence should suffice in the context of this article. A footnote would be fine with me, too, though. Varana 16:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I added one in-line sentence as you suggested, and kept the rest in the footnote (it is easier to reference that way). Grimhelm 19:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Pagan Capitalised

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

What do you mean by "single religion"? Dppowell 14:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

That it was a "single religion" as it is Christianesim.--Panarjedde 14:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

What does this mean? You are simply delaying the edit war?--Panarjedde 17:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

In accordance with widespread academic usage, I'm restoring the proper capitalization of 'pagan' to this encyclopedia article. Before reverting, please provide justification for a usage of the term that varies with that employed by virtually every living expert on Julian and his times. Dppowell 20:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Removal of accurate historical info re: Julian's study of Caesar

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)

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)

Neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's three content policies

Neutral point of view, is one of Wikipedia's three content policies

Please read the definition in the "Terminology" section of the article.

Both "pagan" and "heathen" have historically been used as a pejorative by adherents of monotheistic religions (such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam) to indicate a disbeliever in their religion. In Scotland and Ireland, "heathen" is still used today by Roman Catholics as a pejorative term for non-Catholics. "Paganism" is also sometimes used to mean the lack of (an accepted monotheistic) religion, and therefore sometimes means essentially the same as atheism. "Paganism" frequently refers to the religions of classical antiquity, most notably Greek mythology or Roman religion, and can be used neutrally or admiringly by those who refer to those complexes of belief. However, until the rise of Romanticism and the general acceptance of freedom of religion in Western civilization, "paganism" was almost always used disparagingly of heterodox beliefs falling outside the established political framework of the Christian Church. It has more recently (from the 19th century) been used admiringly by those who believe monotheistic religions to be confining or colourless.

"Pagan" came to be equated with a Christianized sense of "epicurean" to signify a person who is sensual, materialistic, self-indulgent, unconcerned with the future and uninterested in sophisticated religion. The word was usually used in this worldly and stereotypical sense, particularly among those who were drawing attention to what they perceived as being the limitations of paganism, for example, as when G. K. Chesterton wrote: "The pagan set out, with admirable sense, to enjoy himself. By the end of his civilization he had discovered that a man cannot enjoy himself and continue to enjoy anything else." In sharp contrast Swinburne the poet would comment on this same theme: "Thou hast conquered, O pale Galilean; the world has grown grey from thy breath; We have drunken of things Lethean, and fed on the fullness of death." [2]

Christianity itself has been perceived at times as a form of paganism by followers of the other Abrahamic religions[3][4]because of, for example, the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, the celebration of pagan feast days[5], and other practices [6] - through a process decribed as "baptising" [7]or "christianization". Even between Christians there have been similar charges of paganism leveled, especially by Protestants[8],[9], towards the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches for their veneration of the saints and images.

Enlighted by these usefull definitions I think that this version of the article Julian the Apostate do not follows the Wikipedia policy which "requires views to be represented without bias".

In this case it is a religious bias.

The immediate replacement of the terms "pagan, paganism" refering to the religious beliefs of the Emperor Julian is only a remedy to this religious partiality (partial because only seen from a christian point of view).

Instead of these biased terms such us "pagan", "paganisme", et.c. it should be used "non-christian", "neo-platonic", "neo-platonism", "late roman religious systems" et.c. for at this time (~300BCE - ~300CE) there were no Christian Orthodoxy established and all the religions had been influenced from each other in a way that we call today Syncretism.

So I kindly ask Mr Panarjedde to stop consider this page as "his" page and stop reverting any change which is not conforming to his own point of view.

Otherwise this page will be sanctionned by the tag " Neutrality disputed " and it is not going to be for the betterment of the historical truth.

Thank you for your consideration.

gk 19:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I consider "Pagan" far less pejorative than "non-Christian". Furthermore, "non-Christian" is not precise enought, since it includes several religions that are not included in Roman Paganism.

I won't revert immediately, but if my points are not addressed, I will revert, and accept to dispute the menaced tag.--Panarjedde 20:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Some of the editors who object to the word "pagan" seem to be doing so on the basis of their personal impressions of the word. However, I suggest that the article should follow the typical practice of scholars writing about Julian. It seems pretty clear to me that Julian is usually called a pagan. For example, here's a quote from the Oxford Classical Dictionary:

Julian 'the Apostate' (Iulianus (RE 26), Flavius Claudius), emperor AD 361-3, was born at Constantinople in 331...In 351, as a student of philosophy, he encountered pagan Neoplatonists and was initiated as a theurgist by Maximus of Ephesus. For the next ten years Julian's pagan 'conversion' remained a prudently kept secret...An immediate declaration of general religious tolerance foreshadowed a vigorous programme of pagan activism in the interest of 'Hellenism'; the temples and finances of the ancestral cults were to be restored and a hierarchy of provincial and civic pagan priesthoods appointed... --Akhilleus (talk) 21:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

This is what I was getting at in the debate about whether 'pagan' is capitalized, above. The evidence for the justifiable use of the term "pagan" in an encyclopedia article about Julian is overwhelming. Averil Cameron, Peter Brown et al. are certainly not trying to minimize a religious group when they speak of 4th century "pagans." It's an accepted term of convenience for talking about people who were not Christians or Jews within a late classical or early medieval context. Dppowell 22:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The use of the words "pagan", "paganism" et.c. is not without religious connotation since it is the core problematique of the public action of this Emperor : his rejection of Christianism. Because he has been acting like this his ennemies called him "the Apostate"( a non-neutral greek term meaning the traitor). Talking of Julian as a pagan is an anachronism, since a large part of the inhabitants of the Roman Empire of this periode were not christians but belonged to numerous other religions and religious currents or sects all of them intermingling with each other and forming new ones in a scale that we can not at the moment even know the exact number of them. For all this religious phenomena of this late antiquity it exists a series of studies which only gives a little apercu of the complexity of the question :

(long list of citations removed, available here --Akhilleus (talk) 00:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC))

A great number of these syncretic religious systems have functionned as real religions of that time with their followers their cults their religious practices, rituals, temples, priests et.c.

They have spread all over the Roman Empire and they had large audiences in all the big cities of the periode going from ~300BCE to ~300CE. Christianism has emerged from this complexe reality not as a unified religion and its formation is still under discussion among scholars. The research on this domain indicates the great importance of sociological factors (all the problematique of the chapter on the christian agapae is just one mere aspect of this question which includes the question of slaves and their social position et.c. It is not to be omitted that in a scholar level nobody can speak about "chriatianism" and the term christianisms is prefered when we try to talk without refering to the christian Orthodoxy (another very complexe subject) The religious policy of the Roman Empire on a State level is an other very important matter not to be mixed up with personnal religious convictions even of those of the Emperor him self.

At last but not least these terms "pagan" "paganism" are used to designate all religions and nothing at he same time. For example Christians used this term for Islam, Aztecas and other pre-colombian religious systems.

Since the article in question is discussing the precise historical period of the life of The Roman Emperor Julian there is no risk of confusion of what religious systems we are talking about when we use the term "non-christian" : it is common sense that are concerned all the thousands of religious currents of the time in question in the space limits of the Roman Empire whether they had or not an official status and recognition.

Thank you for your attention and your consideration. gk 00:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

gk, I think we're talking at cross purposes here. I think you're right that "pagan" can have a pejorative sense, especially if a modern Christian uses it of a Muslim, or a Baptist uses it about a Catholic.

On the other hand, WP:NPOV doesn't mean that we impose our own views on the article, it means that we represent all prominent views on the topic. As regards Julian, it's clear that most, if not all, scholars writing about him call him a "pagan", and that this is a standard way to refer to the varieties of Greco-Roman polytheism throughout antiquity. I'd wager that many of the sources you included in that long list use the term "pagan" (or its equivalent in French, German, etc.). There's no reason for the article to avoid what is standard scholarly usage. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Akhilleus : What is the point of trying to discuss this issue with each other if you come and censor my posts like this one ? Please restore my whole answer and give the possibility to this discussion to evolve to real understanding of what is not a mere "point of view" of mine but a standard in the scientific community. In the meanwhile you should read one by one the titles of the books I cited (before you come and supress them) and see that not one uses the term "pagan" "paganism" it is not by chance. I'll come later to continue with some more arguments on the use of this discriminatory terms.gk 09:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

gk, no one's "censoring" you--your list is accesible through the page history, which you can access by clicking the "history" tab at the top of the page. The reason I removed the list is that it's very hard to continue a discussion when you have to scroll past 100 citations. This is even more the case when the citations don't prove much. They don't use "pagan" in the title, but so what? I'm sure some of them do in the text. Furthermore, you seem to be disregarding clear evidence that both I and Dppowell have demonstrated familiarity with the scholarly literature on Julian and Greco-Roman religion--we know what the "standard in the scientific community" is. I've provided a quotation from the Oxford Classical Dictionary, a standard reference work in the field of classical antiquity, and Dppowell has referred to the works of Peter Brown and Averil Cameron, two of the most prominent scholars of late Antiquity. There's no reason to deviate from the usage of these authoritative sources. If you want to allege that the entire field is biased, that's fine, but that doesn't alter the demonstrable fact that scholars usually refer to Julian as a pagan, and to the religion(s) of the Greco-Roman world as paganism. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Obviously this is not a field for discussion but a kind of censorship by the ignorant. I will not insist because it's not possible to argue for such a special subjects like relations between Hellenism and paganism, Hellenism vs. early Christianism and so on ... with people deprived of love for study and truth.

It is just such a great pity to change this formidable tool of enlightment and knowledge (and indeed for articles like this are so important for the philosophical and theological understanding) to merely a dependence of a dictionary (may it be the Oxford one). As demonstration I had one : the fact that you know not even the difference between "classical antiquity" and late antiquity. This is the most important issue ! Because by making this evident confusion you misinterpret all your readings (and I do not think that you 've read a lot on this subject) and (worse) you think that you know a subject (in this case the problematique Hellenism vs early Christianisms) and give permission to you to censor other people who may know better than you. But this not seems to be a problem for you. In the meanwhile and seeing that Panarjedde continues to revert without even taking part to this discussion I hope that this case and the similar ones in other articles gangrened by the cancer of semi-ignorance will not put a final end to this Wikipedia enterprise. gk 07:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

gk, my problem is that it is still not clear why "non-Christian" is better than "pagan". Maybe you know more than me on this matter, but "this formidable tool of enlightment and knowledge" requires editors to be able to explain and understand, and in my case either you were not able to explain, or I did not understand the reason behind your position. Is there a concise way to let me understand why "non-Christian" is better than "pagan"?--Panarjedde 16:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Capitals & religions

From the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, section Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines, and their adherents:

Names of religions, whether as a noun or an adjective, and their followers start with a capital letter.

Now, I think you agree that Paganism is a religion. So, why do you think it should drop the capital?--Panarjedde 16:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not a religion. It's a term used to refer to an enormous variety of religions, and which one you mean depends entirely on the context. Someone calling themselves a 'pagan' today probably (but not necessarily) is referring to Wiccanism. (PS, I'm copying this discussion to the Julian the Apostate page; please continue it there. Dppowell 16:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

From Paganism:

[Paganism] connote[s] a broad set of spiritual or religious beliefs and practices

From ["Definition of pagan in Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary]

a follower of a polytheistic religion

Why do you say "it's not a religion"?--Panarjedde 16:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no one religion that can be referred to as "paganism." The word does not refer to a specific faith. It's a generic, collective term, like "clergy." Dppowell 16:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Panarjedde, please read the definition you've quoted carefully. It says "a broad set of spiritual or religious beliefs and practices". That means religions, plural, not a single, unified, religion. As Dppowell says, this is a generic term, not a proper noun.

And anyway, as far as this applies to Julian, it's already been demonstrated that scholarship on him uses "pagan" and "paganism", without capitals. If you want a change, I believe you need to quote a secondary source writing specifically about Julian that uses "Pagan" and "Paganism". Until you find such a source, I suggest we spend our time worrying about something other than capitalization. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]

--Panarjedde 17:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, super. The first two works are about modern Paganism (or Neo-Paganism), which should be capitalized. But that's not relevant to Julian.

Your fourth citation, A History of Pagan Europe by Prudence Jones and Nigel Pennick, is relevant to Julian and does capitalize "Pagan". However, the authors "contend that the Pagan worldview has continuity over time and space and retains its influence on European life today." In other words, they are writing from a neo-Pagan POV, see contemporary Paganism as descending from pre-Christian religions, and capitalize "Pagan" for that reason. This is not a widely held opinion in scholarship on Julian.

The other works you cite are from the 18th-19th centuries and follow different capitalization conventions than modern scholarship. Find us a good work of academic history on Julian that uses "Pagan" and you've got an argument; but so far you haven't shown us anything that should trump the usage of the Oxford Classical Dictionary, Averil Cameron or Peter Brown.

Let me again suggest that it would be better for Wikipedia if we worried about the content of the article rather than whether we should capitalize a few words. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I am sure that even if I was able to provide them, you would not like the colour of their covers. If you want me to cite your books, is a bit unfair, don't you think? Furthermore, it looks like I am not the only one caring about capitalization, as opposed to content.--Panarjedde 17:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, 19th century books are physically more attractive than recent publications, so I'm sure I would like the color of their covers. However, my point is basically that we need to follow the practice of current scholarship, and the citations you've provided are from over a century ago, accept for the neo-Pagan material, which is not a majority view in classical/late antique scholarship. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I see one modern book there which supports your proposed usage. Among the others, I see a book using the term to refer to Wicca, I see Edward Gibbon (18th century), I see some late 19th century textbook in the PD, and a book referring to something it calls "contemporary (read: not ancient) Paganism." Would you like to see mine? Dppowell 17:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Sexual harassment is a serious offence.--Panarjedde 17:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that was kind of funny. :) Dppowell 19:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, after an investigation in modern scholary, I have to admit you are right and I am wrong. I still believe it should be the way I proposed, but how Julian himself would have said, ubi maior minor cessat. Best regards to both of you. --Panarjedde 09:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I hope you understand that the point of this discussion was not to prove you wrong. We're all working to improve Wikipedia, and adhering to current academic usage helps protect the encylopedia from accusations of poor quality.Dppowell 13:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Julian.jpg

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)

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)

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)

It is at the Louvre. --Panarjedde 16:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Was Julian Deified?

I removed the Deified Roman Emperor cat a bit ago on more a hunch rather than certainty that he wasn't (normally bad practice, but Wikipedia is a place where that benefit of the doubt is somewhat strained). Varana put it back with the comment "Eutropius reports (Eutr. X 16) "inter Divos relatus est")." I was actually intending to drop off a note on the talk page asking, but that got lost in the shuffle. Apologies.

That said... I still find this really unlikely. Truth is stranger than fiction, so I totally believe that this is possible, but how on earth did this happen? Why would a Christian successor deify Julian into a religion that he doesn't believe in? If this did happen, then the story as to why is probably interesting enough to actually stick in the article. Was it something like by the time the new Emperor got back to Rome, the Senate had already deified Julian or something? Alas, not being at college anymore, I lack resources other than Google to check on this myself, and Google doesn't turn up much. [13] has a translation of the passage you recommend (I don't know Latin) with "As he was returning victorious, and mingling rashly in the thick of a battle, he was killed by the hand of an enemy, on the 26th of June, in the seventh year of his reign, and the thirty-second of his age, and was enrolled among the gods." Maybe was just referring using a standard turn of phrase that had lost the actual meaning, just like modern atheists can say someone "gave up the ghost" without really meaning it? SnowFire 02:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The phrase in question does mean more or less "he was brought to be among the Gods"; the translation is decent enough (note the passive voice, which is in the Latin as well). Eutropius was himself a pagan and was Julian's magister memoriae (private secretary, more or less). I am really certain that this is at most a statement of belief by a fervant partisan of Julian, and even more likely is just a poetic turn of phrase. If we are to have any kind of realistic discussion of this category, I think it has to be about actual acts of the Roman Senate, which, for obvious reasons, aren't forthcoming here. I'm going to remove the cite. --Jfruh (talk) 03:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I think Jfruh is probably right, but we have to stay away from original research, which means we need to find a citation from a commonly accepted expert who comes down on one side or the other. For what it's worth, I went through my Penguin copy of Ammianus Marcellinus and couldn't find any reference to Julian's deification in the chapters about his death and funeral. Dppowell 15:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't the burden of proof be on the person who is claiming that he was deified? I just tried to remove the cat and it was instantly added back. I don't want to get into any edit wars though... --Jfruh (talk) 15:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe because you acted boldly when a discussion was in progress?--Panarjedde 22:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Not to engage in pointless sniping, but I will point out that your revert had no edit summary and no comment on the talk page (initially). This is not conducive to debate, as it's impossible to respond to.

As a more general WP policy issue, while I mentioned before I don't have particular competency here, Jfruh is absolutely correct that things in an article need to have reasons or sources, not things outside the article. Since "Deified Roman Emperor" was in the article, the onus is on people who want it kept to reliably source that claim (which, in fairness, has been done to a degree now). SnowFire 23:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

In my own defense, nobody was speaking up to defend the categorization on this page. It was less a discussion than a bunch of people saying "Why is this here?" --Jfruh (talk) 23:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Libianus 18.304 reads: "I have mentioned representations (of Julian); many cities have set him beside the images of the gods and honour him as they do the gods. Already a blessing has been besought of him in prayer, and it was not in vain. To such an extent has he literally ascended to the gods and received a share of their power from him themselves." This passage is quoted in Nock "Deification and Julian" Journal of Roman Studies 47 (1957) 152. I didn't see any evidence of an official act of the Senate in the article, but I only skimmed it; still, it seems like individual cities took the initiative to give him imperial cult, which I think justifies the category. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Is this referring to before or after his death? Strikes me enough to let the category stand, I guess, though it sure makes me uncomfortable. For what it's worth, Libanius was a pagan holdout and partisan of Julian. --Jfruh (talk) 19:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Not a good reason to ignore his words.--Panarjedde 22:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Unclear whether the cities put his images up before or after his death, but I would guess that some cities gave him cult while he was still alive--there's evidence that this was done for earlier emperors--Simon Price and Stephen Friesen have good work on imperial cult in Asia Minor. True enough that Libianus was a pagan "holdout", but there were plenty of pagans around for centuries after Constantine; if I remember right, there's some evidence that even Christian emperors received imperial cult in the 4th century. It's been quite awhile since I was doing research on that, so my memory could be faulty. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

If the senate doesn't do it, in how many cities does an emperor's cult need to be established before he can be said to have been deified? It's a totally subjective question, and one that's not appropriate for us to try to answer. I think the tidiest thing to do would be to tie the Wikipedia category to the actions of the Senate, and merely make an acknowledgement of the local cults in the articles for people outside the category. Dppowell 19:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Or you could possibly add every emperor that received any form of divinization. However, this is a matter that should be discussed in the category talk page, not here.--Panarjedde 22:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

If the category means "Roman emperors who received the title Divus after their death by an act of the Senate", I agree we don't have enough evidence to put Julian there. If the category means "Roman emperors who received imperial cult" I think we have enough evidence. Personally, I think deification by the Senate is not nearly as interesting or important as the actions of individual cities, since I think imperial cult was an important way of legitimating Roman rule to the subject peoples. Honestly, I'm not sure the category is useful at all, because we can presume most emperors were deified until Christianity became dominant. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I'd happily obliterate the category, but that would probably start an uproar. If it's going to remain, then, it would be nice to standardize its definition and usage. Dppowell 20:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

If you think the category has no meaning, request its deletion, but do not empty it unilaterally.--Panarjedde 22:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Panarjedde, your tone (as usual) is inappropriately adversarial. Nobody is doing anything to the category. It's just an informal discussion. Relax. Dppowell 15:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Dppowell, as usual your tone is arrogant. "I'd happily obliterate the category" does not qualify as "doing nothing". And avoid paternalistic tones, you need to learn how to behave with other editors.--Panarjedde 16:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You're a fine one to be advising anybody on how to behave with other editors! Next on our show, Donald Trump will critique this fall's hot trends in men's hairstyles... Dppowell 17:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I still believe you have nothing to teach me.--Panarjedde 17:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't have more succinctly captured the underlying assumption behind most of your contributions to Wikipedia. Well done! Dppowell 17:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I am happy for you.--Panarjedde 18:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Panarjedde, but I agree with Dppowell that you're overreacting, and I think that you're speaking somewhat paternalistically in the bargain. However, please rest assured that no one will delete or empty the category without proper discussion at Category talk:Deified Roman emperors. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you agree with Dppowell is unsurprising. As regards paternalistic remarks, I never told you or Dppowell to "relax". I am happy nobody is going to delete anything without proper discussion.--Panarjedde 17:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe that "you need to learn how to behave with other editors" is a paternalistic remark. Of course, it's a statement that could apply to any one of us... --Akhilleus (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

...and is a statement made after his own.--Panarjedde 17:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, "He started it!" is not a paternalistic statement. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Right. So what?--Panarjedde 18:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me on this. I'll only add that this stuff on having some veneration in the cities anyway (at least according to his admirers) is probably interesting enough to go in the main article (complete with sources handily compiled here), but I'm not sure I'm the right one to add it. SnowFire 23:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The lines are from Libanius' epitath for Julian, so I assume it means after he died (having a hard time finding text online). I'll add the bit into the article. --Jfruh (talk) 23:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)