Talk:Persecution of pagans in the late Roman Empire/Archive 1

Archive 1

Article stained by unilateral christian apologia

The article is very obviously not neutral and there is no way to go about it. The part about Ambrose for example is completely 100% composed of affirmations minimizing his role and attacking those who assert it, saying there is "not a shread of evidence" while simultaneusly dismissing the evidence, without even quoting it. Indeed, reading the article one could not even tell his demands for persecution of non-christians were granted, or what happened in the massacre. Rest of the article follows a similar pattern of quoting modern christian authors that outright dismiss the persecution of paganism. --186.143.201.250 (talk) 15:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@186.143.201.250: Since you're an IP, this won't get to you directly but I am hoping you will be keeping an eye on it. First of all, thank you for your input. We can adjust to more on Ambrose if you want. I am fine with that if you have good sources for it. Right now this one section has 7 separate sources. It opens with a quote from MacMullen, (the only contemporary scholar I could find who is really anti–Ambrose): "Theodosius...was no natural zealot. Ambrose, on the other hand, was very much a Christian. His restless and imperious ambition for the church's growth, come what might for the non-Christians, is suggested by his preaching." Then it presents the opposing view, which is the majority view among the contemporary sources. The quote you reference is from Alan Cameron--not a Christian.

Scholarship does go out of date and get overturned by later work, and if that new scholarship becomes the consensus view, then the earlier work can not be presented as the valid majority view anymore. It can only be presented as a historical marker of the path the research has taken to get to whatever the consensus is now. We don't synthesize the views. We have to take what the scholars say the consensus is now. If you want to include more on history, I am totally good with that. I'll even offer to help if you like. But consensus has changed since the 80s and 90s. On page 2 of Michele Renee Salzman et al. says in the bottom paragraph on the page: "Although the debate on the death of paganisms continues, the scholars who contributed to this volume, by and large, concur that the once dominant notion of overt pagan-Christian religious conflict cannot fully explain the texts and artifacts or the social, religious, and political realities of Late Antique Rome." That is the contemporary consensus view. It is not my bias.

You are correct in saying Indeed, reading the article one could not even tell his demands for persecution of non-christians were granted, or what happened in the massacre, but the reason for that isn't bias either. It's a truly impossible problem to get past as is stated in the article by McLynn: McLynn explains this is because it is almost impossible to reconstruct what really happened. This political event was transformed into a moral lesson in the sources, and that is all there is.[2] There is no way to re-construct what actually happened. Even so, the section still closes with MacMullen's claim: MacMullen says that law "represented the will of its bishop, Ambrose" [3] though there is no evidence of it, and he makes no such claim in his later work,

There is no record of Ambrose making demands for persecution of pagans concerning the Thessalonian affair. Indeed, the issue there is Ambrose' correction of Theodosius already having done so and Ambrose' disapproval of it. The question is how much Theodosius 'caved' to Ambrose pressure for repentance of that act, thereby signifying the church as more powerful than the state. Brown and Cameron and Trombley and nearly every contemprary scholar I found says that never happened.

Ambrose did influence Gratian and Valentinian who were both child emperors. On page 187, Edward J. Watts, who is very anti-Ambrose, documents that Ambrose' "call for anti-paganism" amounts to telling Valentinian he can't give money to support the pagans. At the bottom of page 120, Meaghan McEvoy says Ambrose was an influence on Gratian but not a consistent one--he could only get his way occasionally--but that he had more influence after 380. Every scholar I found indicates Ambrose was a staunch supporter of the emperors and the church and the emperor's religious responsibilities, as emperors had always had, but there is very little actual anti-pagan action beyond the requirement to support one and not the other. However, if you have material that says more of what you claim, and good sources, let's definitely include them. I tried to represent what the consensus says, I tend toward extensive research--the couple hundred sources I included are about two thirds of what I read, but that doesn't mean I didn't miss something. So, thank you again. Please contribute as you see fit according to WP's guidelines. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

References

More evidence of the current consensus view: Luke Lavan in The Archaeology of Late Antique "paganism" says, "Straightforward readings of the laws can lead to a grossly distorted image of the period: as thirty years of archaeology has revealed... Within religious history most textual scholars now accept this, although historical accounts often tend to give imperial laws greatest prominence... we have to accept that archaeology may reveal a very different story from the texts..." and on page 138, "The anti-pagan legislation of the Christian emperors drew on the same polemical rhetoric and modern scholars are now all too aware of the limitations of those laws as historical evidence." (page xxi) In footnote 74 on page 336, "most scholars now agree that up to circa AD 400, the majority of the upper classes remained pagan."

I have more of these concerning modern consensus from Salzman and Brown and others. What you have right now is unsupported personal opinion. Please present some scholarship that provides some evidence to support a claim of bias. Provide something you would like to include. If this isn't done in a reasonable time frame, I'm removing the tag as unfounded. Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Rest of the article follows a similar pattern of quoting modern christian authors that outright dismiss the persecution of paganism. Please identify which authors you think are Christian. I'd like to know how you can tell. Where is persecution of pagans dismissed? These two claims are false and baseless.Jenhawk777 (talk) 09:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

186.143.201.250 I have now been through every reference--yes all 150+--and I found a grand total of four Christian publishers--I can't make any claims about the authors one way or the other as none of them say. I knew I hadn't used any specifically Christian publications, for obvious reasons, so if you check the dates on when those refs were inserted, you will also be able to see it was the the former author who is the one who used them, not I--and contrary to your claim, they are used to support persecution of pagans not contradict it. No one has claimed persecution didn't happen. Modern scholarship doesn't say that, it just says it wasn't as severe or as early as previously thought. That's all this article says. I understand it may be hard to swallow if you are emotionally invested in the opposing view, but it isn't bias. It's just change.

I am happy to replace these "Christian" references, but I can only say what the sources do. I can't make stuff up like the former author did.

I have responded to your concerns with references, not opinion. Please check them. They are OUP, Cambridge, various American universities including Harvard and Yale, jstor and other journals, some of which are European: none of the references I used are specifically 'Christian.' Please take the time to see what they say for yourself. I stand by my work as representative of current consensus, but I am also happy to make adjustments to accommodate your sensibilities as much as possible, just not without your participation, and not without good references.

This is my last effort to have a discussion. It is not WP policy to do a "drive-by" tagging based on personal opinion and then be unavailable to defend your claim. Please note WP policy at: [1] where it says recommend that the tagging editor initiate a discussion to support the placement of the tag. If the tagging editor failed to do so, or the discussion is dormant, and there is no other support for the template, it can be removed; If I don't hear back from you I will follow through as I said above as this claim being unfounded. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I posted a request to come here and discuss this on your talk page at 11:09 pm, 12 July 2020. Please respond. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm giving this particular issue a week of non-response, then acting, but anyone at anytime who has problems of any kind with this article, please say so. I am happy to work them through. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

You've been very fair. Carry on. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@186.143.201.250: It's been a week with no response, no discussion and no support for this claim. As per WP policy, I am removing the tag as unfounded. Please do not put it back without first addressing my comments here. To do so would be cause for taking this to arbitration. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Grammatical

I fixed a few grammatical errors, typos, and other minor mistakes of that sort that I found; I was careful to avoid altering the content, but I did change the wording in a few places where it was ungrammatical and/or awkward, or a word was used incorrectly. This article is a fine start, but it still could use some attention. I hope somebody else will add some commentary soon; it's lonely here. :) 174.111.242.35 (talk) 11:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

A period of persecution is missing

I'm not an historian, but the sentence "From 361 till 375, Paganism was relatively tolerated" is untrue. Also, the entry shifts that persecution starts with the times of Constantine to another page, just to avoid speaking about the mass murder of pagans in the period where tolerance is claimed. This is also untrue. Here is a small chronography until 375 of the "tolerant" period:

314 Immediately after its full legalisation, the Christian Church attacks non-Christians. The Council of Ancyra denounces the worship of Goddess Artemis.

324 The emperor Constantine declares Christianity as the only official religion of the Roman Empire. In Dydima, Minor Asia, he sacks the Oracle of the god Apollo and tortures the pagan priests to death. He also evicts all non-Christian peoples from Mount Athos and destroys all the local Hellenic temples.

325 Nicene Council. The godman gets a promotion: 'Christ is Divine'

326 Constantine, following the instructions of his mother Helen, destroys the temple of the god Asclepius in Aigeai Cilicia and many temples of the goddess Aphrodite in Jerusalem, Aphaca, Mambre, Phoenicia, Baalbek, etc.

330 Constantine steals the treasures and statues of the pagan temples of Greece to decorate Constantinople, the new capital of his Empire.

335 Constantine sacks many pagan temples in Asia Minor and Palestine and orders the execution by crucifixion of “all magicians and soothsayers.” Martyrdom of the neoplatonist philosopher Sopatrus.

341 Constantius II (Flavius Julius Constantius) persecutes “all the soothsayers and the Hellenists.” Many gentile Hellenes are either imprisoned or executed.

346 New large scale persecutions against non-Christian peoples in Constantinople. Banishment of the famous orator Libanius accused as a “magician”.

353 An edict of Constantius orders the death penalty for all kind of worship through sacrifice and “idols”.

354 A new edict orders the closing of all the pagan temples. Some of them are profaned and turned into brothels or gambling rooms. Execution of pagan priests begins. A new edict of Constantius orders the destruction of the pagan temples and the execution of all “idolaters”. First burning of libraries in various cities of the empire. The first lime factories are organised next to the closed pagan temples. A major part of the holy architecture of the pagans is turned into lime.

357 Constantius outlaws all methods of divination (astrology not excluded).[Dr. Arthur Frederick Ide]

359 In Skythopolis, Syria, the Christians organise the first death camps for the torture and executions of the arrested non-Christians from all around the empire.

361 to 363 Religious tolerance and restoration of the pagan cults is declared in Constantinople (11th December 361) by the pagan emperor Julian (Flavius Claudius Julianus).

363 Assassination of Julian (26th June).

364 Emperor Jovian orders the burning of the Library of Antioch. [Dr. Arthur Frederick Ide] An Imperial edict (11th September) orders the death penalty for all those that worship their ancestral gods or practice divination (“sileat omnibus perpetuo divinandi curiositas”). Three different edicts (4th February, 9th September, 23rd December) order the confiscation of all properties of the pagan temples and the death penalty for participation in pagan rituals, even private ones. The Church Council of Laodicea (Phrygia – western Asia Minor) orders that religious observances are to be conducted on Sunday and not on Saturday. Sunday becomes the new Sabbath. The practice of staying at home and resting on Saturday declared sinful and anathema to Christ. [Dr. Arthur Frederick Ide,found in ]

365 An imperial edict from Emperor Valens, a zealous Arian Christian (17th November), forbids pagan officers of the army to command Christian soldiers.

370 Valens orders a tremendous persecution of non-Christian peoples in all the Eastern Empire. In Antioch, among many other non-Christians, the ex-governor Fidustius and the priests Hilarius and Patricius are executed. The philosopher Simonides is burned alive and the philosopher Maximus is decapitated. All the friends of Julian are persecuted (Orebasius, Sallustius, Pegasius etc.). Tons of books are burnt in the squares of the cities of the Eastern Empire.

372 Valens orders the governor of Minor Asia to exterminate all the Hellenes and all documents of their wisdom.

373 New prohibition of all divination methods is issued. The term “pagan” (pagani, villagers, equivalent to the modern insult, “peasants”) is introduced by the Christians to demean non-believers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enric (talk • contribs) 14:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

All this is great but as we all know you need sources to back your claims.--Тежава (talk) 00:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The Greatest Story Ever Forged (Curse of the Christ Myth) by David Hernandez would probably cover most or much of it. Gzuufy (talk) 15:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

There's an interesting attempt to justify the over the top claim about the 'death camps at Skythopolis' here, which falls apart rather quickly when analysed. http://historum.com/ancient-history/39116-did-4th-century-christians-organise-death-camps-gentiles-skythopolis-c-359-ce.html If that's the quality of the claims being made... Note also that the 'Greatest Story ever forged' appears in NO libraries on WorldCat, which strongly suggests it's not to be taken seriously. Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 00:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_%28emperor%29#Death offers a good source that Julian died of wounds after battle, rather than 'assassinated'. Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 01:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

References

Neutrality

Presently this article does not describe persecutions. It is only a peculiar list, created by applying a filter to history to catch anything that was, or could be, hostile act against pagans. For example, yes a particular law was issued and this is backed by a primary source. What is left unknown: was it against the actual practice at the times? Was it opposed? Was it enforced? How effectively? On what social strata? When it was changed? etc. This article definitely lacks reliable secondary sources and is unbalanced. --Kubanczyk (talk) 08:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

This happens with all "persecution" themed articles on Wikipedia, it attracts people with a grievance, apparently even when it's about ancient history, and they start cherry-picking stuff to build up a rhetorically overloaded one-sided argument. I don't know why people do this, but apparently it's human nature. You pick a side and then you argue for it instead of trying to get the whole picture. Wikipedia as a project is actually designed to combat this attitude, but we are struggling.

"Interpretation", I don't know why the article bothers to detail Gibbon's obviously flawed argument just to then tear it down. Surely this can just be of historical interest for people researching Gibbon? The reality of course, is that this isn't "Christianity" per se vs. "paganism" per se, it is about imperial politics. The powerful families of the empire install an imperial cult, and their power hinges on enforcing this cult throughout their domain. As long as this cult was pagan, they persecuted Christians for refusing to participate, and the minute the cult became Christian, they naturally persecuted pagans refusing to participate. This can and should still be documented in due detail, but it is simply flawed to depict this as somehow inherently hinging on aspects of monotheism vs. polytheism.

It was never "the Christians" vs. "the pagans", it was "the families" (the powerful in Rome) vs. "assorted trouble-making minority groups". First "the families" were pagan and persecuted the Christians, then they switched and became Christian and persecuted the pagans. Same difference. --dab (𒁳) 09:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Title name change

Why it was changed to "Anti-Paganism Policy of Late Roman Emperors"? This seems to be a heavily biased edit to me. Under the same logic, this [[2]] article, too, should be renamed to "Anti-Christian Policy of Roman Emperors".

Because "persecution" is not a neutral POV. One Emperor's persecution is another Emperor's purification. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to assume good faith here, despite the sweeping and broad changes, and re-titling you made to a number of pages. It seems that you went into the category of "Persecution by Early Christians" and simply removed every mention of the word persecution, and changed the names of all the relevant articles without consensus. Major moves and extensive edits like this should really never be carried out without discussion on the talk pages. The major reason for my objection to these edits, aside from the lack of consensus and that these pages were static for years, is per WP: COMMONNAME. This is what nearly all academic sources call it, and this is what people would search for; most of these titles are unwieldy and far afield of what people would search for. It doesn't fit in the context of some of the articles, either.

For the record though, I actually approve of some of the changes. I think that with the exception of Theodosius and the main content articles, it might be more apt to call them anti-pagan policies, especially when relating to individual Constantinian emperors (especially Constantine)... This doesn't mean, though, that every mention of the word "persecution" in the article be replaced with "anti-pagan policy", especially when contextually, persecution is what the sources say, or what's obviously meant. This is the classic "duck" argument, here. We wouldn't be allowed to call the Armenian Genocide the "Armenian Incident", and when the word "genocide" or "persecution" is used in the article, we can't change it to "incident", or "disagreement", because it offends the sensibilities of some people. These people were persecuted on the basis of the practise of their religion, even within their own homes, and the subject meets every academic and legal criterion for being called a "religious persecution". Granted, sometimes there was a political motivation for promoting Christianity as the official cult, but after the Theodosian Decrees, any practise of polytheism, in whatever context, is prohibited under pain of death. People were executed en masse for this.

Thus, this isn't a matter of POV. And it's certainly not OR, as you claimed. NPOV means we report what the sources say, not that we respect religious sensibilities. Every citation you gave me when you said "one emperor's persecution was another's purification" was either apologetic, or not a reliable source, save one. But I checked all of the citations, and "anti-paganism" policy is nowhere used. Most of the sources are religious publications which simply take an exclusively apologetic POV. The one academic source you gave doesn't mention the term, either. Additionally, Canon 29 refers to Judaizing, and has nothing to do with paganism. I'm not sure how the ruling of a religious council would be a reasonable counterargument to bias, anyway.

I'll be restoring the category of "Ancient Roman Religion" on these pages, but also keeping your addition of the Christian-oriented category, as it's a perfectly appropriate addition. I'm not sure why you deleted the prior category on these pages in the first place, as it's also appropriate, but simply a category referring to pagan religion. As I said, I see no problem with most of your rewording, but some of it is definitely not contextually appropriate, grammatically sound, or in line with NPOV and RS. Those are all relatively minor edits, though. I'm still assuming good faith, despite the scope of these changes across an entire category. As far as any *major* changes, we can discuss them in a civil manner here, if you're agreeable. This should have been done in the first place.

We report what reliable sources say, build consensus for changes, and improve content through collaboration. Let's try to do that as best we can. Thank you. I look forward to hearing from you. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 23:37, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Name change 2

The previous discussion on this just snowed me so I abandoned it. I'm attempting it again because it is now spawning categories of the same name. This distasteful word must be stopped now. I don't think it matters how many articles use the word, it's still not nice. Who now uses the n word, even though there a multitude of sources for it. In many cases the Emperors themselves would not have viewed their actions as being persecutions but as enforcing adhesion to national policy. Nobody likes to pay taxes but its the government's duty to ensure tax compliance. Is it persecution what a tax inspector demands adhesion to national tax policy? The meaning can be conveyed without resorting to POV name calling. Pinging other interested editors @Marcocapelle: @Fayenatic london: @Quinto Simmaco: Anyway, I propose the following, but am open to similar options: 1 "Anti-paganism policies in the late Roman Empire" Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• Procedurally, I think this requires a formal RM, especially in connection to the previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree an RM is the best route to a consensus here. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Done Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 14 April 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Votes roughly split and some good arguments from both sides. Jenks24 (talk) 17:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

---

Persecution of pagans in the late Roman Empire → Anti-paganism policies in the late Roman Empire – The word "Persecution" is value-laden and not a neutral POV. The page is not about a general uprising against pagans by the people. It is about state opposition to paganism. The page is not so much about opposition to particular named pagans as to paganism as an organised religion. So the name should reflect the focus of the page - state opposition to the pagan religion in the Empire as effected by state officials (from Emperors to provincial governors) and state legislation (decrees and other laws promulgated). The fact that other opposition took place in local areas from time to time outside of official policy or sanction is not a material part of the page. The state would have viewed such policies as a normal part of its function of good government much as it did for other state policies like the collection of taxes. That is, they would not have viewed it as persecution per se as the , at times, unpleasant enforcement of laws. Much like the collection of taxes, which, while unpleasant, is legal and not characterised as persecution. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. With a quick Google Books search it is clear that Persecution of pagans is far more common term than Anti-paganism policies. I would also add that term "persecution" is totally applicable for state policies, and does not necessarily require some kind of "general uprising" "by the people".--Staberinde (talk) 17:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Reply NPOV trumps Commonname. For example, most articles are named "Religious conversion from Foo" as opposed to "Apostacy from Foo". Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:02, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Not really, policies don't trump each other like that, because it is never simple black-and-white situation. It is all about weighing different factors. If reputable historians widely use certain term, then wikipedians aren't qualified to simply overrule them and declare that "wikipedia experts" know best. In this case it is not even close, your proposed term has practically no usage, while current title is well established. Also I don't really understand the example you are trying to make, wikipedia has no "Religious conversion from ..." articles, while it has articles like Apostasy in Islam or Apostasy in Christianity.--Staberinde (talk) 15:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Examples Category:Conversion to Judaism and Category:Conversion to Christianity Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Categories are completely different things and tend to require more rounded titles to fit wide range of different articles.--Staberinde (talk) 15:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

The debate at CFD may be instructive here. In this case, I was on the losing side of the argument. Nevertheless, it is now policy and probably precedent setting for the use of pejorative terms. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

See also Anti-paganism policies in the early Byzantine Empire which has an identical outlook for a different time period. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

As I said, categories are completely different thing because they need to fit wide range of articles at once. Usage of common name even then they have neutrality issues is well established in policy (WP:POVNAME). Also that Byzantine example looks quite dubious and may be worth renaming itself.--Staberinde (talk) 18:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

• Mild support, although I would prefer to move to Anti-paganism in the late Roman Empire, as a simpler more WP:CONCISE title. On the debate above, WP:POVTITLE is our guide here. WP:NPOV does not always trump WP:COMMONNAME for article titles - in some cases, such as Boston Massacre, where the thing is almost exclusively called that, we use the title even if it's POV. However, as this ngram shows, "persecution of pagans" and "anti-paganism" are not wildly different in terms of usage in books - the former is somewhat ahead now, but they have been near identical at times. That means that we should probably prefer the more NPOV sounding anti-paganism title.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: per Laurel Lodged. The word "persecution" is clearly used in the academic literature about Christians and Pagans alike under the mid-late empire. I personally don't see it as some kind of pro-pagan pov... —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Pinginging all those who contributed to the above CFD debate: @Mike Selinker: @Johnpacklambert: @BrownHairedGirl: @Peterkingiron: @Epipelagic: @Good Olfactory: @Mangoe: @Carlossuarez46: @Johnbod: @The Bushranger:. I don't think that this amounts to canvassing as most of these editors are usually on the opposite side of the fence to me :-) Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

• meh I can't figure out which discussion it was I participated in, but at any rate, the scope of the two titles would be different, with the proposed title limiting itself to state action, which "persecution" does not. Really I'm not attached to either however. Mangoe (talk) 17:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment I think that Mangoe is correct in highlighting that really both articles are limited to state action. They contain hardly anything about the actions of individuals. Which is why i think that "policy" is more appropriate. Laurel Lodged (talk)

Comment I'm not necessarily convinced by the original rationale for movement. Laurel Lodged argues that "The word "Persecution" is value-laden and not a neutral POV"; I'm not sure that they have convincingly made the case that it is not NPOV, merely asserted it. We use many words in article titles that are value-laden; that doesn't necessarily mean that they are not NPOV. "Holocaust" is value-laden, yet we correctly use the term in articles. "Feminist" is value-laden. WP:DUE (part of our NPOV policy) says that "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."; if "persecution" is a fair representation of the mainstream view, then "persecution" does not by my reading of the policy violate NPOV.

If we are to change the name of the article, I would prefer either "anti-paganism in the late Roman Empire" or "anti-pagan policies in the late Roman Empire", depending on whether people think the scope of the article should be restricted to policies or whether popular actions are part of the scope; "anti-paganism policies in the late Roman Empire" reads awkwardly to me.

• Hm, I'm going to go with oppose here. While it's true that neutral titles should be preferred, the fact is that Wikipedia does not make its own value judgements when the sources are not "Wiki-neutral" - we reflect what the sources indicate. Since, as mentioned above, the sources refer to it as "persecution", then Wikipedia needs to reflect that the sources describe it that way. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
• Matching Anti-paganism policies in the early Byzantine Empire with Anti-paganism policies in the late Roman Empire. At some periods the policy was toleration; at others persecution. As a matter of principle, I believe conversion should always be by persuasion. Sadly at some times and in some places, it has been imposed by force. I do not like that, but it is what happened. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Keep it simple. A good title for a good topic. Andrewa (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

---

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

Evaluation and legacy

This is a history article, not a dissertation. Does it need a section called "Evaluation and legacy"? Is it not just a vehicle for advancing a POV using synthesis and WP:OR? Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The section is justified per se, but unfortunately the "agenda-driven" nature of the article is still visible. It can be fixed. The "neutral" version of this article is found at Decline of Greco-Roman polytheism. Now, it is perfectly undisputed that this centuries-long process of decline very much did include episodes of blatant persecution, as is duly elaborated in the "decline" page, but it appears that for considerable periods there was something of a fluctuating balance between the pagan and the Christian faction, with various amounts of mutual "persecution".

I do think that this page by conception qualifies as WP:CFORK of the Decline of Greco-Roman polytheism article. We do not need two sweeping overviews on the topic. --dab (𒁳) 12:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Constantine was not baptized by Pope Sylvester I

Referring specifically to the sentence "Constantine was baptised by Pope Sylvester I." This claim is at odds with every mention of Constantine's baptism that I can find on Wikipedia. For example, Constantine's own biographical article states that it was Eusebius of Nicomedia who baptized Constantine (this is also mentioned in the biographical article of the former). Indeed, the only mention at all of Constantine in the article for Pope Sylvester I refers to the Symmachian forgeries, the forged Donation of Constantine, and a collection of Sicilian fables in which a Jewish Constantine is baptized by Sylvester. So as far as I can tell, Eusebius of Nicomedia baptized Constantine (who was not in Rome, where Pope Sylverster was), and it seems that claims to the contrary are misunderstandings due to forgeries and legends. Also, see Constantine the Great and Christianity. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 00:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Primary sources

This article relies heavily in primary sources. Is there something we can do to change it? Can anyone suggest/share secondary sources? I 'd like to help on this issue. Cinadon36 18:13, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

The Cambridge Ancient History volume 13 is a good start (see pp. 538-632). T8612 (talk) 12:50, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Another I can recommend is Catherine Nixey's The Darkening Age: The Christian Destruction of the Classical World. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 13:21, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

It is a Popular history book heavily critised from most prominent historians for back to Gibbonian view. We can use it, but first of all we must use prominent historians of Universities. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 14:16, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Nixey's book is an absolutely acceptable secondary source, and is, itself, well-sourced. You're free to ignore it or to find other secondary sources. I was merely responding to the request for a suggestion of secondary sources. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Of course it is. I didn't said something different. I wrote: " We can use it". First of all i think we must use prominent historians of Oxford/Cambridge etc and not popular history books.Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 16:50, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Nixey's book is great and awarded by many prestigious organisations. [3] There have been positive reviews from other academia members as well.Cinadon36 17:04, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

It has also received much criticism. Averil Cameron begins her review "Hearts will sink among historians of early Christianity and late antiquity..." There is too much out there that is better for us to rely much on Nixey. Alan Cameron's The Last Pagans of Rome and Edward Watts' The Final Pagan Generation, for example. Neither is currently cited in this article. Srnec (talk) 03:07, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Nixey's book is a perfectly valid secondary source. I don't agree with the statement that "there is too much out there that is better." That's a subjective judgement. I'm not even sure that any reviews necessarily reflect actual scholarly consensus. Maybe this would be different if we were discussing fringe beliefs in theoretical physics, or claims that are regarded as pseudoscience. In this case, Nixey simply describes well-documented events; anyone is free to cite relevant published work from those who disagree. I doubt that anyone will find a refutation of any factual statement that relies on her book as a source; my guess is that what some reviewers object to is her tone and framing. This is hardly surprising given current trends in some academic circles. But we're not writing editorials or publishing in scholarly journals, so I don't see why we should care about these debates; we're just relating facts from published sources. Nixey's book is full of relevant facts, so it's an excellent secondary source. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 04:32, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Nixey is a journalist, not a professional historian. She has no authority on this field and her book should not be cited, except in a "popular culture" section.T8612 (talk) 16:33, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

There are reviews and awards [4] out there that validate her work. Cinadon36 17:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

These awards were given by newspapers. Citations all come from other journalists. T8612 (talk) 19:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

LOL, sorry, but there is no such guideline dictating discrimination against notable published works as valid secondary sources because of the author's background. I get that you and other editors here personally don't like Nixey. Tough. Her work is a valid secondary source, and material therein can absolutely be added and cited in this article. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 19:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Her work is WP:FRINGE, and there is precisely the guideline against this. No serious historian would use Gibbon to write on the Roman Empire. This is from her book:

Art lovers watched in horror as some of the greatest sculptures in the ancient world were smashed by people too stupid to appreciate them – and certainly too stupid to recreate them. The Christians could often not even destroy effectively: many statues on many temples were saved simply by virtue of being too high for them, with their primitive ladders and hammers, to reach.

Yep, Christians were too stupid to make ladders! T8612 (talk) 20:25, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Good grief, her work is *not* WP:FRINGE. Now I know you're not posting in good faith. There's no secondary source that qualifies as WP:FRINGE that also has the reviews and awards of major outlets as linked by Cinadon above. The silly little comment you make about ladders makes it clear that YOU, personally, take issue with her views, and that's what motivates your argument here, not WP guidelines on secondary sources. Let me be clear: Any editor is free to cite Nixey as a valid secondary source, AND any published criticisms. If something attributed to a Nixey source gets posted, you're perfectly free to post relevant criticism and contradiction (I'm guessing a lot of this would be appropriate for the Evaluation and Legacy section), just not YOUR opinion as an editor. The bottom line is that there's no remotely plausible case that Nixey's book is NOT a valid secondary source. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

And for the record, if you think the factual statements made in Nixey's book are outside of consensus views among historians, then you'd be perfectly free to post that in the article...as long as you can attribute such a claim to a published source that actually says as much rather than your own conclusion based on whatever you think you know. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I indeed take issue with her views because she relies on completely outdated sources (Gibbon et al.) and uses name calling. I note that you do not comment on the text I took from her book. Do you really think that an author who calls ancient people "stupid" is a reliable source? I have never seen such a thing from a historian, and this sentence alone is enough to condemn the book. The fact that it was praised by other journalists has no value at all. Here are reviews (here and here) from people with proper qualifications. T8612 (talk) 22:42, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Clearly that 's the definition of WP:IDLI. We shouldn't be judging the specific book by its content, whether we agree or not with it. Describing the level of acceptance of a theory is one thing, fringe theories is another. Her book has been awarded and presented by many mainstream outlets, apart from The Tablet and National Review, here is New York Times [5] and the Guardian (professor of Greek culture at the University of Cambridge Tim Whitmarsh) [6]. Certainly H.A.Drake does not consider her book fringe. "Seemingly, Catherine Nixey's The Darkening Age is just another broadside in this ongoing battle" [7].Cinadon36 05:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

"We shouldn't be judging the specific book by its content", and how can we judge a book then? by looking at its cover? Drake's review you cite is eloquent: "Nixey tempers this dismal story with disarming candor and wit, and her prose sparkles. But her point comes at a cost. Readers of this journal will frequently catch themselves saying, "Yes, but…," for Nixey's account is frequently one-sided, ignoring a broader context that, admittedly, would not excuse the destruction she narrates but would give readers a better perspective on the world in which it happened." "This deliberately one-sided account is by design, justified by what Nixey sees as the whitewashing that Christianity has gotten in modern scholarship (p. 107). Specialists will lament the missed opportunities to draw wider conclusions about causality".

You have an academic saying the book is "deliberately one-sided" (so it is not just me), which makes it unreliable. I'm all for including books with diverging views, but not those with such methodological flaws. T8612 (talk) 18:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Biased doesn't mean unreliable though. Biased sources are some times well informed. There is not even a hint of Nixey being unreliable. Cinadon36 19:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

The fundamental problem is that Nixey is not a subject matter expert and her book is a polemic. Neither of these things disqualifies her (or is even a criticism), they just mean that she is not the best source for this article. Given that the article does not cite Cameron or Watts, it is silly that we are considering including Nixey.

If you want an extensive critique of Nixey, albeit self-published but by a trained historian see here. If you want to see a scholar who is an expert in this area (and was married to an expert in this area too) take issue with Nixey, go to the Cameron review I already quoted from. The Dame is not impressed. Srnec (talk) 23:48, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality

This is an old school view about this topic. There is not a prominent Byzantologist who was such a view for 2-3 decades. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 12:36, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

If there are different "views," you're of course free to add cited statements. Though AFAIK, the facts have not changed regardless of your understanding about current views. I agree that the section you tagged seems to rely heavily on primary sources, but there are (by my count) 31 citations in the section. In this case, simple, straightforward restatements of the primary sources are given, and I don't see how this can be seen as problematic let alone not neutral. This is especially relevant since the primary sources are explicit law codes. I don't see how your neutrality claim applies here. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 13:18, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer dear friend Global Cerebral Ischemia. First of all i want to excuse for my use of bad English. I will try to write my View some time, but without any help i won't manage it, cause as you see my skills in English language is very poor. First of all there are not different views about this topic. Today, there is only one view, the view of the history sciense (ok there is also the view of Popular history about this topic). This view for the last decades (since 1970) had objected the previous scienistic view that was based on primary sources like this article of Wikipedia did, primary sources like Eusebius, Theodosian code etc. So please, have a look in these secondary uptodate sources 1, 2 from the most prominent historians of today (and not from 1920, or 1780 or...400). Please, check what i wrote if you wish, and if you find one Historian of Byzantine studies or late Roman Studies (at last since 1990) has still has the view of Edward Gibbon, please inform me cause i can't find anyone. Please check what historians like Peter Brown (historian), Alan Cameron (classical scholar), Marianne Sághy wrote. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 14:13, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

The relevant law codes are perfectly acceptable primary sources, and my statement remains valid: since the fact of what the law codes themselves state hasn't changed, I see no reason why they can't be cited as obviously relevant and valid primary sources. As I said, I totally agree that the section you tagged nevertheless relies too heavily on primary sources, and that this is a problem. This calls for improvement by the addition of material from secondary sources. But the charge of a lack of neutrality makes absolutely no sense given that the section consists of nothing but restatements and summaries of legal codes. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 16:43, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Global Cerebral Ischemia If i bring prominent historians that say that primary sources are heavily biased will you change your mind? Please answer to me about this, orelse i would not contribute here at all.Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I can not find evidence at the book you are pointing that is supporting the statement: "First of all there are not different views about this topic". Actually, page 2 of Rita, Lizzi, Testa et al, "the debate over the "death" of paganisms continues..." Cinadon36 15:14, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

What statement are you responding to? Please use proper indentation to indicate this...thanks! If you're responding to my statement, then it is very poor form (and extremely disingenuous) to falsely present a statement in quotation marks that was never actually made by the person you claim to be quoting. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 16:35, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

He is responding to me not you dear friend. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 16:51, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry Global Cerebral Ischemia, I was answering to Αντικαθεστωτικός.Ι didnt used ind. properly. Cinadon36 17:00, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

We must change the title, it was not a persecution, it was a reform

1. I have to remember that Christian emperors up to Graciano were still the Popes (Pontifex Maximus) of the traditional Roman religion.

2. At no time is a persecution of pagan beliefs appreciated, only reforms, it is not as during the High Empire that if there was a great contrast between pagan and Christian beliefs, in the Lower Empire, especially thanks to Neoplatonism, both positions they are syncretizing until they reach the extreme of using the same formula: the Trinity,

- for traditional pagans: Caelus, the First God/Motor; Saturn, the Soul; Jupiter, the son of the Intelligible;

- orientalized pagans such as Julian II: Zeus Ormuz; the Bull; Mithras;

- christians: Father/Creator; Holy Spirit; Son/Christ.

3. If this is classified as persecution, then the reforms of previous Pontifex Maximus (pagans) that banned or reformulated different precepts should also be considered persecution of the original forms. 84.78.17.134 (talk) 12:46, 23 August 2019 (UTC)  

Wikipedia must be neutral, and only Christian fanatics would say this was a reform rather than a persecution. --92.35.237.251 (talk) 20:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

This is getting a little crazy now. We "must" change the title? Good grief. Did you even bother to read the article?? The article is *about* persecutions of pagans in the late Roman Empire. That's the subject matter of the article! "At no time is a persecution of pagan beliefs..." Jesus Christ...again did you even read the article? Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 13:14, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@Global Cerebral Ischemia: I agree no title change, however, the article as it stands does not give a full representation of current scholarship. See this at: [8]. Quoting and including references

There are multiple contemporary views of Christian thought on paganism in Antiquity. The traditional view is: "From Gibbon and Burckhardt to the present day, it has been assumed that the end of paganism was inevitable once confronted by the resolute intolerance of Christianity; that the intervention of the Christian emperors in its suppression were decisive ... that, once they possessed such formidable power, Christians used it to convert as many non-Christians as possible — by threats and disabilities, if not by the direct use of force." However, a contemporary consensus has formed in support of Peter Brown's view which says this long held traditional view is mostly myth "constructed by a brilliant generation of Christian writers, polemicists and preachers in the last decade of [the Antique] period." Brown says Christian thought in Antiquity did not revolve around conversion but instead revolved around a narrative Christians had invented and imposed claiming that a "mighty conflict had taken place, and the Christian church had emerged as the victor." Though Christians remained a minority in the empire, once Constantine converted they saw this victory as having already taken place in Heaven, therefore, Brown says, the focus of Christian thought in Antiquity was not on converting the remaining pagans. Salzman indicates heresy was a higher priority than the conversion of pagans in the fourth and fifth centuries.

Christians wrote that their triumph was visible in the ending of civil war, the triumphs over barbarians, and in law such as the Theodosian decrees (389–391). With these laws, the old pagan religions were suppressed; temples were destroyed, monetary support withdrawn, and various other repressive legal measures were taken. "In a manner entirely characteristic of the period, the laws were frankly intended to terrorize the emperor's subjects... Their language was uniformly vehement. The penalties they proposed were frequently horrifying." Yet they were rarely enforced. The local authorities, who were still mostly pagan, were lax in imposing them, and Christian bishops frequently obstructed their application. Christian writers gave the narrative of victory high visibility, but archaeologist Luke Lavan says that does not necessarily correlate to actual conversion rates, and there are many signs that a healthy paganism continued into the fifth century.

Contemporary archaeology indicates there is no single narrative of the end of paganism. Temple destructions are attested. However, in some regions, the end of paganism was both gradual and untraumatic. Previous views advanced by scholars who saw a rapid demise of paganism in the fourth century and its eradication in the fifth are no longer supported. Instead, there was fluidity in the boundaries between the communities and "coexistence with a competitive spirit." Christians objected to anything that called the triumphal narrative into question including the mistreatment of non-Christians. In 423, an edict was issued at Constantinople to the effect that a bishop, who had confiscated a Jewish synagogue, should compensate the local Jewish community as a way of making amends for his illegal recourse to violence. The edict was not well received, but not because the Christians objected to repayment. Instead, the Syrian Christians show "an intense local sense of honor, [and] an insistence that the church should not be shamed by such breaches in the fixity of Christian order."

The Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity says that "Torture and murder were not the inevitable result of the rise of Christianity." Brown says the unstated understanding was that, if pagans kept their paganism to themselves, they would be left alone. Theodosian Decree 16.10.24, promulgated June 8, 423, states: "But above all we demand this to Christian people, whether they’re really Christian or just call themselves so: that they don’t dare, abusing religious authority, lift their hand to Jews or Pagans that live in peace, and don’t attempt anything for insurrection or against the laws." (In fact, if they are violent against the quiet ones or damage their possessions, they will return what they took not once, but three or four times. Provincial governors and officials too must be aware that, if they allowed what happened, they too will be punished.) There was periodic mob violence involving both Christian and pagan. "Rather than illuminating a deep current of intolerance within pagan and Christian communities, these events primarily reveal the intolerance of fanatics." Brown says that "In most areas, polytheists were not molested, and, apart from a few ugly incidents of local violence, Jewish communities also enjoyed a century of stable, even privileged, existence." Having, in 423, been declared by the emperor Theodosius II not to exist, large bodies of polytheists all over the Roman empire were not murdered or converted under duress so much as they were simply left out of the histories the Christians wrote of themselves as victorious.

References

This does seem like a rather large and overlooked problem in this article. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)Talk:Reflist

Symmachi–Nicomachi diptych

It turns out that the current caption for File:Symmachi-Nicomachi_diptych_2.JPG is incorrect. It reads "Ivory diptych of a priestess of Ceres, still in fully classical style, ca 400, which was defaced and thrown in a well at Montier-en-Der.." The cited source doesn't corroborate this, nor does the actual article on this piece. The article makes it clear that it was intact, and only later "heavily damaged by fire" during the French Revolution. It was found in a well, but only after remaining fully intact and incorporated into a Christian reliquary. There is no mention whatsoever that it was "defaced," which is especially relevant given that the other panel of diptych is less damaged, and the face of its figure has entirely survived. There's more corroboration on this here. Note that this is also the case at Anti-paganism policies of the early Byzantine Empire, where the same image appears with the same caption (mistakenly restored by me after an anonymous edit sparked my investigation). In light of this, I will be removing both images from both articles. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 13:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

References

I didn't know about Anti-paganism policies of the early Byzantine Empire, but it looks like a duplicate of the present article. Imo a merger is required. T8612 (talk) 16:28, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Definitely agree. I don't see the need for two separate articles, especially with all the overlap and redundancy. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 18:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I proposed a deletion. T8612 (talk) 19:00, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Yep, sounds good to me. Not even sure there's anything worth retaining from that article and transferring here... Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 20:35, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Agree to deletion / selective manual merge. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. The experiences and practices between East and West were actually quite different. They each need their own pages which will be apparent once modern scholarship is added to this page. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Contemporary scholarship needs to be added

History of Christian thought on persecution and tolerance section on anti-paganism

This material should be included in this article. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't want to discuss a separate article here, but that paragraph is far too long and relies too heavily on a single source. I don't think we want to emulate that section here. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 13:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Holy crap, that article is terrible. The tone is totally off, it doesn't conform to WP:NPOV and WP:MOS. It reads like a scholarly argument, not an encyclopedia article. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 13:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@Global Cerebral Ischemia: I have answered you there and hope you will participate in fixing what you think is wrong-- with some calm and mutual respect. But that doesn't address the issue that much contemporary scholarship is absent from this article. There are 19 sources in just that one section, and more I didn't use, that indicate contemporary scholarship is forming a consensus that the traditional views have been based more on assumption than fact. They are now discovering the facts. If this article is going to claim a NPOV, shouldn't that be here somewhere? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@Global Cerebral Ischemia: I think I have something you will like in the Talk on the other page, but I will wait on your input there before doing anything. In this article I was genuinely surprised to find no mention of Peter Brown who is credited with starting the field of Late Antiquity as a field of study in its own right, and who did that back in the 1960s. He has permanently altered the hegemony of the entire field. He should be in this article, as should all those that have come after him. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

To everyone who has ever contributed here: this article needs consensus on a change or a tag

I would like to get consensus on including contemporary scholarship in this article. If we can't accomplish that, I will feel compelled to tag this as biased. Some of the content I am posting below must be added for this article to claim a NPOV. I am quoting from History of Christian thought on persecution and tolerance, so please forgive that it is primarily a discussion of Christian thought, but that's the focus of that article and not this one. This one merely needs to include all the possible information available on what scholars say about Antiquity, and it currently omits the majority of modern scholarship. It deserves to be tagged for that, but a consensus on how to fix it is better. Please review and respond--with good support and sources please--on what of this you think should be included:

According to the Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity, (OHLA), scholars of Late Antiquity fall into two categories in the debate on how and when Antiquity ended: "catastrophist" or "long." The traditional "catastrophic" view argues for a rapid demise of paganism in the fourth century and its violent end sometime in the fifth. This was first embraced by Gibbon and has been the established view for 200 years. "From Gibbon and Burckhardt to the present day, it has been assumed that the end of paganism was inevitable once confronted by the resolute intolerance of Christianity; that the intervention of the Christian emperors in its suppression were decisive ... that, once they possessed such formidable power, Christians used it to convert as many non-Christians as possible – by threats and disabilities, if not by the direct use of force." The "long" view was first stated by Peter Brown whom OHLA calls the "pioneer" who began the study of Late Antiquity as a field in itself, and whose work remains seminal. Brown used anthropological models, rather than political or economic ones, to study the cultural history of the period. Brown says Christian thought after Constantine revolved around the narrative that Christians had invented and imposed claiming that a "mighty conflict had taken place, and the Christian church had emerged as the victor" in Heaven; conversion of pagans was therefore not a primary concern of Christians in antiquity. The gradual conversion taking place in society resulted in the "long slow" demise of polytheism.

Archaeologists Luke Lavan and Michael Mulryan point out that the traditional catastrophic view is largely based on literary sources, many of which are Christian, and are known to exaggerate and invent the "iconoclastic achievements of radical monks in the service of polemical panygeric." Lavan and Mulryan indicate that archaeological evidence of religious conflict exists, just not to the degree or intensity previously thought, which puts the "Christian triumphalism" in doubt. According to Fowden (1978) pagan temples across the entire Mediterranean world were destroyed by determined Christian iconoclasm in the late fourth and early fifth centuries; Deichmann (1939) said that in the same period, pagan temples were being converted to churches throughout the empire. Subsequent scholarship such as that of archaeologist Richard Bayliss (2004) has tended to refute some aspects of this picture in terms of chronology and intensity. According to Bayliss' study, 120 pagan temples were converted to churches in the whole empire, out of the thousands of temples that existed, and only a third are dated before the end of the fifth century. Desacralization and destruction were attested to in 43 cases but only 4 were confirmed by archaeological evidence.

Rita Lizzi Testa, Michele Renee Salzman, and Marianne Sághy quote Alan Cameron as saying the idea of religious conflict as the cause of a swift demise of paganism is pure historiographical construction, whereas Stephanie Ratti says it still provides the best explanation of events. Laws such as the Theodosian decrees attest to Christian thought of the period, giving a "dramatic view of radical Christian ambition." Brown says the language is uniformly vehement and the penalties are harsh and frequently horrifying. Salzman says the law was used as a means of conversion through the "carrot and the stick", but that it is necessary to look beyond the law to see what people actually did. The local authorities, who were still mostly pagan, were lax in imposing them, and Christian bishops frequently obstructed their application. Generally, Christians objected to anything that called the triumphal narrative into question including the mistreatment of non-Christians. Lavan says Christian writers gave the narrative of victory high visibility, but that does not necessarily correlate to actual conversion rates, and there are many signs that a healthy paganism continued into the fifth century. Testa et al. add that scholars concur that the once dominant notion of overt religious conflict cannot explain all the varied realities of late Antique Rome.

Contemporary scholarship indicates there is no single narrative of the end of paganism. Temple destructions and conversions are attested, but in very small numbers. In most regions away from the imperial court, the end of paganism was both gradual and untraumatic. The Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity says that "Torture and murder were not the inevitable result of the rise of Christianity." Instead, there was fluidity in the boundaries between the communities and "coexistence with a competitive spirit." Brown says that "In most areas, polytheists were not molested, and, apart from a few ugly incidents of local violence, Jewish communities also enjoyed a century of stable, even privileged, existence." Having, in 423, been declared by the emperor Theodosius II not to exist, large bodies of polytheists all over the Roman empire were not murdered or converted under duress so much as they were simply left out of the histories the Christians wrote of themselves as victorious.

There was periodic mob violence involving both Christian and pagan. OHLA says that, "Rather than illuminating a deep current of intolerance within pagan and Christian communities, these events primarily reveal the intolerance of fanatics." Salzman indicates heresy was a higher priority for Christian thought than the conversion of pagans in the fourth and fifth centuries. Examples of intolerance are found in Christian dealings with those they termed heretic. Brown concludes that "any attempt to draw a scale of violence in this period must place the violence of Christians toward each other at the top..

References

Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that contribution. You make a compelling case for its inclusion that I would support. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for responding Laurel Lodged, I hope we hear from others in as reasonable a manner. I recognize this is a big shift in thinking for some, but that is not a compelling reason for excluding it from the encyclopedia. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@Αντικαθεστωτικός: @84.78.17.134: @T8612: @92.35.237.251: @Mike Selinker: @Johnpacklambert: @BrownHairedGirl: @Peterkingiron: @Epipelagic: @Good Olfactory: @Mangoe: @Carlossuarez46: @Johnbod: @The Bushranger: @Andrewa: @Srnec: @Dbachmann: @Cinadon36: Please come and comment. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Jenhawk, you don't need to "get consensus on including contemporary scholarship". Just have a go yourself at updating the article in a balanced way in alignment with the Wikipedia policies on verification and using reliable sources. Dramatic productions, complete with a threat that if you don't get what you want you might be "compelled to tag" the article, are not really necessary if you just want to update the article. Or are you asking us to update it for you? — Epipelagic (talk) 00:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Epipelagic: Thank you for responding and I apologize if this sounded like a threat to you. Following WP guidelines and attempting to be considerate of others didn't look that way from my end, and I'm sorry it did from yours. My limited experience on WP has taught me that whenever something is controversial, it is always the best approach to let others know about it before putting it into the article. Coming along and making big changes without telling anyone can be a shock to others. People should have a chance to weigh in without feeling as though their toes have already been stepped on. That was my goal in asking before acting. I won't put anything into this article if there is consensus not to do so, but then surely you can agree that a tag is the appropriate response. No threat for heaven's sakes, people put up tags on things all the time. Global Cerebral Ischemia recently came and put two on the page I was working on and what I did in response was rewrite two entire sections and make other minor changes to address his concerns. A tag is just an invitation to improvement, that's all. I will be happy to do the work to make the changes needed here, if that's what you prefer, but first, I would like your opinion on whether or not you are in agreement that it needs doing. Your opinion matters. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

This is an unusual way of proceding but I think it is a good one, and perfectly in line with our policy of consensus.

Based on the case above I support this material and its sources being added to the article. Andrewa (talk) 07:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Andrewa for weighing in. I've been gone from WP for awhile and it's nice to hear from you after all this time. Hope you and yours are well.Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

No one else has weighed in for awhile, so I guess that means everyone is copacetic with it. I am absorbed in another project right now, so it might be awhile, but I am coming back. Promise. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I appologize in andvance for not being able to read all the text in the post above at the moment, but being aware of how controversial this subject is, I am concerned that any change would be biased, and hope this would not be the case with your suggestion. This title is inline with the title Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire. They should be in line with each other, everyting thing else would be biased and break Wikipedia's policy of neutrality. The title of the article is fine as it is, unless you change "Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire" as well. This is an extremenly controversial subject, very likely to be interfered with and bias should be prevented constantly, so the title should be left as it is and inline with the article "Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire". I oppose to any change which is not equal and inline with "Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire". If my assumption is incorrect (as I have not been able to read everything through), you may disregard my post.--Aciram (talk) 13:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: Can you explain what you want to do exactly without writing a huge wall of text? T8612 (talk) 13:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello Aciram and T8612! I am so glad to hear from you. Thank you for responding. It is a huge wall of text isn't it? I have no problems with the title. As I explained to Epipelagic above, I share your concerns about bias. This article does not include the contemporary views which differ from the older views, and so it is defacto biased already. It is my desire to insert those into the existing article and thereby present a more representative selection of what all sources say in hopes of creating a more neutral POV. Since I do understand this topic is controversial, I posted some of it here, with references, so people can see what I'm talking about before I do anything. I am hoping to establish consensus before acting in order to avoid conflict. This huge wall only uses one archaeological reference, but there are multiples to be added. None of the sources are Christian if that concerns you. Please do read the huge wall, and check out the sources, and what they say, for yourself. I have no agenda beyond making WP a better encyclopedia. Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Jenhawk, you seem at least as clued on this matter as anyone else currently editing Wikipedia is likely to be. Might I suggest fortifying yourself by reading WP:BOLD, and then firmly storming the battlements that seem to be presenting a barrier to you. You can achieve this by just changing the article as you see fit. If you follow Wikipedia policies for verification, balance and courtesy, as you seems to be doing anyway, then the barriers are not really there. If there is subsequent pushback from other editors, that it is grist for the mill which probably needs to happen anyway and may further improve the article. If you want discussion, confine it to one issue at a time, preferably an issue that can be expressed concisely. — Epipelagic (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello Epipelagic! I am glad to hear back from you. I will follow your advice. I am actually waiting to finish going through all the references and the prep for another article to hopefully go GA, so all the time I have for WP is being spent there right now, but it won't be much longer, I am almost done, and as soon as I am, I will be back here to be as BOLD as you please! Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

EpipelagicAciramT8612AndrewaLaurel Lodged and all those who have been following along with great patience, I think I am finally done. Please feel free to critique away! The article looks a lot different now, I know, but I hope you will all like it and agree it is more balanced, more representative of all current views, and better sourced--no more OR. It is certainly more detailed! :-) All tags have been dealt with and removed--though I think there is still a source request in one place that I could not verify. I'm hoping someone else can. At any rate, I am glad to see contemporary scholarship in this article now, since it began asserting its views back in the 1980s and a consensus of support on it since then has grown steadily. Thank you for the opportunity to work with such open-minded people. It's been my pleasure.Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:08, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, sorry, that goodbye was apparently premature. As a last minute check, I ran the copy-vio detector and found six whole paragraphs in the material I left from the previous author that is copied word for word. So, it seems this article was mostly written through original research and copying. I find this deeply distressing. I will be back and fix it later, but I am done for today. Unless someone else wants to jump in. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:23, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Never a dull moment! Hang in there. Andrewa (talk) 22:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Adding insult to injury Andrewa, it's apparently plagiarized from a blogspot! Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

You know you're a Wikipedian when these things really annoy you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Ha ha! I'm finally in! :-) Cuz this really ticked me off! I've got one small section left that is entirely referenced to primary sources alone, indicating OR, and then I think I am finally genuinely done. I have ended up, completely unintentionally, rewriting this entire article--and no one has gotten offended or upset. Quite remarkable people who have contributed here I am thinking. I hope they are checking what I am putting in and checking my sources as well. I do make mistakes at times! I tried to leave all the original material and just supplement it, but when I went to checking copy vio and sources it all went to Hell in a handbasket. Damn that handbasket! Anyway, glad to hear from you! Christian thought is relisted for GA, with no takers yet, and I'm thinking of listing this one as well now that I've done all this work on it! Opinion? Hope you and yours are staying well. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Epipelagic Aciram T8612 Andrewa Laurel Lodged Global Cerebral Ischemia@Αντικαθεστωτικός: @84.78.17.134: @T8612: @92.35.237.251: @Mike Selinker: @Johnpacklambert: @BrownHairedGirl: @Peterkingiron: @Good Olfactory: @Mangoe: @Carlossuarez46: @Johnbod: @The Bushranger: @Srnec: @Dbachmann: @Cinadon36: You have all demonstrated care about this article, so I want you to know about the terrific amount of copy-violations and OR that was in this article--I'd say about 80% of it. I think I've redone all the OR, but I am not 100% finished replacing the copy-vios. I am getting close and I haven't given up. Apparently this person, whom I will not name, did their research on blogspots with a pronounced POV, copied from them, then went to jstor and other scholarly publications to items that are not accessible to most of us as they have to be purchased--and cited those items instead of the blogs as the sources of the copied material. I think everyone should know this is what's gone on here. No name calling, but this is clearly the basis of much of the conflict this page has generated. Epically bad research. Don't think this doesn't always eventually get caught out people! Someone like me always eventually comes along. If there is one thing about Wikipedia I have learned, it is that the wheels of justice turn exceedingly slowly here--but they always do eventually turn. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Jenhawk! I haven't read much beyond the lead yet (but I see there's whoing to be done), if I do I will speak. Or edit. Or both. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Excellent! You showing up will be a definite improvement! Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I declare this article free of copy violations and original research. It passed its last test. I put in valid references for everything I could--spent a lot of time looking for them--and those I simply could not substantiate I had no choice but to remove them. Then I looked for anything similar that could be used in its place. Some claims simply could not be supported, but I have done my best trying to be sure this article covered the full representative view of all the sources considered good quality and dependable in a neutral manner. Now Grabergs will come along and find my mistakes! Thank goodness I don't have to look for them myself! Having friends on WP is a great blessing. :-) Everyone else is invited to check everything of course. Criticism is not taken personally as I know we all just want WP to be the best most dependable encyclopedia out there and it takes the community to accomplish that. Thank you for letting me work on this fascinating areticle. Epipelagic has this been bold enough for you? :-) Jeez I hope so! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: If you go over it and we fix whatever you find--as I'm sure there will be something--what do you think about nominating it for GA? Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

This should be removed

This section should be removed as it argues a position rather than describes what different sources say. All persecution arises from someone being "other". That's kind of the definition of it in Durkheims deviance theory. It should be remembered, however, that early persecution of Christians did not follow the same prerogatives commonly ascribed to religious persecution in the modern sense, but rather arose from a feeling of "otherness" that Christians aroused in the society of the time, being adverse as they were to participating in the religious life of the Roman empire at large. Private religion, or the sacra privita, was not regulated by the state until the Christianization of the Empire, when paganism was proscribed even within the home. Private religion was the purview of the family and the individual, and varied between various ethnic groups. As such, many pagans were not opposed to Christian theology per se, but rather to the motivations of early Christians, who seemed rather "unpatriotic" in their isolation and aggressiveness towards other faiths. Christians were also seen as being a public embodiment of superstitio; what might be described today as religious zeal, but which also had connotations of magical thinking. While this was usually regarded as a private vice, one which was commonly thought to cause mental instability, it could also been seen as dangerous to the order of society. Romans had previously ascribed superstitio to excessive practice of magic, as well as other religious groups, among them Judaism, which was seen as opposed to the interpretatio romana, under which their public observances would be syncretised and brought into line with Roman practices. Unlike Christianity, however, these groups were not generally seen as threats to traditional Roman religious observance itself, but as obstacles to civic order and Romanization.Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I shortened and left it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

can anyone find and validate this?

The example of Constantine, Theodosius and Justinian, who were seen as "godly emperors (...) serving the church and crushing its enemies," has been cited repeatedly by Christian authors who endorsed an idea of religious persecution.

References

Thank you

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Thank you for your recent edits. The two tags are  DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 17:22, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll get back to it, but you know, long. One could argue that the last 2 paragraphs before "Ban on sacrifices" is off the pagan topic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Don't understand this one--there are only two paragraphs in that section. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I am betting you are referring to the one paragraph that talks about Constantinople. It is a leftover from a previous editor that was one of the few with actual references so I left it where it was. They were attempting to argue that Constantine wasn't a real Christian, which is not a consensus view anymore, but it seemed like I should include it somewhere. It doesn't really belong in the section it's in, but perhaps I can find a more suitable place for it to be kept. I'll remove it from ban on sacrifices in the meantime. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:16, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

At the time, these (rewritten now, so perhaps moot):

Constantine became the first Emperor in the Christian era to persecute specific groups of Christians, the Donatists, in order to enforce religious unity.[29] In north Africa, after the third century persecutions of Diocletian, many of those who had recanted wanted to return to the church. A group that later became known as "Donatists", refused to accept back those who had handed over the scriptures to be burned. They remained resentful toward the Roman government. Catholics wanted to wipe the slate clean and accommodate the new government. The Donatists withdrew and began setting up their own churches. For almost three decades, Donatists fomented protests and street violence, refused compromise, attacked random Catholics without warning, often doing serious and unprovoked bodily harm such as beating people with clubs, cutting off their hands and feet, and gouging out eyes.[30]:172,173,222,242,254 Attempts to reconcile the Donatists, made by Constantine, the Popes and councils, Augustine and other religious leaders, all failed. Between 393 and 398, Augustine began defending persecution by the imperial authorities because of the ongoing violence, saying that, "if the kings of this world could legislate against pagans and poisoners, they could do so against heretics as well." [30]:241

Church historians writing after his death wrote that Constantine converted to Christianity and was baptised on his deathbed, thereby making him the first Christian emperor.[31][32] Lenski observes that the myth of Constantine being baptized by Pope Sylvester developed toward the end of the fifth century in a romantic depiction of Sylvester's life which has survived as the Actus beati Sylvestri papai (CPL 2235).[28]:299 Lenski says that this story absolved the medieval church of a major embarrassment: Constantine's baptism by an Arian bishop, Eusebius of Nicomedia, which occurred while on campaign to Persia. Lenski says that Constantine swung through the Holy Land with the intent of being baptized in the Jordan river, but he became deathly ill at Nicomedia where he was swiftly baptized. He died shortly thereafter on May 22, 337 at a suburban villa named Achyron.[28]:81

Donatists aren't pagans, are they? Should they perheps be more passingly mentioned in this article? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Okay, so I totally bollocksed that one! No the Donatists are not pagans, so duh, you're right, they probably don't need to be here at all--which will shorten it some--YAY! The other author had them so I left it without thinking it through. Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Jenhawk777, apologies! This "what" + ES [9] ended up in the wrong place! It was meant after "A group that later became known as "Donatists", refused to accept back those who had handed over the scriptures to be burned." Meaning who are those that handed over books to be burnt? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Okay! That's now done too. See if you think it's clearer. (I had wondered what the problem was with the other one!) Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Clearer but perhaps off-topic? Nothing was wrong with the other one, again, sorry. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Hah! It's fine. The other is more specific now and the Donatists are gone. They are however in the other article this one references on Constantine's religious policies--which I have also redone. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: You make everything better. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Francis Opoku seems to be a chemist: [10] Current first paragraph at "Religious policies and actions of Constantine I" is largely uncited ("When Constantine dedicated..." etc). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Not the same guy. This Francis Opoku is apparently associated with the School of Theology and Missions, at Valley View University, Accra, Ghana. See if you can access this: www.ajol.info › index.php › ijrs › article › view This [[11]] says he is a lecturer on the faculty of the arts and sciences. Can I leave him? I like having people from other places represented, and none of his info is critical or anything. (There's an email address: frankopok@yahoo.com.)

On the lack of citation, sometimes I move stuff around, away from their original citation and just forget to go back and re-cite what I left behind. I'll fix it. Thanx for catching it for me. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Seems borderline at best to me, but probably harmless. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

You're right of course, it is borderline. But he doesn't say anything that's contradicted by better source and I liked his questions. They're legitimate. I could probably find something along the same lines in a better source, but frankly, I'm tired of this topic! This is three articles with a lot of the same same and it's gotten boring. If you think it's important, I will do as you recommend. Otherwise, I will be lazy instead. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

"Christian emperors inherited the fear of private practices, including divination" (my emphasis), does that sound vague/weird to you? I tried to peek in the source, but no. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Every time you post something it makes me smile. If you had any idea how much Jytdog jumped all over me, told me I shouldn't even be here, for not properly indenting my discussions, you would understand--you don't really care, and do as you wish, and I love it. I absolutely love it--and you never yell at me--I love that too.

That is what the source says--do you think it needs more explanation? It's on the bottom of page 200 (search divination) "In Graeco Roman society, religion had been emphatically public, and secret and private rituals had been regarded with suspicion and could end up considered as magic. The fourth century Christian emperors inherited the fear of private practices associated with treason and plots against the emperor. ... emperors aimed to control knowledge of the future...etc.etc. and so on..." Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

My indenting is on purpose, since I'm starting a new "topic" and don't feel like starting a new thread. I think it works. How about "private practices like divination"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I figured it was and think your indenting works just fine, and it's according to your own rules, which tickles me no end. What I meant to communicate is that people have made too much of this in my view. It's apparently a problem getting those people who primarily use their phones to edit to follow this particular rule, and they are discussing dropping it. Listen, don't mind me. Some rules were made to be broken. I genuinely enjoy the idea that even Wikipedia itself is moving on from that. It's a good thing.

Part of what Christianity was persecuted for was private religion. I suppose we could say private practices like divination, but then would it be necessary to list all the rest of the possibilities? Surely not. We can list it as a single example. I'll see if I can clean it up and clarify it a little. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, I still think I'm within the WP-indent lines, see WP:INDENT#4. But the important thing is that the communication works. We may not always say it, but some old WP:ians have this knee-jerk reaction against indenting we consider "wrong":[12]. Two people discussions are rarely a big deal, but with more people, good indentation really helps the who said what to whom. See my minor scuffle with Davidbena at the bottom of Talk:Jewish_religious_clothing#Section_Jewish_vs._gentile_customs.

Whatever you think best. To this reader "private practises" can include almost any activity. "Private religious practises"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I am paying attention to the information you are posting about scholars that don't yet have a WP page but do have their credentials online. There are several redlinks here that I could do that with--if you would tell me how. Do I use cite-web? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

If there's no WP-article (in any language), I like to add a cite, yes (I like TEMPLATE:ILL when appropriate). Of course, a good third party source is even better, but I think a decent uni is good enough. For a uni-page I use Templates > cite web. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanx! Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Should this article mention, a little, what pagans are? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång That's a valid question. There are no definitions of any kind in this article and it has troubled me. From our modern view, persecution and tolerance look much differently than they did to those in the antique era. Not only did Romans not consider tolerance a virtue, they often thought of persecution as the virtuous quality. There is tension between exclusivity and inclusivity in Christianity, because both concepts are there, but they were both in Roman culture as well. We are judging the past by modern standards without even saying what those standards are. Pagans didn't get named that till after the fourth century. I had that in a source somewhere and didn't use it--since there are no definitions here of anything anywhere. But I thought you didn't like definitions.Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, Paganism at a glance seems decently sourced. Something based on the the first one and a half paragraphs in that lead could have a place in the Historical overview section. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång I put in a link to Paganism and the definition is in the pop-up, so I am thinking that might be sufficient. It's in the second paragraph of the Historic background. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

"Peter Brown assert that Christians were not all pacifist" ...Are there people who think they were? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Yes, in the previous paragraph it says that was Gibbon's theory for why the empire fell. It was the going theory for a long time. I have heard it said of Gibbon that "he never let a commitment to good history get in the way of a good dig at Christianity." I wish I knew who said it! Gibbon has only slowly, gradually, and somewhat grudgingly among many, been replaced, but yes that was his theory. Christianity's unwillingness to fight was the cause of the fall of empire. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:39, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Jenhawk. I'll be mostly off-WP the next few days, going on a little trip. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:32, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I hope you have a wonderful stress free— and germ free— time. We are not traveling here in the states. I haven't seen my extended family in months now. I am very sad about it--so I am doubly glad to hear of someone else getting out and about! Don't catch anything y'hear? . Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Peter Crawfords book may be selfpublished [13], it's not always easy to tell. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:33, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: OMG!! Thank you thank you! Crawford is gone! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:39, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I tried to find something to wikilink Chaldean to, but nothing seemed to fit very well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:16, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I have--had--a source that explains what it is somewhere. I'll go back over my tracks and see if I can find it. I think it's astrology but unsure. Does it need defining? It's kind of unimportant, but I'll be back with something or remove it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:39, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I found something and inserted it. See if you think it's okay. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Speculation by 2001:569:7e74:6b00:8f6:9ab0:961e:736f

@2001:569:7e74:6b00:8f6:9ab0:961e:736f: I have removed the tags for these reasons:

• All quotes from scholars who reference the future of their fields are cited, and according to Wikipedia guidelines: Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included,[14]

• Please explain your contributions using a descriptive edit summary. Changing information on Wikipedia (such as numbers and dates) without explanation may be confused with vandalism. Thank you.

According to this dif, [15], you inserted a claim that Peter Brown was a Christian apologist, which is a false claim, with no source, so it has also been removed. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Anti-paganism of Gratian, Valentinian II, and Theodosius I

This section attaches too much weight to the supposed influence of St. Ambrose. Not all of their policies were influenced by Ambrose. This section needs a cover note and/or re-write. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I think you are absolutely right. I am no doubt placing too much weight on complaints by those like 186.143.201.250 who doesn't even bother to answer or defend their position. I have sources that say they were influenced by Ambrose and sources that say they weren't, but I don't have a source that specifies how much in either direction. What do you suggest? Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that we're obliged to quantify the extent of the influence. Who could even do such a thing? I'd be happy with "Expert X thinks that...". Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, yes, so would I if I had one that said anything that hasn't already been said or wouldn't just make the section even longer and more detailed. What I have gives the specifics of Ambrose influencing Gratian when he made this decision and being unable to influence Theodosius when he made that decision and that kind of thing. I've thought several times this needs to be shorter, and have even thought of eliminating it altogether, but then I see claims that Ambrose shifted the weight of power from the state to the church, which isn't so, no source claims it that I know of, and so I leave it. I would like it shorter but don't know how to make it that way without avoiding the controversy over his influence altogether. Perhaps just a statement that there is a controversy would be sufficient? I hadn't thought of that before! What do you think? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@Laurel Lodged: I did something... See what you think. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:49, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps a bit more pruning than I had imagined but I won't object. It's much improved thank you. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:04, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Cool. You are most welcome. I'm glad too. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:22, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The title should be changed, it was not a persecution, it was a reform

There was no persecution, was a reform of the traditional Roman religion, for which the only thing that was prohibited were sacrifices and divination, something supported even by the Roman pagans themselves (Greco-Romans and Christians had been syncretized mutually for four centuries, the Roman paganism of the I century was not the same as that of the IV century), who considered it something characteristic of the barbarians. The Christian emperors remained Pontifex Maximus of the Roman religion and this remained state religion until it was absorbed by Catholicism when this last one became the new official religion with Theodosius I. 83.58.24.170 (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

“Sociological view” section

While the writing and sources for the “Sociological view” section are good, only 1 paragraph in that section talks about the Roman Empire. Since the other paragraphs are off-topic, it seems like the off-topic paragraphs should be removed from the article. 174.251.169.2 (talk) 09:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Much of that section was added last year by @Jenhawk777:, pinging for their input. On initial reading of the article, I think that the content about tolerance (including statements about the 20th and 21st centuries) seems a bit of a tangent from the article topic. I think it would be improved by removing the "sociological view" content except for the Garnsey paragraph, removing the "differing scholarly views" subheading, and leaving Garnsey plus the rest under the "Evaluation" heading. However, I haven't done the extensive reading on this subject that Jenhawk777 obviously has so it might be that I'm missing something in my evaluation. Schazjmd (talk) 14:08, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello Schazjmd and 174.251.169.2, thank you for the ping. The sociological view of tolerance is relevant to the claim that Rome was tolerant and Christianity was not, so it seemed important to me to include it, but I can see what you are saying about this section. It could definitely be better written and clearer. I have moved it to my sandbox to be rewritten, but honestly, if you guys want to do what you suggested above, if you don't agree that a discussion of tolerance is relevant to how much persecution there actually was, then I won't argue. I will go with the consensus: it can be rewritten or removed, as you wish. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining, Jenhawk777, I see the point you were going for now. The Garnsey paragraph seems to encapsulate that viewpoint quite well. If the section began with Peter Garnsey strongly disagrees with those who describe the attitude of the "plethora of cults" in the Roman empire as "tolerant" ... and then that para was followed by the Toleration is a modern concept para, I think it would be clearer. The first para, I think, goes a bit too into the weeds on the concept of toleration, and the 4th and 5th don't really fit the subject of the article. (However, the Religious tolerance article doesn't even mention Westphalia and that info about "first mention" should really be added there.)

One point in the Garnsey para (The foreign gods were not tolerated, but made subject...) is a really interesting spin on it, I like that wording and it gave me a new way of looking at it.

I don't have the familiarity with the subject or the sources that you do, and if you have thoughts on a rewrite, please go with those. My suggestions are just based on a cursory reading. Schazjmd (talk) 17:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Schazjmd you are most welcome. I find yours and 174.251.169.2's comments intelligent and fair and pretty accurate, so I have rewritten the section to better represent tolerance from all the perspectives, shortened it, retitled it to better communicate its focus, and moved it to be under differing views. I hope you both find this an improvement. If not, come back, and I will adjust it more. We could just remove it, but it seems like a discussion that needs to be included somewhere, so I'd rather not if we can work something out. Thanx for your input here. I think you have improved the encyclopedia. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:50, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Wow, your rewrite really strengthened that section! The new first para in "tolerance" is excellent, especially ...this became the pattern for the Roman state's response to anything it saw as a religious threat, and that didn't change once the emperors were Christian, and I really like the way you rewrote the next two paras to contrast Garnsey's and MacMullen's views. Thanks for taking the time to do this, Jenhawk777, I think it's a huge improvement and it gives the whole article a strong finish. It has been a pleasure discussing this with you. Schazjmd (talk) 13:31, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Schazjmd I am so glad you are pleased, but really I felt like I should be apologizing for the sloppy work I had done. You were right it needed improving, and you were right, it did not need removing, so there you have it. It has been a pleasure working with you as well. Perhaps you should review all my work... . Happy editing! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Original research/WP Synth issues

Hi @Jenhawk777:. Regarding your recent reverts, referring to the tags I added as "uncalled for," I don't believe that this is constructive. You tend to cite rules which don't exist; for example, there is no policy stating that the lead section does not need citations; see MOS:LEAD. I think that WP:EDITWAR applies. Please see WP:3RR. Given that our discussions about this article go back a year, I feel I have no choice but to report edit warring. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 05:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Global Cerebral Ischemia: Well that certainly isn't constructive. Really, all the tags weren't constructive nor was the over the top comment in the classic discussion page. All that is necessary is to point out the problem, and I will fix it. There is no time that I have been uncooperative with any of your complaints. I only require good references and clear reasonable requests.

I have now moved references up to the lead (even though I have had other editors remove references from the lead when going through a GAN review). There doesn't seem to be a consistent practice where this is concerned. There is a reference in citations on "when not to cite" [16] that includes the lead, and I have been going by that and by other editors who have told me "DO NOT include references in the lead". But here they are just for you.

I have removed the two OR citations you found and replaced them with cited statements. Please remove the tag in the Justinian section accordingly.

Can you find any other problems? If so, please just say so here and I will fix them. Or you can. You can just fix things instead of posting tags and criticisms. This article does not have a single author as your tag states, so your input would be welcome. Write away.

Please cite any bias you find. I will remove or replace it. But I will need to know where and why you claim it's bias, since I don't think there is any. I think you don't like the changes in scholarship, and that's what this is about. But I can't help that. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:45, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777:, your starting point is a needlessly defensive and hostile one, calling my edits "uncalled for" and "over the top," and interpreting criticisms of the article as criticisms of you personally. Your tone implies that you have ownership of the article or the article is your personal responsibility, and that nobody is allowed to edit it in ways you disapprove of. "You can just fix things instead of posting tags and criticisms" and I can also use the tools provided by Wikipedia to indicate material that I think is not in accord with Wikipedia guidelines. You're implying that I have a false choice, that I should either "fix it" or "don't criticize," then you say my "input would be welcome." If I see problems in the article and take the time to point those out by using the tools provided by Wikipedia, that *is* input. I explained in my edits and in the classic discussion page what the issues are with the material I tagged. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 13:19, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Moving forward, if you want proof that "DO NOT include references in the lead" is false, note that MOS:LEAD has citations in the lead. Although most "Good" and "Featured" articles have a minimal number of references in the lead (if any at all), MOS:LEAD states "Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus." Especially considering the controversial nature of this article, and given that content in the lead was challenged, it seems prudent to have citations for challenged sentences. If I incorrectly attributed a particular citation to you, I certainly apologize, but since it appears that almost all of the last 3,000+ edits are by you, I jumped to the conclusion that the citation was yours. Again, apologies if that is not the case. Citation 126 (as of this comment) which reads "Pagans were still sufficiently numerous during the reign of Justinian for a law to be published, in 527 (Justinian Code 1.5.12), which barred pagans from office and confiscated their property." is an example of WP:SYNTH as is the sentence that precedes it "With the failure of the revolt of Leontios, some pagans became disillusioned and became Christian, or pretended to do so, in order to avoid persecution." Since this is not explicitly stated in the cited source (which itself is WP:OR), I believe the sentence and citation should be deleted (or replaced). Likewise for citation 127 (as of this comment) which reads "The modern Church takes a much less antagonistic stance to non-Abrahamic religions. See Dignitatis humanae and Nostra aetate" This is a clear example of WP:SYNTH and also a non-neutral value judgement by an editor (eg "much less antagonistic"); the citation should be removed. More generally, I am concerned that we need more editors to assess and contribute to the article (which reads less like a neutral Wikipedia article and more like a scholarly paper, at least to me). I don't believe that I can tag more content while we're in the middle of an WP:EDITWAR (with you instantly and summarily deleting my edits), so I will wait until the issue is resolved to point out more content that I believe is problematic. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 13:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I have made the changes you requested including removing the synth which was not written by me which you can see by looking at the dates of those entries. I have not taken anything personally but your comment was about my response not being constructive and I don’t find the approach you have chosen to be particularly constructive either. If that comment is okay for you to make please allow it to be fair for me as well. Please address the changes in the article. I have reverted nothing since those original reverts. I have cooperated and complied with your requests. Please take yes for an answer. I have demonstrated good faith. I ask you to do the same. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:53, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Jen, your civility really appreciated. Honestly. Going forward, if I identify material that I think is problematic, I'll attach a tag that I think is appropriate; I ask that you not delete my tags or revert my edits. Any tag I add or material I identify is for the scrutiny of the entire Wikipedia community, including all editors and readers, not just you. Thanks again! Unless you have any objections, I am going to delete the two citations I mention above, replacing citation 126 with a "citation needed" tag. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Global Cerebral Ischemia I have - if I can make this work properly - already deleted the citations you refer to and addressed every issue you raised. But for some unknown reason, my edit is failing to show up in the article. Look, here is the original edit: [17] and here it has disappeared: [18] and is back to the OR. WTF?!? Excuse my French! It doesn't need a citation, it needs removal. I believe it to be an error. As near as possible I found information that would prevent it from being accurate. So I replaced it - or tried anyway. I wonder if the problem is that I did it on my phone?

Now, as an act of good faith on your part, I expect you to either identify any remaining OR or remove the tag from the heading of this article. Your original examples are now gone. You can't just assume through over-generalization from two specific examples that the entire article is riddled with it. If there is a tag at the top there must be tags in the article as well. That's fair and reasonable. I will delete tags I have addressed, and I will delete tags that are unsupported. Those are the rules. I won't delete edits without coming here and talking about them first. I am part of the WP community. If you think something requires a third party or a consensus, then call for it. Otherwise leaving an unsupported tag on an article is just laziness. I don't do it. I fix problems and remove tags and don't go around creating work for other people. Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:50, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Please don't give me (or any other editor) an ultimatum, and please do not personally insult me by implying that I am "lazy." Thanks. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 02:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I have removed the template. Given the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome#"Anti-paganism policy"/persecution articles, I do feel that this article could benefit from more feedback from other editors (especially those who've commented in that discussion). Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 02:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Global Cerebral Ischemia Sigh. What ultimatum would that be? Where? You told me not to delete your tags, so I explained under what circumstances I would not comply with that demand. That's all I said. And precisely where did I call you lazy? Are you saying that you intend to leave an unsupported tag? I would be surprised if that were true! I don't see how that comment can be taken to be about you personally, but surely you can see that the comment is fair and true about others. Again, that is all I said. Anything else is in your head, not mine.

This article - like every article - will benefit from additional well sourced input. I have asked before and will ask again: please do so. But no generalizations. No "impressions" and especially no "interpretations" and "implications". Make your comments specific - like you did on 125 and 126 - those were valuable and necessary comments. Do that, and there is no reason we can't work together and make this a high quality article. I will comply with all such requests - as I have already shown.

I had no idea anyone would see what's in the lead as controversial, so I put no references there, which is copacetic for what I thought this was. I had not previously written in this area of interest, so I was unprepared for the uproar and your response. Tagging and Admin as such a swift response - without any effort to talk to me - seemed extreme - and not just to me, but also to Admin. I apologize if my wording on my reverts seemed offensive, but you have to admit, they weren't completely off-base. An effort on the talk page would have prevented all this hoorah. At any rate, let's agree to do that. Bring suggested changes to the talk page - or just make them and if I don't agree, I will come here without reverting. We can work it out. I really believe that. I do believe in your good intentions for the encyclopedia. I ask that you do the same for me. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do likewise. Even if I believe anything you've personally added should be removed, I promise to discuss it here first. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 19:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

A Modest Proposal (that doesn't involve eating children) for Everyone from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome#"Anti-paganism policy"/persecution articles

Richard Keatinge; T8612; P Aculeius; Avilich; Global Cerebral Ischemia; Johnbod; ★Trekker; Furius; Ermenrich; HalfdanRagnarsson; Please go ahead and make any changes you feel inspired to make. If you don't want to write it yourself, make requests for me to do so here, and I will cooperate as completely as humanly possible; offer insights, give me some good references, please look for anything that qualifies as synth of OR - anything. If anyone has any problems with the changes we make, please, please, come here and say so, and explain why, before reverting content. When I think I am writing something controversial, it is my personal habit to post it here on the talk page, and ask for comments before publishing rather than after, but everyone must do as they see fit, of course. I am genuinely looking forward to hearing from any and all of you. I believe we will have a truly wonderful article when we are done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC) Sorry for the duplicate pings! Accidental! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for this; I hope to take a proper look over this weekend, but it may be next. Furius (talk) 09:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Furius Yay! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:45, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@Richard Keatinge: Yay! I liked your bold edits. I added one sentence back in that was removed, but otherwise the new section and the summation are all good imho. This article is going to be ready for FAN when this is done, I swear, and we will all have contributed to that and that is the very best of how Wikipedia works. I love it. :-) Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:26, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I have again acted boldly, on my personal feeling that the names of authorities generally belong in references not in the body of the text, but I suppose that the names of one or two pre-eminent authorities, people who have their own articles, can strengthen the main points. Comments of course welcome. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:51, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Richard Keatinge: Both FAN and GAN have required me to put attributions in sentences for anything that could be considered controversial, ever, by anyone, so that it is not written in "wiki-voice" but in the voice of those making the assertion. No one has ever said anything about them having to have their own articles. Whether or not someone has an article on WP is not a reflection of the quality of their scholarship - it is a reflection of ours. We are not doing real great at keeping up with contemporary scholars. We're about 40-50 years behind in most cases. Peter Brown started publishing in the 60's. We just got an article on him in 2004. A scholar can be notable in his field w/o having an article on WP. That can't be a requirement. But it turns out that Lepelley has a WP page. Someone wrote his name wrong so it's under Claude lepelley. Bold is fine, so long as you don't get bent out of shape over changes. I have a statement from a RS that says "most contemporary scholars" if you prefer. This is the majority view now, but I like to be specific, so I listed three. If you prefer, we can change it to that instead and remove all the names, or do a combination, or just add Lepelley back. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:33, 12 June 2021 (UTC) Wait it's been fixed! Claude LepelleyJenhawk777 (talk) 21:37, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Ah, quite so, we do indeed need to use RS and attribute anything controversial, but we don't need to mention the name of the authors in the main text. Wikivoice is absolutely appropriate for authoritative and referenced statements. I felt - still do - that in this article, the many names in main text were an impediment to reading the article. I only left Brown and Cameron in - for all their eminence - as a gesture of appreciation for all your work in getting the article together. I'd be quite happy to take their main-text mentions out as well. But I'm all in favour of references to their statements. Does anyone else have any thoughts on the matter? Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

This isn't about references and the use of RS - if I am understanding correctly - this is about in-line attribution, which requires their name in the body of the text. It is a little awkward, but necessary I think. buidhe has more GANs and FANs than anyone I know. Would you weigh in on this? Please do not go through removing attributions before we hear from her.

You know what? If you put Lavan back in this paragraph, it will be sufficient, I think. IMO, the archaeological claim should be made by the archaeologist not by WP. For the other sentence, the two names are good enough as there is more, with more names, in the Evaluation section. Two sentences and a couple names are okay as a lead in. Did you check that it is Averil Cameron? I think it's Alan Cameron, but I could be wrong.Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe: If you would, please, weigh in on this discussion with Richard Keatinge concerning in text attribution. He wants to remove them to make reading easier, which of course it will do. I had previously understood these attributions were necessary for content the readers will find controversial. Anything you can add will be welcome. Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:42, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Theodosius and the disbanding of the Vestal Virgins

@Jenhawk777: you recently removed the following sentence, stating that it was an error: "The eternal fire in the Temple of Vesta in the Roman Forum was extinguished and the Vestal Virgins disbanded." Note iii at Theodosius I states "Theodosius has long been associated with the ending of the Vestal virgins, but twenty-first century scholarship asserts they continued until 415 and suffered no more under Theodosius than they had since Gratian restricted their finances." with a single cited reference; am I correct in assuming you added this? However, Vestal Virgin has the following unsourced sentence: "The College of the Vestals was disbanded and the sacred fire extinguished in 394, by order of the Christian emperor Theodosius." I'm wondering if we can resolve this discrepancy between the articles? Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 21:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello Global Cerebral Ischemia! Yes, I had originally put The same thing that's in "Vestal virgins" into the article on Theodosius I and here saying that Theodosius was responsible for the vestals being shut down. Avilich said he thought that was wrong but couldn't remember where he'd read it. So I spent two days searching and just kept finding a repeat of the Theodsius claim, but every instance was without any discussion of why or where that was sourced from, etc., so no indication of how dependable that piece of information was. It was just sort of taken for granted everywhere without any support or evidence associated with it. I finally tracked down something that actually discussed sources. How about I send it to you in an email? I think you have to send me a request for an email. I'm not sure, but do if you want to see it yourself, and I will send it.

And yes absolutely, we should make that change to the articles on the vestals as well. I'll go ahead and do that. Thanx for the good catch there. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:46, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

The claim that Theodosius abolished the vestals is almost certainly incorrect, but the source in question (Testa 2007) doesn't say that they lasted until 415. I didn't read this anywhere specifically, but I noticed that (apparently) no source issued after the last print edition of the Britannica mentions this, which is suspicious. The last known Vestal is attested in 385. Zosimos vaguely implies, but stops short of saying, that Theodosius disbanded the Vestals in 394 when visiting Rome after the battle of the Frigidus, and goes on to say that Theodosius' niece Serena (wife of Stilicho) acted disrespectfully towards the last remaining Vestal. The visit itself apparently never happened (Theodosius only visited Rome in 389), and its events, which are known from no other source, are either attributable to Gratian (Cameron, pp. 46–47) or probably ahistorical. Avilich (talk) 04:32, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Here is an additional source that says the last of the vestals lived at least until the fifth century after the deaths of Stilicho and Serena. The section I was referring to in Testa only says Africa - on page 259 - so let's use Undheim and change it to fifth century. Yet another good catch! Thank you!

References

Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:04, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Guys, I went to do this and can no longer find mention of the vestals. Has it been removed? I don't care if it has since the whole structure is shaky at best. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:08, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Avilich I like the recent changes but I object to changing the section titled Theodosian decrees to the Latin. It's unnecessarily pretentious imo. Nearly everything here could be titled in Latin, but it's all in English for ease of access to our ordinary readers. Let's put that back into English for them. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:17, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

This is "Codex Theodosianus"? I generally agree about English vs Latin, but in this case I think Latin is good, for consistency with the main wiki article at Codex Theodosianus Furius (talk) 10:02, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with "Codex Theodosianus," especially given that it's the title of the corresponding article. As far as emailing me a source, that's not necessary; let's keep it all here on Wikipedia so everything is public and transparent. Certainly the more sources, the better. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 13:10, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

That section mixes up the codex in general and the specific legislation of Theodosius, and it probably shouldn't be a subsection of Theodosius too. The straightforward Latin title allows for less confusion. Avilich (talk) 13:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: Could you give an exact quote of what the author says? I don't have access to Undheim, but the Serena you mentioned, the wife of Stilicho and niece of Theodosius, is the very person whom Zosimos says disrespected the last living Vestal in 394. Undheim is presumably using Zosimos as a source, but he is not very reliable, so it'd be nice to see what the author says exactly. Avilich (talk) 13:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I give on the Latin. You all seem to agree.

On page 32, Undheim writes: "We do not know exactly what happened when the college of the vestals was eventually dissolved (which is what we should actually go with imo) due to Theodosius' legislation in the wake of his defeat of Eugenius and Arbogast in 394" (which is an assumption and not a conclusion from evidence as it is not shown in any source). This is not outstanding scholarship.

He then goes on to relate the Zosimus legend about Serena, Stilicho's wife. There is no discussion of conflicting evidence, such as her absence from Rome at that time. Zosimus was a sixth century pagan sympathizer and seems to have composed this story to justify and explain Serena's murder.

Undheim ends the paragraph with "Although Zosimus' reliability as a historian is disputed, the timeframe still sounds reasonable, given the law's increasing restrictions on traditional cults towards the end of the fourth century. The last of the Vestal virgins, we may thus deduce, lived at least until the early fifth century."

You can see this is based on assumptions and very likely false premises, and doesn't prove Theodosius' responsibility, it assumes it. But it does reveal it is also highly likely that it was well known enough at the time Zosimus was composing his legend that the Vestals had still been around then so it was okay to make up stuff about them. That they continued into the fifth century is probably a safe statement.

Or we could go with "no one really knows exactly how or when the Vestals ended". Or some combination of those two statements.

I must have looked through two dozen sources before finding these after checking 3 times that many. No one talks about when and how they ended, and I guess there's good reason. "No one really knows" would be my synth conclusion from everything I looked at, and it is stated in this secondary source so it's usable. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd go with something like "the Vestals probably did not last long after Gratian confiscated their revenues in 382". Zosimos doesn't even explicitly state (in the English translation at least) whether that "last of the Vestals" still ran a formal cult or if it had already been dissolved. We know that a statue was erected c. 386/390 (CIL VI, 2145) to a Vestal named Coelia Concordia, and the documentary trail runs cold from there.

It's unlikely that it was well known enough at the time Zosimus was composing his legend that the Vestals had still been around then so it was okay to make up stuff about them. Zosimos is known to have relied heavily and uncritically on a fellow disliker of Christianity, Eunapios, who lived under Theodosius and Honorius, and who was hostile to Stilicho. Most likely the primary source simply lost trace of the truth while trying to make a point against Stilicho, and we can't know the truth based on the little evidence available. Avilich (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Avilich So, we don't completely agree. I don't think more can be said with any certainty beyond 'we don't know'. I am therefore taking the cowards way out and asking you to write what you can justify and support and I will trust you for that. I won't add anything about it at all.Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:24, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Avilich WOW! I wish I could thank you multiple times for the work you put in on the citation styles. That's amazing and wonderful and you are great and I wish there was some way to demonstrate how grateful I am. You are going to have this article fit for an FAN! You are awesome! Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Removal of Lepelley and other in-text attributions, moved from personal talk page

Hey! Since when can we only refer to scholars with their own articles? I did not know that was a rule! There are tons of qualified scholars, particularly those still living, who don't have articles yet. Holy cow, I do this all the time! I am going to have to start combing all my articles for them and writing them! Jeez Louise! I have never done an article on a living person. Advice? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:17, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

We can refer to them, that's what RS are all about, and with consensus we can name them in the text of articles in which their work is used as a reference. But it isn't usual practice to do so on a large scale and I felt strongly that, here, the names of modern authors were getting badly in the way of telling the story. I could be wrong... Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:34, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Well I could certainly be wrong as well. When writing this, I felt everything contemporary scholars have said for the last 50 years has been and continues to be controversial amongst our readers, despite the majority of the scholars themselves agreeing. The readers problems meant the scholars should all be attributed by name and sourced accordingly - I thought. I see that our styles are not the same, and yours is superior for easier reading, but I have been told to do this for accuracy and NPOV and a host of other reasons. Going through and changing the article to suit your personal style is inappropriate, but changing it to suit WP is required, so I have put out a call on that talk page. I trust her to know everything about WP. We'll see what she says and adjust accordingly. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:08, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

For one reason or another, she is not responding. As you saw, I'm sure, I removed the two names but added Lavan back. Can we go ahead and agree between us that it is okay? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

It's okay and I'll wait for further input from others, but I still don't think it's the best way to present the article. We refer to this author at the end of the sentence and I don't think his name in main text enhances the article in any way. I think it impedes reading. I'd still prefer to remove it. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I totally get where you are coming from and even agree that removal of all the names would make reading much much easier. I really do. I see that, but I normally write in religion (much more than philosophy or history) where everything, and I do mean everything, is controversial. I have to have citations for every sentence and attributions for every claim. I am terrifically, overwhelmingly, primarily concerned with accuracy instead of style. That's why I love quotes so much. There is no arguing with an attributed quote. I have found that the absence of an attribution makes it easier - and therefore more likely - that someone will come along and change any unattributed claims they run across to what they think it should be - and in the end it will not reflect what is actually said in its cited source.

Let me give you a for instance from this section being discussed. Your last two lines that say Many may have chosen to follow their traditional ceremonies in defiance of the edicts.[52] Christian hostility toward pagans and their monuments may have been far from the general phenomenon that the law and literature implies. The first sentence is cited to Gibbon chapter 28 with no page number. I found something similar on page 56, but there is no qualifier that says "may have". The second sentence is cited to the article Christian Attitudes toward Pagan Monuments in Late Antiquity and Their Legacy in Later Byzantine Centuries where on page 47 she says, "Hostility toward pagan monuments was far from being a general phenomenon..." and there is no may have there either. I think the "may haves" represent your own feelings on the matter and not the scholarship, and without any attributions in those sentences, you felt free to modify them accordingly. I think if those sentences were attributed, you would have been more careful. People just tend to be more unwilling to misquote another person, where they feel perfectly free to modify what they see as opinion or even facts.

I do understand this means one of them must be wrong in their claim, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be included and accurately represented. Gibbon says what Gibbon knew at the time he wrote. The fact more is known now does not reflect on the quality of his research. It does highlight his bias but everyone now knows about that anyway. I understand this is a change, and that our brains don't like change, but the hegemony of the field that was established for 200 years is no longer. There has been a paradigm shift of major proportions. Inserting "may haves" is OR that won't change that and doesn't accurately reflect the sources. I overlooked it because I could tell you are having a hard time accepting that these changes have genuinely taken place. And if the sentences were attributed, I don't think you would have done it.

You are not the only one that takes liberties with unattributed material see. This is my experience on WP, and while easier reading definitely has value, obtaining it at the expense of accuracy - even the potential for it - is a rat's nest. If you have an argument for removing that will maintain the integrity of the text, then I am open to your ideas. Otherwise, I will maintain my established approach and sacrifice a little readability of the prose style for consistent accuracy with the facts. I hope I will have your support in this. Thank you for listening. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:15, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your considered reply. Our areas of interest haven't overlapped much in the past, but I have now read a couple of articles in your editing history. In religious doctrine articles, basically about the opinions of people who have talked about the subject, in-text attribution may be appropriate, but in a historical article where we are trying to present a modern academic interpretation of history with suitable caution, we should do so in a readable fashion. I look forward to the opinions of others, but in accordance with usual (and I'd suggest good) practice I don't feel that in-text attribution is desirable here. But taking a modern academic's conclusion that X is due to Y and stating in Wikivoice that X may be due to Y strikes me as just what a good encyclopedia should do.

Gibbon is a bit different. I feel it's occasionally appropriate to quote him, but only when he states an aspect of the modern consensus particularly well. Only a lack of boldness prevented me from removing him as a reference - despite everything, he's absolutely not suitable as an actual reference here.

I suspect that this entire conversation would be better placed on Talk:Persecution of pagans in the late Roman Empire. and unless you disagree I propose to move it there. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:13, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:08, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Richard Keatinge I am taking in good faith that you know what you are talking about in writing on history and am attempting to cooperate with your standard. It hurts, but I am doing it as I work on Ambrose. I hope this is both right and the improvement you think. I am having a hard time breathing. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:10, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I can assure you that I'm here in good faith to make a better encyclopedia. And you're definitely doing a grand job on Ambrose. I really like the way you're using the references to substantiate an article about its subject, the way that (I feel) they should normally be used and also (definitely) the way that they normally are used.

We'll get you some oxygen to help you over the initial symptoms. "My strange and self-abuse is the initiate fear, that wants hard use". Whether I'm right or wrong about in-text attribution, I have learned from our interaction. Thank you. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:16, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Well ditto Richard Keatinge !! Thank you as well! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:49, 18 June 2021 (UTC)