Jump to content

Talk:Julian (emperor)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Raising on a shield

I've found a citation in the International Journal of the Classical Tradition an article called "Raising on a Shield: Origin and Afterlife of a Coronation Ceremony" by Hans Teitler. The abstract states: "This article deals with 'raising on a shield' both as a historical phenomenon and as subject of artistic representation. Originally Germanic, the ritual is for the first time attested in Tacitus, in a passage about Brinno, the chief of the Cananefates who cooperated with "Claudius" Civilis during the Batavian revolt. Next comes Julian, nicknamed the Apostate, who, raised on a shield by his Gallic and Germanic soldiers, was the first Roman emperor to undergo this ritual, witness Ammianus Marcellinus and Libanius. After Julian, the 'raising on a shield' soon became part and parcel of the Byzantine coronation ceremony (literary sources and illustrations in mediaeval manuscripts testify to its existence), but the ritual is also attested for Ostrogoths and Franks--the depiction of the raising on a shield of Frankish kings by Gregory of Tours would seem to be the ultimate source of inspiration for French medallists and cartoonists. Tacitus' Brinno is more than once raised on a shield by Dutch painters in the sixteenth and seventeenth century." Seems relevant to the article to me. L Hamm 21:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not all religion

The article seems a little unbalanced at the moment with a large percentage being given over to Julian vs. Christianity and much less to all the other events of his life. Could someone who knows about this stuff add some more detail about his rise to power, rule in Gaul, the defeat of Constantius, his reforms, opinions, etc. --Spondoolicks 16:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

You are so right! The article reads as a pagan catachismus, while we are talking about a military politician.Where's the military? Where is the politics? johanthon 10:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Page name is POV

"Christian sources commonly refer to him as Julian the Apostate..." It says so in the article and it is as plain as that; Christian sources name him so. Arguments that "he is known that way" simply beg the question. Has anyone actually surveyed history texts in many world languages, for example? I have read the archived discussion and nothing I see there refutes the notion that the title is POV. It may be old POV, but it is still POV, regardless. Whogue 00:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

So what? Every historical account has a bias and thus reflects some POV. This is hardly an excuse to stop using historical accounts nor is it a point against using historical labels such as 'apostate'. Christianity is our European heritage - even if we don't like it. We can't escape the christian heritage and we should not try it, because the christian bias is informative in its own way, especially for this article.
Please, remember this is an encyclopedia and people need to find articles easily. The most common name for this article is 'Julian the apostate'. Nobody, not even specialists, will try to look it up under his real name. I hope there is no need to explain that Wikipedia is not a place for pagan (or atheïst) revisionism. And the poll above here is clear. johanthon 10:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC) (an uncurable atheïst).
I didn't realize that Christian POV is acceptable, or that Wikipedia is meant to be used primarily by Christians. All I see is a good case for a redirect at "Julian the Apostate" pointing here. Take a look at the Numiswiki entry for Julian II: "Julianus II, Julianus (Flavius Claudius) [Julian II], usually called Julian the Apostate,..." This is from the 1889 "Dictionary of Roman Coins, which nicely puts to bed the notion that "specialists" expect to find the entry under "Julian the Apostate" or that indexing him under "Julian II" is somehow "pagan revisionism"; the Numiswiki editors point out that the authour of the Julian II article "... is very much biased against anything not Christian." Thyou were repeatedly wrone Japanese Wikipedia article is titled "ユリアヌス" (Julianus) - the Russian Wikipedia article is "Флавий Юлиан" (Flavius Julius). In short, there is no real reason to persist with a POV name when simply using his real name is commonly done and is the norm even in other language Wikipedias. Whogue 10:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Pointing at other projects' and languages' policies is a total red herring. Our own policy is to use the most common name in English. There is no question but that the most common name in English is "Julian the Apostate". If trying to use a less common name solely for "PC" reasons is not revisionism according to you, what then do you call it? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Just a note: the original title of this section was "Page name is POV", as Whogue wrote it; shouldn't it be left that way? Codex Sinaiticus is absolutely right about policy: see WP:NAME. The Oxford Classical Dictionary lists our man as Julian 'the Apostate' (Iulianus (RE 26), Flavius Claudius), confirming that many experts do expect to find him under this name, as the titles of the articles & books listed under "secondary sources" confirms. I really wish that people would stop focusing on this supposed "POV" issue, which I find to be very trivial, and concentrate on improving the content of the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I just looked in my university catalogue: "Julian the Apostate" like "Philip the Arab" are only found as book titles. The Library of Congress subject heading is: 

Julian, Emperor of Rome, 331-363, 
Philip, the Arabian, Emperor of Rome, 244-249

The Wiki one hope aspires to be content neutral. And speaking as a person of European Jewish origin, I find the reference to Christian majoritism offensive. I am not PC, I am, have been, always will be a minority. And as the 3rd Reich proved, words have tremendous power. I ask the editors to follow a neutral policy. Rory

Previous discussion included a poll on moving to "Julian". A careful read of the comments shows that many "oppose" voters felt that "Julian" was not specific enough. Indeed, He was "Julian II" not "Julian" so the proposed move would not have been accurate. After reading the comments on the previous polls it is clear that many were not happy with the present name, but the proposed alternative was not acceptable either. Several good alternatives were proposed. Let's take a look at them. The fellow had a name (Flavius Claudius Julianus) and a simple designation exists in the line of emperors (Julian II) and I simply think we should use one of those as the title. "Julian the Apostate" can redirect here. Otherwise I don't see why we don't move "Richard M. Nixon" to "Tricky Dick"; after all, that's what most people called him. (Akhilleus: I moved your sig to what I hope is the right place. It looks like "Rory" put his comment above your sig by accident.) Whogue 01:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for moving my sig. But as for the article title, it doesn't matter whether editors are happy with the name or not. What matters is policy, expressed in WP:NAME and associated pages, and the very clear fact that the subject of this article is most commonly known as "Julian the Apostate" in expert sources, as the entry from the OCD, Bowersock's book, and the titles of many other books and articles show. In contrast, Richard Nixon is not usually known as "Tricky Dick"--it's a common nickname, yes, but not nearly as common a way to refer to him as "Richard Nixon" or "Richard M. Nixon". --Akhilleus (talk) 01:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the question is whether "the subject of this article is most commonly known as "Julian the Apostate" in expert sources", and there are are some examples of that, but there are counter examples as well. Gibbon doesn't use "J the A", for example, and the numismatics text I cited don't either. My examples from other wikis were just meant to show that we can't claim he is universally known as "J the A" and those other wikis were at hand, so to speak. The coin in the article shows him as "Fl Cl Julianus", and that is the way coin people know him. I guess I'm just not willing to give "J the A" a slam dunk as "universal", or even "most common by experts". Further study is needed, and I hope we can take a close look at the comments in the archived discussion. My "Tricky Dick" comment may have been a bad joke, but "T D" is a redirect in Wikipedia. Whogue 04:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Nonsense. The most common name in English for julian the Apostate is Julian the Apostate, and the most common name for Richard M. Nixon is Richard M. Nixon. That last comment is purely facetious and borderline contentious. And once again our policy is not affected by other projects policies. We are not ruled by a minority either although a good example of a system that was ruled by a minority would be pre-1990 South Africa. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Whogue, numismatics are a very rare minority, even amongst historians. They use labels related to their coins. Those coins are produced by Julian himself and obviously he didn't call himself 'apostate'. The majority of people will not be interested in his coins, but in his policy. This is related to the struggle between pagans and christians. The current tittle is very helpfull to point at just that, and it helps the more clever people in understanding how christian propaganda really worked. This is informative in its own right and that is what an Encyclopedia is about: finding information easily under well known informative labels.
BTW Julian was never called Julian in late antiques. He was called Iulianus. The J in his name comes from Christian-Carolingian churchscript. How come you don't protest against that? Have you protested against calling Iulius Caesar labelling as Julius? Think about it. johanthon 10:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
As others have pointed out, there is a lot more to Julian II than that particular issue. The current "tittle" may be "helpfull", but if you want an article about any kind of propaganda then it should be that, an article. I simply think we should use the normal English form of his name, without the nickname, as the title, same as we do for Richard Lionheart, which redirects to Richard I of England. I have said from the beginning that a redirect from "J the A" would be fine. Whogue 13:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Sinnigen, W. & Boak, A. "A History of Rome to A.D. 565" (1977) Macmillan. Index has "Julian (Flavius Claudius Julianus),..." Whogue 06:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Calling the Apostate also seems to focus on just his religious aspects Thegreyanomaly 02:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
My two cents:
  • In the text of any article a person should be refered to in a formal, respectful way and generally introduced by their formal title. This article does that but I have seen some others that refer to Julian as "Julian the Apostate" which is inappropriate unless it is done in an "a.k.a." sort of description.
  • IMHO article titles do no have to be quite so formal and in fact it is acceptable to use a title that reflects how a person or thing is commonly known (i.e. commonly known today, not necessarily during their lifetime or some other period in history). The title may reflect one thing that a person or thing is most known for even it if oversimplifies them. However, in an encyclopedic context a title should not be misleading or deliberately slanderous. If the the most common name for someone is reflects unreasonable POV by some group then a more neutral name should be selected even if it is less common.
  • Ideally Wikipedia should have a uniform policy on titling historical articles. In particular it would be nice to have a uniform policy for titles for historical leaders like this. I'm not aware that such a policy has ever been proposed. Is there a forum where this would be appropriate to discuss?
This particular one is debatable but, as common as the "Apostate" monicker is, I still tend to think it is too loaded with POV to be an appropriate as a title. If, for example, "Hilter the Crazy" had become popular I would still argue that this is too loaded to be used even if I happen to agree with the characterization. In the abscence of a standard I'd say the title "Julian II" is appropriate if less recognized.
--Mcorazao 20:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick comment. It is not true that he was called IULIANUS - though this ludicrous spelling pops up even in published works. He spelt his name IVLIANVS. Vocalised I as well V were later added. Unless you are prepared talk about Ivlivs Caesar and Avgvstvs you should write the name Julianus (or Julian).

Neither is he Julian II - this is just a numismatic moniker that means he was the second Julian whose coins are sorted under that name. Julian I is the obscure usurper Julian of Pannonia, not Didius Julianus, who briefly was a "proper" Roman emperor but is referred to under his full name. Julian is Julian I.

I am an admirer of Julian but don't object to his nickname. It is common, and he did defect from Christianity. Whether in a bad way or not is up to the beholder. Caligula is found under that name, even though it means "Little boot" and is by no means worthy of an emperor. Sponsianus 21:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this has a pretty easy answer, we need just ask ourselves "Would Julian like to be known as Julian the Apostate?" I think the answer would be no, and I don't think there will be any argument. Sponsianus says his proper name is Julian_I, and name which is not already taken. Julian_the_Apostate should redirect there. No, I do not know how to do this move myself. JoshNarins (talk) 17:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed several times before, and has always stayed here. Do not redirect without discussion and consensus. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what Sponsianus wrote above. Julian was an apostate of Christianity — far from being offended, he would have gladly embraced the epithet.

Many of these arguments about not offending poor old dead Julian seem reasonable, until one remembers the nicknames that many medieval kings had: Charles the Bald, Charles the Fat, Juana the Mad... I don't see anyone complaining about these. Is it because the potential "offended" happen to be Christian? FilipeS (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

In those cases that is what they were known at the time, Charles the Bald knew himself as Charles the Bald. Julian did not know himself, nor was he called, Julian the Apostate at the time. Christians aren't offended by calling him Apostate, it is what they call him. He did not call himself that, and no one at the time called him that. Certainly Ivan the Terrible should be a good example. His wikipedia entry comes under Ivan IV of Russia. Julian was Julian I of the Roman Empire, and it is only through the Christian lens that anyone can call him Apostate. Actually, from what I read of him in Ammanius Marcellinus and other sources, he was a really good guy who happened to prefer philosophy to Christianity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshNarins (talk • contribs) 21:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This argument seems to have drifted away from the relevant policy, WP:NAME, which tells us that page titles should be whatever the subject is most commonly called in English. "Julian the Apostate" is the most common way of referring to this person in English, so that's the page title. If you want to change the page name, please demonstrate that another name is more common. Now, let me repeat something I've said before on this page: I really wish that people would stop focusing on this supposed "POV" issue, which I find to be very trivial, and concentrate on improving the content of the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not find it trivial at all. I take offense when a great person is commonly known by a bad name. It is, without a doubt, a name with violates NPOV and is common. Ivan the Terrible is the common name for Ivan IV of Russia, but the wiki article is Ivan IV. No one is going to try to tell me that Ivan the Terrible isn't the more well known name. You are being insulting by calling it a "supposed" POV issue, since it certainly does respect POV with respect to the person himself, and to non-Christians over the world (which are the majority, even if not the majority of English speakers). I can not demonstrate that another name is more common. What is the common name for homosexuals in America today? I won't sully this thread by mentioning it, by you can bet your bottom dollar (ooh, bad pun) that the wikipedia article isn't named that. Sometimes ?maybe even most of the time? common wisdom is wrong. Julian is only an apostate if you are a Christian, he is a leader, both the Constantine before and the Constantius after were psychotics by comparison (not for their position on the Christian faith, mind you, just in general). Perhaps I think you are forgetting that what is "popular" is usually defined by the people who have the loudest voice, who can pay for the most press, the victors who get to write history? It is popularly believed in America that the US spends 25% of its budget on foreign aid, and that ghosts exist. JoshNarins (talk) 14:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I am a non-Christian, and the title "Julian the Apostate" does not offend me.
  • An apostate in anyone who renounces a religion. It does not matter what the particular religion is. By claiming the word "apostate" for Christianity, you are offending the apostates of all the other religions. FilipeS (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

People should take another look at the NPOV policy. It doesn't mean "Wikipedia articles shouldn't offend me personally." And, as I've already said, the policy that tells us how pages should be titled is WP:NAME. I don't see that anything that JoshNarins says has to do with WP:NAME, which tells us to use the most common name in English. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

When are we going to finally get around to changing the name of this article. Even Wikiquote has been plainly listed as a Julian. When are we going to end this madness and remove "the Apostate" from the name? Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Also I would like to note that my Classics 10B: Intro to Roman Civilization textbook (As the Romans Did by Jo-Ann Shelton), only calls him "the Apostate" in parentheses Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

How exactly IS it that we know Julian the Apostate is the most commonly used name in modern academia? Several counter-examples to the original JoA examples were posted, needn't we do some sort of deeper survey before we conclude either way? -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.78.108.110 (talk) 06:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Notice box at top of talk page

Complaints about the POV title of this page seem to pop up with alarming regularity. I've put a notice box at the top of the page to inform editors that the issue has already been discussed in the archives; perhaps the wording can be improved. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Julian.jpg

It seems this picture does not actually represent Emperor Julian. The original work is a statue exhibited in the Louvre museum, whose caption can be read here (in French). It says the statue is a 18th-century copy of a Roman original from 120-130 CE representing a priest of Sarapis. Proffered arguments are: the character wears a beard, a sacerdotal crown and a pallium; rendition of eyes and hair place the statue in the Hadrian era. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 10:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Completely-overlooked point on the title

OK, I've scanned the archives as well as this discussion, and haven't seen this (obvious?) point noted:

The article on Jesus isn't titled, "Jesus Christ"; "Jesus, Son of God"; or "Jesus, Lord and Savior"; even though He is commonly known by these (and other titles) among Christians. If the article on Jesus isn't titled by the way Christians refer to Him, why is the article on Julian titled by the way Christians refer to him?

For that matter, I notice that the article on Jimmy Wales isn't titled "Jimbo", even though he's known that way among Wikipedians. Strange. Unimaginative Username 01:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know how this article can be officially renamed? Can an admin be summoned to solve the situation. It clearly is POV to have "the Apostate" there Thegreyanomaly 02:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You can start a discussion about moving the page by following the steps at WP:RM. But before you do, please read through the archives of the talk page here: Talk:Julian_(emperor)/Archive_1. There have been two proposals to change the name of the page, and both discussions resulted in the page staying right here. I don't see the point of going through that again, especially since no one is bringing up points that haven't been raised before. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

My 2 Cents

This is a great article, definitely worth the read. It's a shame that there are so many citations needed in so many areas. Otherwise this article could easily reach Good Article status.--PericlesofAthens 16:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Julian's religious status POV

It's odd that the article states "Julian's religious status is a matter of considerable dispute." And then proceeds to state that "He did not practice normative civic Roman cult of the earlier empire, but a kind of esoteric approach to classical philosophy sometimes identified as theurgy and also neoplatonism." You see, THAT is part of the dispute - so it should not be stated as a fact! The most thorough modern biography of Julian is Rowland Smith's "Julian's Gods" - and much of that book is devoted to taking issue with those who have portrayed Julian's religiosity as being "at odds with the assumptions and practices of 'mainstream' Graeco-Roman polytheism." (p. xiv). Obviously that paragraph requires rewording to not only state THAT a disagreement exists, but WHAT the disagreement consists of. Durruti36 21:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you try to find a new phrase? "Be bold." You have a point on the dispute-thing. Allthoug I would like to point out that the current phrase might constitute another problem, for "civic Roman cult" (like for example the cult of the god Silvanus), is something completely different than the 'Religion of State', with rites for Jove, Janus, Mars .....
BTW Bowersock has written also written a very good biography of Julian. johanthon 01:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Bowersock's "biography" is essentially an extended exercise in character assassination. Bowersock is a great historian and an excellent writer - but he's got a serious fixation on "bringing down" Julian - which, apparently, he has had ever since Gore Vidal's novel came out 45 years ago. For a much different, and far more balanced, approach check out Rowland Smith's "Julian's Gods", reviewed here: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/1997/97.03.22.html . Durruti36 17:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The War against the Persians

The article states that Julian's aim for the War was to retake cities lost by Constantius. I think an important point is missed by failing to add that Julian's goal was actually a much higher one, namely to attack Ctesiphon and (according to some authors) replace Shapur with another king. I don't currently have acces to the sources about the Shapur-replacement but I think that Ctesiphon as the goal for his war should be added, rather than saying that he merely wanted to retake lands lost by his predecessor. That implies that he either

  • ended up there by mistake
  • or took Ctesiphon to be land lost by Constantius

thoughts? --ElHuegi (talk) 21:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as I didn't get an answer, I've gone ahead and done it. --ElHuegi (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Quote from David S. Potter

Whoever inappropriately added "this is garbled" at the end of the quote, please explain why. Apart from a few typos (which are now corrected), and the omission of two sentences in the middle of the phrase, the quote is not distorted. I omitted the aforementioned phrases because I *think* they don't add to author's analysis while they would make the quoted text excessively long. Perhaps I'm wrong. Judge by yourself from the full text below (the sentences I omitted are shown as bold) :

"They expected a man who was both removed from them by the awesome spectacle of imperial power, and would validate their interests and desires by sharing them from his Olympian height. The ascetic was supposed to be detached from the world, to derive his power in the temporal world from the fact of this separation. The emperor derived his legitimacy from his ability to exercise power at the heart of the temporal construct of power relationships. He was supposed to be interested in what interested his people, and he was supposed to be dignified. He was not supposed to leap up and show his appreciation for a panegyric that it was delivered, as Julian had done on January 3, when Libanius was speaking, and ignore the chariot races".

Dipa1965 (talk) 18:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Page move

Under the guise of being bold, I went ahead and moved this page from Julian the Apostate to Flavius Claudius Iulianus. The reason being that it's his name and, logically, it's also the first bolded name you see in the article. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You really should get consensus before doing things like this, when it has been discussed several times before, and consensus is against moving it. Carl.bunderson (talk) 08:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any such consensus here, actually, and frankly find it bizarre that we're using a less-than-favorable title given to him rather than his actual name. However, I am willing to wait for the situation to develop further. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Well the fact that it's been discussed several times, w/o being moved, is indicative of consensus against its being moved. Carl.bunderson (talk) 08:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't see a consensus against the move in the discussion above. I see a lot of argument for the move and only one against it. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 10:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
If you see only one against it, you haven't looked hard anough. The matter has been discussed before in this very page. FilipeS (talk) 12:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but the only sensible argument has been "that "Julian the Apostate" is the most common name used to refer to him" I haven't however seen any kind of evidence to back up that claim. However good cases have been made that even Ivan the Terrible is named by his name in the royal succesion and not by his epithet. I believe the correct title would be simply Julian II (that seems to be the naming pattern for most article on roman emperors) but I could support the move going to Julian II, "the Apostate" or Julian II (emperor) (as with Constantine II (emperor)) instead of the rather mundane Flavius Claudius Iulianus (The only other article on a roman emperor to use only his names seems to be Flavius Valerius Severus), but I find it is clearly POV to use the epithet Apostate as the only identifier in the article title.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 19:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Ye gods, folks, this issue has been discussed to death, and there's never been any consensus to move this page from the title "Julian the Apostate". Ivan the Terrible isn't a great comparison, because there's a whole set of guidelines about how to refer to European rulers. In the absence of such guidelines for Roman Emperors, we stick with the basic policy--the most common name in English. That's Julian the Apostate, and there's plenty of evidence cited for this already--including the form of the entry in the Oxford Classical Dictionary, which is a perfectly respectable source to follow. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It would appear that it's been "discussed to death" because there's an ongoing issue here. There's also plenty of respectable sources above that do not list Julian II as Julian the Apostate. I see no reason why this isn't brought in line with the rest of the Emperors or brought in line with European ruler conventions, considering the Emperors were exactly that; European rulers. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Because those conventions don't apply to Roman emperors. If you want to argue that they should, I suggest starting a discussion at the Classical Greece and Rome wikiproject; that way, people who work on pages like Augustus but don't watch this page will be able to participate.
If you think there are plenty of sources that don't call our guy Julian the Apostate, then by all means, present them, and then we can have a proper discussion of the title based on policy. That will be more productive than the usual ranting about POV. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
The sources are there, above in the previous discussion Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I oppose moving this, except possibly to Julian. We follow the standard anglicization of Emperors' names; compare Aurelian; Julian II is almost a neologism. The alleged POV is non-existent; is Gore Vidal a Christian? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I said nothing about POV. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The page having been moved

My page move request and Bloodofox' movement of the page occurring at roughly the same time was entirely coincidental. An admin may come for review and be confused. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Undoing of the recent page move also undid useful editings

I think that Bloodofox had made some useful cleanup, after moving the page. Now that the move is undone, this cleanup has been lost. He should perform it again (in a single session, please, we better not clutter the history with many small editings instead of a big one). Btw, while I also think that Flavius Claudius Iulianus would be much less POV, an arbitrary move isn't the solution to the problem. Dipa1965 (talk) 13:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Blood, I'm sorry I messed up your edits, I thought when I undid myself it restored all of them. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
No worries, I looked it over to be sure and I think you restored all of my edits thus far properly. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Requested move to Flavius Claudius Iulianus

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no move. Default: opinion evenly split. DrKiernan (talk) 14:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


Julian the Apostate → Flavius Claudius Iulianus — See discussion above —--Akhilleus (talk) 04:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:RM entry also suggests Julian of Rome and gives the following reason: The title displays a POV that can easily offend non-Christians. Many academic sources have been cited, showing that "the Apostate" is a descriptor very often left out. Note by Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Survey, February 2008

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
And, I make this point every time this discussion comes up, so let me say it again: the neutral point of view policy does not mean "Wikipedia articles shouldn't offend me." It means that Wikipedia articles are supposed to represent all significant published points of view, in proportion the the prominence of each. For historical subjects, the best sources to turn to are academic literature published in the appropriate field--in this case, ancient history and classical studies. As the Google Scholar searches demonstrate, scholars in those fields use the name "Julian the Apostate." --Akhilleus (talk) 04:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. While I understand that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ancient Romans) exists, I think it's a poor system that needs to be changed and that this case is a prime example why. I have no idea why we're not using simply Flavius Claudius Iulianus since it's his name. Even Julian II would be better rather than this obviously problematic article title. We should have some sort of convention in place that simply uses the emperor's name and not some sort of skewed angle where we simply go with the less-than-favorable Christian description as article title just because it's not as well known and, obviously, the legacy regarding this emperor is going to be less than shiny considering the outcome of the Christianization of the Roman Emperor. Other examples of European rulers, such as Ivan IV of Russia (Most commonly known as "Ivan the Terrible" in English) have equaled similar conventions. I think observing Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) would be far more appropriate as it would even technically place this under its scope. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) says "Most general rule overall: use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules below cover a specific problem." Furthermore, the convention says that it applies to rulers after the fall of the Roman Empire. But there is one interesting part of the convention that could help with this situation: "If a monarch or prince is overwhelmingly known, in English, by a cognomen, it may be used, and there is then no need to disambiguate by adding Country. Examples: Alfred the Great, Charlemagne, Louis the Pious, Henry the Lion, Skanderbeg, etc...".
The complaints about the "problematic article title" are overblown. What is "Christian" about the Oxford Classical Dictionary? What's "Christian" about this book?. Whatver the origins of this name, I see no evidence that it's being used in a biased way in contemporary scholarship, nor that modern scholars view Julian in a less than favorable light. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Of course, this is the most general rule over all with emphasis on general. Obviously there have been exceptions, as with the case with Ivan, and this situation seems to get some regular attention. In time, I wouldn't be surprised if they were all standardized, for the record. Anyway, of course I wouldn't claim the Oxford Classical Dictionary is a Christian publication, I'm only commenting on the legacy of the name itself. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Note to Nuntius. The purpose of this discussion is to get rid of "the Apostate". The full Latin name was just one of the possible alternatives. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
From reading up on the subject, I believe the name was coined by Cecil of Alexandria Cyril of Alexandria, in which case any change would be unnecessary if it is indeed that old. If a name has been around for over 1000 years, there is no reason to change it. The Latin is Julianus Apostata. Legis Nuntius (talk) 06:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
This doesn't justify the name. Iconodules were calling Constantine V as 'Copronymus' some 1200 years ago but we don't use that epithet in the title of the article. Dipa1965 (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we should: Britannica does so. If he's commonly called Copronymus now, WP:NAME tells us we should do the same--except that since he's post-Roman, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) applies. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I wrote that section and should clarify; WP:NCNT is not intended to apply to Byzantines; but then the mess of idiosyncrasy that has swallowed Byzantium needs to be straightened out en masse. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Wasn't there some move towards standardization awhile back? I seem to recall User:Andrew Dalby was doing something about it. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
That's what I deplore; he standardized to the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium style: Alexios Komnenos instead of Alexius Comnenus per WP:Greek. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah. I actually prefer the ODB style, but I am willing to admit that it's not (yet) standard English usage. I wonder what they call Constantine V Copronymus? This is getting a bit far from Julianus Apostata, though. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per Akhilleus. For better or worse, some monikers stick. Witness Ivan the Terrible. The current article title complies with naming convention. The majority of scholarly references use the term "the Apostate" Majoreditor (talk) 15:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. I do understand that the proposed title doesn't comply to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ancient Romans) (since it's quite lengthy) but I think that 'Apostate' is one-sided and (starting to) becoming obsolete. Many new scholars (esp. those supporting the concept of 'Late Antiquity', Bowersock is an exception) don't use it. And a Google search would not be a proper way of estimating current scholar consencus. Wouldn't be a good idea to correct the pro-christian bias piled up through the centuries? (and I am not opposed to christianism, either). I'm not against the use of current title as a means to re-direct, of course. Btw, Gore Vidal's book doesn't include 'Apostate' in its title so please don't use him as an argument against the proposal. Dipa1965 (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    Could you provide some evidence that calling him "Julian the Apostate" is becoming obsolete? The Oxford Classical Dictionary was revised in 2003, and it uses "the Apostate", so I'm doubtful. Here are the results of a Google Scholar search limited to 2005-2007. I found only one result in these years for "Flavius Claudius Julianus", and it reads: "At the intersection of these controversies stands the figure of Flavius Claudius Julianus, better known as the emperor Julian 'the Apostate,' the would-be philosopher-king." This is from a review of a book called The Last Pagan: Julian the Apostate and the Death of the Ancient World, by Adrian Murdoch, published in 2003. Seems to me that "Julian the Apostate" is still the most common term in scholarship. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, check out page 593 of Late Antiquity: a Guide to the Postclassical World (eds. Bowersock and Brown), published in 1999--their entry is titled "Julian the Apostate", and begins "Flavius Claudius Julianus (ca. 331-363), known as the Apostate, ..." --Akhilleus (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
My limited reading of modern books about late roman era suggests a trend against using 'Apostate' (but don't take my word as granted, I'm just an amateur). To name a few, David S. Potter (The Roman Empire At Bay), Bryan Ward-Perkins (The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization), Warren Treadgold (A History of the Byzantine State and Society). These all prefer the simple 'Julian'. David Rohrbacher (The Historians of Late Antiquity) also uses it but in the index of the book (p.315) he calls him 'Julian (The Apostate)'. The latter is what I would actually prefer (or a combination like 'Flavius Claudius Iulianus (Julian The Apostate)'. Dipa1965 (talk) 20:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. I agree with the comments above, I am surprised this has not been changed before. At the very least, "The Apostate" needs to be dropped.OdaDorothea (talk) 22:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Akhilleus. Unflattering epithets are two a penny, but it's not our place to rewrite them out of history. The books I have use "Julian the Apostate", and that's what I remember reading elsewhere. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Akhilleus as well. He is Julian the Apostate. The line of argumentation which proposes this move must propose moves for almost every article on pre-modern figures: nicknames are almost always some POV and even ordinals/titles represent a POV (since they can be disputed). Srnec (talk) 22:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per Dipa1965 and previous discussion. Recent usage in the field supports use of the Roman 3-part name: Flavius Claudius (J/I)ulianus. I won't get hung up on the orthography. Whogue (talk) 08:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Julian the Apostate" is his consecrated name in English, as it is, to my knowledge in all languages, and it sounds as absurd to me as it would be to stop calling Alexander the Great , "the Great" or Pepin the Short "the short". Oh, and being an apostate implies to stop being a part of a Church(/any other religions organization/entity) or to stop endorsing a belief, as such he qualifies for the adjective, if I may say so. AdrianCo (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
On further pondering, if we were to drop "the Apostate", how about droping "Mouse" from Mickey Mouse, since he clearly is an animated character, and not a real mouse, and some "specialists" might be offended....(note: my oppose stays!) AdrianCo (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I fail to see how your example relates to the subject in question. Mickey is, obviously, a Mouse. Besides, that's his name. "The Apostate" is not Julian's name and is instead a title given to him by Christian sources unhappy with his attempt to reinstitute pagan Roman religion. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
It was a joke...the real exemples were Pepin and Alexander, I realy can`t see how you interpreted it as something else. AdrianCo (talk) 10:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Uh - this was the guy's name, after all. Of course "Julian the Apostate" should redirect here, so that people can find it easily. And how he earned the moniker "the Apostate" is made pretty obvious by the material already included. Augustine was also an "apostate" from Manichaeism, for that matter - and many other examples could easily be listed. I am a Pagan, and I don't find the "Apostate" appellation offensive - but it is obviously inappropriate as the title of this page. Durruti36 (talk) 16:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion, February 2008

Any additional comments:

Thegreyanomaly placed a request to move the page on WP:RM, but didn't create a discussion section. I hope that he will fill in the reason for the request in the space above. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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

some stuff removed from lead

I removed this from the lead:

Julian is also sometimes referred to as Julian II, to distinguish him from Didius Julianus. His philosophical studies earned him the attribute the Philosopher during the period of his life and of those of his successors.

"Julian II" is not used very often to refer to our emperor; see, e.g. this Google Scholar search. Please note that this search gets results such as [1], where the text is "1. Job stress--Handbooks, manuals, etc. I. Barling, Julian. II. Kelloway, E. Kevin..." Obviously, results like this aren't relevant for this article. "Julian II" doesn't occur in the Oxford Classical Dictionary, either.

As far as "Julian the philosopher", I'm not finding this anywhere. Are there any sources for this? --Akhilleus (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Libanius, I think. But clearly a partisan use during the reign of Jovian, to say nothing of Theodosius. JSTOR has a half-dozen random instances, all of them modern. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

'This article may require cleanup' : could you be more specific?

Akhilleus, I agree with you but it would be nice to specify the parts that need action. The automated link is too generic. I, for one, could suggest that more work is needed in the non-religious policy, however this couldn't be called a cleanup (maybe my english don't help). Had you been more specific, it would be easier for the rest of us to contribute (if possible). Dipa1965 (talk) 22:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think that User:Bloodofox was the one who put that tag in. It wasn't me, anyway! Almost everything could use some work, though. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, it was myself and for the reasons Akhilleus stated - the article just needs more work over all. More references, more specifics, more information. :bloodofox: (talk) 13:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Newly added section

I've just added a section to the article about Julian's administrative actions as emperor. Right now it isn't cited, but I'll get back to that later. Most of the material is drawn from Robert Browning's book, The Emperor Julian Wickbam

Excellent move! That was my intention too. This section is exactly what was missing from the article. Title debate (although I'm into it) is a secondary matter. When you finish, I'll help with citations, if needed. Dipa1965 (talk) 06:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Another vote for a move to his actual name, with a redirect

I'm sorry I missed the above move vote. But check out Template:Roman_Emperors, where "the Apostate" is the only descriptor. Even "Constantine the Great" is reasonably listed as Constantine I. "Julian the Apostate" is bias, plain and simple. Even if some Classical Dictionaries still cling to the slant, I think Wikipedia should rise above it, through a policy of naming people (if not their actual names), a compromise between what they where most commonly known as in their era vs. a non-biased simplification, i.e. Julian II. I prefer that last title, by the way. Mdiamante (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Aham, even in historian circles "Julian II" is unknowned. As for the analogy...well Constantine I , was called Constantine in his time, and it is a practice of calling a dinastic ruler "the first" after his death, as for Julian the Apostate...well he was called "the Apostate" even when he was alive(Saint Basil of Caesarea wrote "Ten words agains Julian the Apostate" and Saint Gregory the Theologian wrote "Invectives to Julian the Apostate"). AdrianCo (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
It's only been two weeks since the last discussion on this. No need to bring it up again so soon, consensus can't have changed much, if at all, in a fortnight. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
This is basically going to continue changing until the obvious issue here is solved - we need a neutral name here. It's obvious there was strong opposition during the last vote. It's the same issue with "the great" and "the terrible". Eventually it will be changed. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
If you would have watched the last vote`s archive you would have seen a link to a Wikipedia policy(WP:NAME and evenWP:NCNT) that states that concerated names can be used, and by the way."Apostate" is not as much an insult as it is a clear reflexion of this persons`s actions!. AdrianCo (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The meaning of the name is quite obvious and serving a very obvious agenda from a particular point of view, that's the problem and why it's causing so much of an issue. The bold is most unnecessary. It's a simple solution to just use his actual name - the name Julian would have used to refer to himself. I am pretty confident that this will eventually become policy. However, in the mean time, I guess we'll just go round and round about it. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
If there was strong opposition, the page would have been moved. It was split fairly evenly between support and opposition. Carl.bunderson (talk) 00:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
From my knowledge there were non one-man-made policies Bloodofox....ok, maybe only by Jimbo, but it is not the case here. AdrianCo (talk) 02:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It's nice to see some recognition that the naming policy requires the page to remain at this name. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

There were atleast a couple people whose voices were silenced by the abrupt cut off on the survey. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

A week was ample time for it be open. It's not practical to let these things run-on indefinitely. Someone will always be cut off, that's the nature of the beast. Carl.bunderson (talk) 01:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Flavius Claudius Julianus is his name "...the Apostate" is a perjorative title labled on him by christians, this is the point, it should be moved to the more appropriate Flavius Claudius Julianus. Terrasidius (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh boy....well there were two issues: a) many of us think that it is not a pejorative title, mearly an state of fact b) there is a wikipedia policy on famous roman persons, and Julian is included. But we disscused this allready and had a vote, so either bring something new to the table or at least make a point by trying to convince us in another way, cos` the current arugments just don`t stand. AdrianCo (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Could we, like, agree not to revisit this issue for a few months, since this has been discussed again and again and there's never been consensus for a move? In the meantime, perhaps everyone can read WP:NAME, and the people who want to move the page to his real name can take a look at Caligula. Not to mention every other Roman emperor. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, "Caligula" is entitled "Caligula", so "Julian" should be titled "Julian". I notice that "William I of England" isn't titled "William the Bastard", although I have seen loyal Brits use that term. It is mentioned in the intro. The article on Roman Emperors that you asked us to read argues only of family names versus common names, not of epithets. But Christian bias trumps factuality, consistency, and neutrality, and that is why you rarely see me here anymore. Make it "Julian" and mention the definitely-pejorative epithet "The Apostate" in the intro. He was called that by his enemies. Or else, change every bio on WP to be titled the name given by their enemies. When I see "Hillary the Bitch", then "Julian the Apostate" might fly. In the meantime, you guys do what you want, but drop this "NPOV" pretense. Unimaginative Username (talk) 09:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
For the record, agreed. This ridiculous situation reeks of bias. :bloodofox: (talk) 09:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Both your comments appear borderline disruptive, expecialy parts such as "the definitely-pejorative epithet" when we don`t have a consensus that it is pejorative or not! As for the name, "Julian the Apostate" and the analogy with William I: William is called "the Conqueror" as often as he is callen "the First"; while Julian is called "the Apostate" when refered to him by more then 1500 years! The fact that he was called so by his enemies is irelevant as our argument is that he is much more often called by his "Julian the Apostate" name, then he is by his full/real name! It`s not the case at William I...I hope you two take a brake!At least a break! If you realy think you have more arguments then these then be my guest...but please...at least after a few months as we already voted on it and have many reasons to let the name stay. Oh and please...spear us from "Christian bias" expresions... AdrianCo (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with AdrianCo's post, especially the last sentence. Unless Bloodofox wants to argue that the Oxford Classical Dictionary (and the Neue Pauly, too) is motivated by Christian bias. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Pointing out the obvious on an article's talk page hardly equates to "disruption" and I would advise you to use your words a little more carefully. Further, I would, again, argue that it is very plain to see the obvious Christian bias in the Apostate moniker - it's a historical bias and most obviously not neutral from any stand point, despite the popularity of its usage. I suggest you get used to it since, as numerous editors here have pointed out, it sticks out like a sore thumb. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Akhilleus, about that Oxford Dictionary, let`s say that I usualy do not like to take it as a source as ...well...it has proven to be problematic, however that does not mean that it is not a good source in this case, as it is based on, let`s say....all books(well this is maybe OR but still the vast majority) on Julian the Apostate from the last 1500 and even you bloodofox appear to accept it`s popularity. And this popularity is our main argument regardless of it`s origins. As for "the Apostate" being an insult, it looks preaty clear to me that you have your own viewpoint on the subject, and that the majority in here opposes your view point so none of us can change each others mind. I would also like to point out that nicknames(not monikers, monikers are given by one to himself!) back then, in general rethoric was much more brutal, and this practice continued in the middle ages(Unimaginative Username gives us great exemples in this sense), and it would make no sense to name one "the Apostate", when less-pagan emperors such as the Isaurians(much later though) were being called "trash-lovers" etc...I know this is personal OR but it`s an argument that should give you a sense of idea of the late-ancient rethoric and naming. So, as Germanicus won his name by great skill in combat Julian did so by his great rejection of Christianity. It`s that simple. Every body is entitled to his one viewpoint, but this conversation is going no were. So as stated above! We were informend on your position, and would like to here more! That is, not the same thing over and over again, but something new that can back up your claims! And we would also like it a in at least a few weaks, as the current strow-poll is still to fresh to be contested in an efficient maner. AdrianCo (talk) 18:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough for me but I advise you not to bite those that come around with the same argument, as you're going to be encountering it numerous times. Besides, the "majority" you refer to was extremely slim and had it been left open a little longer it seems we'd have been at least even in terms of votes, for whatever that's worth. (Regarding "moniker", despite what the Wikipedia article says, I am pretty sure the term can also refer to any sort of nickname and even a professional title but this is rather beside the point..) :bloodofox: (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Boccaccio Illustration

This is not relevant to Julian. Although the illustration is certainly labelled (in the original) as being of "Julyan", none of the classical sources that I'm aware of state that Julian's corpse was flayed or exhibited in such a way. However, the corpse of Valerian (emperor 253-260) was so treated. According to the sources, it was flayed and the skin dyed vermillion and displayed at a Persian temple. The illustration thus seems to depict Valerian, not Julian (regardless of its description, obviously not Boccacchio's own as it's in old English) and should be removed to the article on Valerian. 82.44.82.167 (talk) 01:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Probably an anachronism on the part of the medieval transcriber? The image should be removed unless we want to show the hatred of some christians against Julian (but I would prefer text over images any day). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dipa1965 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

As there are no complaints, I've taken the illustration - of Valerian - out. 82.44.82.167 (talk) 23:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I renserted it. It does not say he was killed like that, it says someone depicted him in that way. Think about this: on the same basis you should remove the Coptic icon too, as for sure Julian was not killed by Saint Mercurius. --Sjappé (talk) 21:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but as there is a Christian tradition - admittedly tenuous but there nonetheless - that Julian was killed by Mercurius. Keeping that illustration in the article is somewhat justified. There is no tradition - Christian or otherwise - in any source that Julian was skinned. The picture is just labelled incorrectly and refers to Valerian: I've given the reasons above. To keep it in merely perpetuates a labelling error. Perpetuating a preexisting tradition - as with the Mercurius illustration - is not the same thing.82.44.82.167 (talk) 13:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a manuscript depicting a skinned man a the name "Julyan" under it: the text under the image says nothing about any Christian tradition, but merely that the image is a depiction of Julian in a given manuscript, where is the problem with it? --Sjappé (talk) 22:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

To reiterate: The manuscript is wrong. Valerian was flayed. Julian was not. Nor is there any variant tradition that he was. Pretty though it is, the illustration is merely a mislabelled Valerian. Nothing more. To retain it in an **encyclopaedia** article on Julian gives the impression that either A) Julian suffered this fate (he did not), or B) That there is a tradition that Julian suffered this fate (there is none). The error of one ignorant English translator of Boccaccio is not to be perpetuated - indeed, perpetuated without question - in an educational article. 82.44.82.167 (talk) 10:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Even if it were wrong, the manuscript is a primary source and should be respected. I do not see a good reason to remove it. Please, bear with it. --Sjappé (talk) 20:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

First. I fail to see how by any stretch of the imagination a medieval English translation of a 14th century Italian document can be considered a primary historical source for events that occured a millenium beforehand and a thousand miles away. What exactly is your definition of a primary historical source? Nor indeed should the errors of individual translators be repected or perpetuated. That is not the way an encyclopaedia article is written. Second. Alternatives: 1) Why do you believe that this illustration depicts Emperor Julian anyway and not some other Julian? 2) It may depict the remains of Basil of Ancyra, flayed by Julian in 362. If this is so the whole label (not all of which is visible) may read something like "Julyan killed Basil" or "Basil, martyred by Julyan". Either way there's nothing to support your conclusion that the illustration is of Emperor Julian apart from your own calculations. 82.44.82.167 (talk) 22:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ignore the second point. All the manuscript text says is "the skyn of Julyan". Regardless, there's still nothing to link the illustration with the death of Julian - who wasn't flayed!82.44.82.167 (talk) 22:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You say "I fail to see how by any stretch of the imagination a medieval English translation of a 14th century Italian document can be considered a primary historical source for events that occured a millenium beforehand and a thousand miles away.", but I never said anything like that. What I am saying is that we have an image representing an actual 14th century mauscript: is it right? The same holds for the picture by Edward Armitage (1875) and the icon of Saint Mercurius. All of them are primary sources, as they testify how Julian was seen in the period they were produced by those who produced them. What is so wrong in this that you want to olbiterate such a small image? --Sjappé (talk) 23:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I fail to see the importance of such a small image with a transcribing/translation error. It would be slightly better to correct the legend in order to note the error but, again, I don't think it is worth the effort. It seems to me that this illustrations is embedded here for the sake of having just one more image in the article. Btw, discussing the issue here first is better than reverting each other and justifying it later (per Wikipedia etiquette). Dipa1965 (talk) 05:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Who says it is a transcribing/translation error? This is a deduction by someone who wantsto remove the image. On the other side, it is an actual mauscript, not a fake, hosted by the British Library, which does not say "this is an error", but "this is Julian's skin from a manuscript". --Sjappé (talk) 20:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

To quote your own words: "The manuscript is a primary source and should be respected". Do you even know what a primary source is? NONE of the illustrations you allude to are historiographic primary sources for Julian's life. I quote wikipedias own definition: "In historiography, it is a document, recording or other source of information that was created at roughly the time being studied, by an authoritative source, usually one with direct personal knowledge of the events being described." Hence my rebuttal that by no stretch of the imagination can an illustration produced in the Middles Ages be considered a primary source for events that occured 1000 years before. I've addressed the reason for retaining the Mercurius illustration. When it was produced there is a pre-exiting Christian tradition - wrong though it was/is - that Julian was killed in battle not by Persians but by Mercurius. Thus there is validity in keeping this picture as it illustrates this tradition. The Mercurius tradition is addressed in the picture's legend. There is no tradition - Christian or otherwise - that Julian was flayed. The Boccaccio piece thus illustrates nothing more than the fact that a single person - Boccaccio or a translator or a transcriber - got their Roman emperors mixed up. It's the same reason why the famous Louvre statue - long thought to be Julian but now reidentified as a Hadrianic priest - no longer appears on this page. Though identified as Julian, it isn't him. Nor does the Boccacchio illustration add anything to what's in the text, where no reference is made to Julian being flayed (that would be because he wasn't). No does the legend warn that the picture is wrong. As it stands anyone coming to this article looking for information on Julian will read how he was killed in battle against the Persians, look at the illustration of "the skyn of Julyan", and naturally assume that this was the ultimate fate suffered by his corpse. Leading people to make such incorrect assumptions with misleading illustrations is not the job of any encyclopaedia article. 82.44.82.167 (talk) 11:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

And the concensus currently stands at 2:1! 8o)82.44.82.167 (talk) 11:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

"Do you even know what a primary source is?" Yes, I know
"NONE of the illustrations you allude to are historiographic primary sources for Julian's life." Never said that.
"no stretch of the imagination can an illustration produced in the Middles Ages be considered a primary source for events that occured 1000 years before." I completely agree with you.
"Thus there is validity in keeping this picture (the Mercurius' one) as it illustrates this tradition. [...] It's the same reason why the famous Louvre statue - long thought to be Julian but now reidentified as a Hadrianic priest - no longer appears on this page. Though identified as Julian, it isn't him." There is a work of fiction contained in a 14th century manuscript that claims that is Julian; we might know he was not skinned at all, but it is true that (at least) a manuscript drawer of the 14th century believed it. The example of the priest staute is completely out of argument: the sculptor knew it was a priest, we made a mistake; on the other side, the 14th century drawer made a mistake, as the icon painter did the mistake, as Edward Armitage did the "mistake" (that is not a picture of Julian). Yet you do not apply the same principle to all the images, why? I think it would be better to explain Julian was not skinned in the text of the image, as it would be nice to say that Mercurius' story is a myth, but I think removing the image on the basis of its "inerent error" is wrong.--Sjappé (talk) 20:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

First. You stated that the manuscript was a primary source. That's why I quoted your own words. Second. No I do not apply the same criteria to all the images. Armitage's painting does not veer from the historiographic sources; it's inclusion is thus valid. The Mercurius illustration does not veer from the Christian tradition; it's inclusion is thus valid. The Boccaccio illustration is at variance with everything we know about Julian's death and it should not be included, especially when there is no indication in the article that Boccaccio has made an error in mixing up his Roman emperors. Third. By you own arguement **anything** is liable to be included in **any** wikipedia article by just saying "well, so-and-so represented so-and-so thus, therefore we should include it". I ask you: What exactly would be wrong with me inserting a crayon drawing of Julian being killed while crossing the road? By your own argument I mistakenly understand Julian's death is just as valid as how Boccacio mistakenly understood him: "well, it's how one 21st century person believed it to be". By saying it's 14th century won't cut it either: this far after the event, a 1700 year remove is just as bad as a 1000 year one. Fourth: How do you know this is Julian the Apostate? The concensus still isn't with you. 82.44.82.167 (talk) 23:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

  1. I never said it was a primary source for Julian's life. This is your misunderstanding.
  2. Boccaccio illustration is the original contribution of (at least) a 14th century drawer. And, in this, is not different from Armitage's painting nor from the icon.
  3. Wrong interpretation. The manuscript is a 14th century depiction of what a 14th century drawer (at least) thought about Julian. If the crayon drawing of Julian being killed while crossing the road would be enciclopedic if drawn by Michelangelo, for example, as it would be his (wrong) POV of Julian, as we show the (wrong) POV by Armitage and the wrong POV by the icon drawer.
  4. The identification was made by those who own the manuscript and published the image, the British Library (did you even read the image description, before pontificating?)
We got a single opinion, can you be satisfied with that? --Sjappé (talk) 11:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

First. 8 May 2008, 2038h: "Even if it were wrong, the manuscript is a primary source and should be respected." Please explain how I've misinterpreted your statement. Being a translation, it's not even a primary source for Boccaccio. Second. Again you fail to understand the difference between modern interpretations which keep to a historical source (Armitage) or traditional sources (Mercurius). Boccaccio's keeps to neither. It is not interpretation - there is nothing in the sources to indicated he was flayed. Nor is following a pre-existing tradition. If there was an antique source or tradition that Julian was flayed there would be no arguement. There isn't. Boccaccio, or a follower simply mistook Julian for Valerian (Boccaccio also wrote on Valerian's death. This would explain the mix-up of emperors by an English illustrator). The illustration CANNOT be an interpretation - as there is nothing to interpret from. It is thus invention or error. Repeatedly falling back on the same argument that the image is 14th century doesn't cut it. Antiquity does not equate with validity. Nor are all sources to be given equal validity. That's not how history is done. Would a medieval image of Diocletian crossing the Rubicon be fit to have in an encyclopaedia? Of course not, it would be an obvious (though interesting) mistake by one source. Are the Roman plays of Shakespeare and Jonson valid historical documents for the events surrounding Caesar, Antony and Cleopatra, Coriolanus, and Sejanus? No, because though based on classical sources they include elements that are complete fiction. However, if the image must stay by all means transfer it to the Valerian site (as long as you explain the mistaken legend). The consensus is still against you.82.44.82.167 (talk) 12:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

  1. "Even if it were wrong, the manuscript is a primary source and should be respected." Did I say "ia a primary source for Julian's life"? No, so you misinterpreted (how far this will go?)
  2. Again you don't understand my point. Is the manuscript a fake? No. Is the picture showing Julian? Yes. So let's incude it. To answer your question "Would a medieval image of Diocletian crossing the Rubicon be fit to have in an encyclopaedia?" Of course yes, it would be nice and informative to know that a medioeval picture drawer, for some reason, made this mistake, but believed (this is the point) that that was Julian. To take another example, it is good to remove the priest statue tought to be Julian, it would be much better to put it back and actually write that it was tought to be Julian but now it is considered to be a priest.
"However, if the image must stay by all means transfer it to the Valerian site (as long as you explain the mistaken legend)." No! The manuscript included that picture to show Julian, not Diocletian, so this is the correct place.
--Sjappé (talk) 17:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you'll never make a historian. Uncritically assigning equal weight to all evidence is a schoolboy error. Upon seeing a picture labelled as Diocletian crossing the Rubicon, Alexander the Great fighting at Thermopylae, or Antony winning the Battle of Actium, most sensible observers would see them as curious blunders of the historically inept. Nothing more. You'd consider them some viable variant of the truth, despite the overwhelming evidence of more reliable sources and the lack of supporting sources. They'd become important documents for nothing more than the fact that **one** person depicted them in that way. The conclusion that an unintentioned mistake had been made would not enter your mind. Thus the error of a lone illustrator is let to pass without criticism. Indeed, it becomes a "primary source" for how Julian was perceived in medieval England (see below). If you wish I'll be happy to edit the legend of the "Julian" illustration to reflect this. Or, seeing that the score is still 2-1 in favour of getting rid of it, so it may have to go regardless... As an aside, the illustration comes from a manuscript of John Lydgate's "The Fall of Princes" (15th century), which itself is an English translation of Boccaccio's "De Casibus Virorum Illustribus" from a century earlier. It's current legend as "The Fall of Princes" by Boccaccio is thus wrong anyway. 82.44.82.167 (talk) 16:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Imho, the image should go but your edit of the legend is an acceptable compromise. Though I would prefer it a a bit shorter, e.g. "Illustration from John Lydgate's translation of De Casibus Virorum Illustribus (by Giovanni Boccaccio) depicting "the skyn of Julyan". The illustrator may have confused the fate of Julian's body with that of emperor Valerian". Dipa1965 (talk) 19:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

"Eastern" Roman Emperor

Julian was the emperor of a united empire. To the person who keeps reverting the page to read "Eastern Roman Emperor", please stop.82.44.82.167 (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

"Eastern Roman Emperor" is a common term when refering to the ruler of the Roman Empire after 330.(for more info see Byzantine Empire) AdrianCo (talk) 11:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that a reference to another wikipedia article isn't a very strong argument. Roman Empire was entirely unified in the days of the Constantinian dynasty (with an exception for the first years of Constantius reign) so 'Easter Roman emperor' sounds a little absurd in that case. Add to this that Julian's career started in the West. The location of the capital isn't that important, since from Dicletian's days it was already away of Rome. What do the rest of you think? Dipa1965 (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

My stand is clear and I agree with the above contributor. During the period 324-364 (i.e. from the final victory of Constantine I to the accession of Valens and Valentinian I - which, incidentally, marks the actual commencement of what might be called the "Eastern Roman Empire" (not 330)), while Caesares may have held "west"/"east" appointments, Augusti did not. Augusti were, as with the vast majority of the period 27 BC-286, in sole charge. The current reading implies that Julian, as Augustus, ruled over ONLY the eastern half of the empire. Who ruled over the west? errr, Julian! Indeed, Julian was proclaimed in the west. Of course, feel free to edit to make the introduction read "Western Roman Emperor 361-363, and Eastern Roman Emperor 361-363", but I think it's far more sensible to call him just "Roman Emperor" because that's what he was! 8o) 82.44.82.167 (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with Adrian; he was a Byzantine emperor and a Roman Emperor. Tourskin (talk) 04:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Your condescension ("for anyone that does not know that it exists...") does you no credit, especially considering the fact that your talking to a Roman History PhD candidate. Cheers! Calling Julian "also Byzantine emperor" is as inaccurate as calling him an "Eastern Roman Emperor". Granted, Constantine I re-founded Byzantium as capital in the east, but the division of the governence of the empire (by Augusti) into east and west did not occur until a year after Julian's death. Julian could not have been the emperor of an empire that did not exist during his lifetime. 82.44.82.167 (talk) 12:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, my humble opinion is that we don't need another edit war (it's really going to be like that) just for a minor matter of semantics. Can we agree that "Byzantine" is an rather outdated and misleading term, particularly when we are talking about the unified Late Roman Empire? Is it SO important that the capital had been moved away of Rome? Is Diocletian a Byzantine emperor because he was based at Nicomedia? (not to mention other "Byzantine" qualities of his, like the autocratic behaviour, usage of precious clothing and paraphernalia etc) Does Byzantine betrays something important for the personality and the policies of Julian? There are already quite a few scholars who are unhappy with the term "Byzantine" even for later periods (e.g. J. Haldon in his Byzantine Wars uses it only in the title, while in the body he always prefers "Roman" or "Eastern Roman"). Let's concentrate on improving the body of the article. Dipa1965 (talk) 18:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you have all moved on but I think Julian II is more appropriate then "the apostate." Numbering of monarchs/emperors is commonplace, as is referring to them by nickname(those that have a well known one) but "the apostate" is full of religous sentiment and has a pejorative connotation. I understand early Christian sources used this term, and its worth noting in the article, but I think Julian II would be more appropraite in this instance. Odin1 (talk) 05:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Already discussed, aproved, and as bloodfox acknoledged...If you want to make a point, try againg after a few months and gather more(new!) info. AdrianCo (talk) 11:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It is entirely out of context (because it referes to Theodosius reign) and I would have removed it but the whole article is still a mess so such a minor editing wouldn't help much. Not to mention another annoyance: after the recent anonymous editing of the birth date, we have 331 in the lead and 330 in the body of the article! Dipa1965 (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Julian_(emperor)/Archive_2&oldid=1077675114"