Jump to content

Talk:Julian (emperor)/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

The Iliad is divinely inspired scripture?

I guess I don't know much about classical paganism and never really wondered if they have an authoritative scripture– authoritative in the sense of the Bible for Christians in that it defines the religion and is the basis for opinions on doctrine and practice. And the Illiad page doesn't mention it.

Was the Illiad really considered by many at the time to be divinely inspired? To be scripture? If so, it deserves a reference.

I know it's a little thing. But it's an off-hand remark that seems to have some big implications. 64.61.220.89 (talk) 01:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Greg

Classical paganism had no authoritative scripture as such. Even Hesiod's Theogony, which you might call the equivalent of the Genesis, was by no means authoritative. However, the Iliad *was* divinely inspired, to the extent that the poet starts with the famous appeal to the Muse, asking her to sing to him about the wrath of Achilles. The poet presents his work quite explicitly as the fruit of divine inspiration. Of course, this appeal to the Muse was rather formulaic and common-place in epic poetry, and I am in no position to testify to what extent the Iliad would have been considered as a "divinely inspired" text. That is, I don't know to what extent Greeks and Romans of the 4th century AD would have taken the invocation at face value. Considering however the veneration the Greeks reserved for Homer, I don't find it impossible to believe that they (or at least some of them) trully did consider the text to be divinely inspired. I suppose the best way to go about it for now would be to indicate that a citation is needed for the comment. Druworos (talk) 22:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to point out that Hesiod also invokes the Muses, and records their reply to him? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Not at all. Were you to ask me if Hesiod's text is divinely inspired, I'd have answered pretty much the same. :P Like I said, it is not at all certain all, or even most, pagans of the 4th century AD would take the invocation at face value, and the text was by no means authoritative in the sense that the Septuagint is to Christians, for instance. However, it is hardly unimaginanible that at least some pagans, the more pious ones shall we say, would truly consider the text divinely inspired, as claimed by its author(s) (whoever s/he(they) was(were)). Druworos (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Hesiod also tells us that the Muses said: "we know how to tell many lies that sound like truth, / but we know to sing true things, when we wish." For some people, this means that Hesiod has presented us with the possibility that his poetry is a pack of lies--a bit different than what we think a "divinely inspired" text might be. Obviously he is divinely inspired, or at least he says so--but this might have meant something quite different to an ancient audience than it does to us. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. Druworos (talk) 15:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Nice to see we agree on something! --Akhilleus (talk) 16:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 11 March 2009

The following is a closed 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 consensus. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 02:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


Julian the Apostate → Flavius Claudius Julianus — His name is not Mr. Apostate, Apostate is an extreme and offensive POV, its factual accuracy is disputed, Jewish writers call him 'Julian the Hellene', as per WP:PBUH honourifics etc. violate wikipedia's neutrality policy, as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) name stylings should not be used, as per Wikipedia:Naming conflict wikipedians should not seek to determine who is "right" or "wrong" nor to attempt to impose a particular name for POV reasons, and where articles have descriptive names, the given name must be neutrally worded and must not carry POV implications — Clinkophonist (talk) 00:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Survey

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.
This is not an argument at all. If someone searches for "Julian the Apostate" they can be simply forwarded to his right name. -- spincontrol 22:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
This is no argument either: we could rename Julian as "Batman" on the same logic. Articles should reflect the real English usage. Roger Pearse (talk) 12:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
You can call him Batman if you are perverse enough. It won't change the fact that "Julian the Apostate" can redirect to "Flavius Claudius Julianus", so insisting on calling the page "Julian the Apostate" because it reflects "the real English usage" is not a functional criterion for naming the article about Julian. Generally the scholarly approach is to use neutral language. Be scholarly for once. -- spincontrol 14:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Most commonly-used in what? Christian writers call him 'Julian the apostate', but the most commonly-used name in Jewish works is 'Julian the Hellene', in modern academic works, its just 'Julian'. You are being selective about the sources you are looking at. Clinkophonist (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Reliable secondary sources on late antique history. (For example, Bowersock's book; have you any reason to know his personal faith?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
"Apostate" is not a name, never has been, never will be. It is of a similar level of wrongheadedness as "da Vinci" being a name. -- spincontrol 22:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Agreeing with the above, and I fail to see why "the Apostate" is "extreme and offensive", except if we imply that changing one's religion is offensive, which I hope no one does. It serves as a distinguishing moniker just fine, and all people who could possibly be offended have been quite dead for about sixteen centuries. Varana (talk) 13:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
So putting Jesus and Muhammed under Jesus the apostate and Muhammed the apostate would be fine then? Jesus for his apostasy from Judaism, and Muhammed for his apostasy from Arabian polytheism. Because I think you'll find that a large number of people would regard that extremely offensive. Clinkophonist (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
confessor means 'regarded as a saint by the Roman Catholic church, but not otherwise categorised', as opposed to 'martyr' etc. That's quite a neutral title really. King Charles the Martyr on the other hand isn't allowed to be the title of the Charles I of England article, precisely because its a biased view. Clinkophonist (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
No, the reason we don't use Charles the Martyr is that (unlike, say, Edmund the Martyr) it is minority usage; there are historical reasons for this, but it is the usage that matters. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support though I have little hope of success in the matter. While the epithet *is* both offensive and inaccurate, I realise this is not enough to facilitate a move. However, I do believe that as per the naming conventions, he should be moved for thoroughly different reasons to Flavius Claudius Julianus, or Julian II, or Julian (emperor, 355-360), or some such alternative. Of course, I have little hope of these solid arguments being accepted, and therefore, little desire to repeat them in full, so do take a look at the previous proposals. Druworos (talk) 18:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Incidentally, as noted in the previous discussion, Julian is at least as often referred to as Julian as he is as Julian the Apostate, as evidenced by Google results, thereby, the "common usage" argument hardly applies. Druworos (talk) 18:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Julian was the last move request, two sections above. I would support it myself, but the argument that it is ambiguous (and not the overwhelmingly common meaning of Julian that would be WP:PRIMARYUSAGE) has much cogency. If it is not adopted, we must disambiguate it, and this is the English disambiguator. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Having read the current and prior discussions, I see no reason to move away from the most commonly used name, which is the current article title. Indeed, the naming conventions for Romans requires using the most commonly used name, which the alternative proposed is not. (It might rank third at best.) If we instead applied the general naming conventions for sovereigns, which are explicitly not to be used for Romans, then he would be either Julian the Apostate or Julian of Rome - a name by which he does not go, so the answer again would be Julian the Apostate. The article is at the correct name, and there is no reason to believe that the correct name will change in the next century. GRBerry 20:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. To suggest that we drop the name 'Julian the Apostate' is radical. He has been called this even by contemporaries under the name Julianus Apostata. This would be much like suggesting that we change Claudius Gothicus (English, Gothic Claudius), because he is not, necessarily, 'Mr. Goth'; or that we drop the 'Pius' in Antoninus Pius because Hadrian isn't truly a God (he achieved his name through pressing the senate to deify Hadrian). It sounds quite foolish to even call POV into question. One has to consider Christian apostasy in a post-Constantinian Empire and the implications of such an apostasy -- it signalled an abandonment of Constantinian values.--Ambrosiaster (talk) 07:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. It may have been intended as a term of abuse but apostasy has no such connotation today. It flags up what was most important about him and for that reason, not habit, he continues to be so known.Dejvid (talk) 08:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose: if "the Apostate" is a non-NPOV, it is a very old non-NPOV, and people have likely been calling him that, or its equivalent in other languages, for centuries. The old Roman polytheistic religion (and its supporters) has been extinct for well over a thousand years. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
    You've obviously never heard of Nova Roma and, in relation, Hellenic Polytheistic Reconstructionism. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
    He may not have heard of Gemisthus Pletho, either. So what? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
    So "the old Roman polytheistic religion (and its supports) has been extinct for well over a thousand years" is obviously a very simplifying and pointless statement to say the least. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
    That's silly. The old Roman polytheistic religion and its supporters are long gone. Some moderns may have created (or "revived") a religion that is inspired by features of classical Roman religion, but it's not as if the temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus has been operating all this time, or the altar of Victory still stands in the Roman Senate...still less that the Imperial cult has been continued for the last thousand years. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
This is hardly the place to point out what does and what does not constitute reconstruction. Suffice to say that modern Roman polytheists do exist with a focus on reconstruction. Dismissing the religion as dead and gone is obviously quite arguable. The old adherents may be gone, but reconstructionists obviously exist. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The name of the article should reflect the most common used name in the literature to avoid confusion. His proper name is given in the first line of the text. --5telios (talk) 11:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support: The man's name was Flavius Claudius Julianus, not Julian the Apostate. Calling him "apostate" was plainly an act of disrespect by supporters of his successors, for apostacy was the greatest crime against Christianity and concerning a village of supposed apostates during the Albigensian Crusade a leader said: "Kill them all. God will know his own." Apostacy was not a well-liked status. Besides, Julian was never a Christian in any meaningful sense, so to call him an apostate is incorrect. Calling Julian "apostate" would be as reasonable as calling Dick Cheney "altruistic". And there is no problem at all in finding the article about Julian, for the people who use the inappropriate title for Julian, one can simply look for "Julian the apostate" and be redirected to Flavius Claudius Julianus. -- spincontrol 22:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Do you understand why he is called Julian the Apostate? Not merely because he himself was an apostate, but he allowed for freedom of religion in a post-Constantinian Empire, the foundations of which were Christians values. He was thereby telling the Romans that they could, not only abandon Christianity if they wished, but also, Constantinian values. His name has a great deal of significance. It isn't merely an effrontery to his person. For he was the only Roman Emperor of that period to pronounce such a decree. --Ambrosiaster (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I know his history quite well. The claims of apostacy are simply inappropriate. I'm glad you feel defensive about the snarky epithet. Wiki should be neutral. -- spincontrol 01:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
It isn't a snarky epithet but, rather, a useful one. For it summarises his most notable action. If you believe that wikipedia should be neutral, then you also must argue that the name of Antoninus Pius should be changed; insofar as one may disagree that he was, indeed, a pious man. You only find it 'snarky' because Christianity still has some precedence in the modern world. Had Christianity not existed, you would more than likely not be debating the isssue. --Ambrosiaster (talk) 02:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
As spin has pointed out, the mere fact that you're arguing with passion instead of references, is proof positive of subjectivity; and the only way to eliminate subjectivity in this case, is to stick with what is mundane and indisputable. His name was Flavius Claudius Julianus. 58.171.154.230 (talk) 02:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
What need is there for proof when we have pretext? Do you not believe that, if this be the case, he must not also debate for the nullification of the epithet 'Pious' in Antoninus Pius? You have seemingly ignored that instance. The reason why Antoninus Pious is not being attacked with such voracity is because the pagan religion is dead, and, therefore, there is little bias concerning it. ¶ It should also be noted that this a historical matter, not a scientific one; and that the epithets used are used for a singular purpose. It reflects the habits of the age, and the deeds of the man in question. (NB : Gibbon never refers to him as 'Flavius Claudius Julianus'.)--Ambrosiaster (talk) 03:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Umm, gee, this is complex. Well, let's see. Did Julian ever have himself called, ahhh, "apostate"?? Gosh! -- spincontrol 09:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support: The man's name was Flavius Claudius Julianus, and the historical assertion that he was in fact a christian apostate is not substantiated by Emperor Julian's own writings, but is an after-the-fact name applied by his orthodox christian detractors after his death. Julian actually legislated c.360 CE that the legal name of the "christians" be known throughout the empire as the "Galilaeans", and such was the Roman law for the years 360 to 363 CE. Julian does not describe himself as an apostate, and in fact describes himself as a representative of the traditional Hellenistic religion(s). The google states show .... 71,400 for "julian the apostate" and 62,600 for "emperor julian". Emperor Julian IMO is preferable, being just as common according to these stats as "julian the apostate". The question of apostacy might be addressed within the article, but should not be assumed as "Emperor Julian's" title. The term "apostate" is a christian nick-name, which in fact is probably not historically accurate. Flavius Claudius Julianus did have other nicknames, such as Bull Burner, and these, too, for those who wish to explore nicknames, can be discussed within the article on Emperor Julian.
  • Oppose: Surely people should not be listed under names by which no-one would recognise them!? They need to appear under the name which they appear under in the great mass of English literature, even if that is not in some sense correct. Any number of people were known as Flavius Claudius Julianus (although, since he wrote in Greek, shouldn't this be Phlavios Klaudios Iulianos?) There's an academic conference this year about him, called "Emperor and author: the writings of Julian the Apostate". If it's what the specialists use, why are we trying to change it. I'm slightly nervous that perhaps the real objection of some people to using the term "the apostate" is religious hostility to Christianity. That's their business, but that's not a good reason to mess around with a naming convention in 500 years of English writing, surely? As for a 'redirect'; well, I feel that redirects should not be used in order to facilitate renaming exercises, but to help people find them. Just my thoughts. Roger Pearse (talk) 12:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Of the first twenty hits on JStor specifically relating to the Emperor Julian, using a basic search for "Julian" and eliminating references to matters relating to Julius Caesar and successors, only four referred to Julian the Apostate in the title rather than "Julian" or the "Emperor Julian", while another used "Julian the Apostate" in the body of the article. That's actually a better reflection of what real specialists use. -- spincontrol 13:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Tentatively oppose. The scholarly works I read a few+ years ago while in college referred to him as Julian the Apostate. I can check to see if that's still the case. I suspect that it is, as all of the academic works I used two years ago while researching Julian's schoolmate, Gregory Nazianzus, were still using the term "apostate". Majoreditor (talk) 00:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

I'm going to note this request at the Classical Greece and Rome Wikiproject. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

"Apostate is an extreme and offensive POV" to whom? Julian and his co-religionists? Should unsupported POV arguments trump 1500 years of usage and override WP:UCN? I would be more offended by Charles the Bald or James the Fat myself. — AjaxSmack 16:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

If you were labeled apostate at one time, I'm sure you would have preferred to be bald or fat than dead. For much of the past the label of apostacy meant social exclusion. -- spincontrol 22:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, death can really put a damper on your social life. Good thing this is all in the past. Haukur (talk) 07:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
The subtext included our society(-ies), and thus Christianity. -- spincontrol 17:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Although that was *not* the case in the time when Julian got his epithet, i.e. his own. Varana (talk) 23:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Obviously this will sound biased (and maybe it is) but perhaps this should be decided on merit rather than concensus? And perhaps the arguments brought by User talk:Doktorspin have the most merit? Just a thought to whichever admin deals with this request. Druworos (talk) 19:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Consensus usually comes out pretty even on this matter. This time seems a bit different as many of the usual "support" suspects are absent, but the reasoning behind many of these oppositions is pretty dubious ("anyone who could possibly be offended is long dead," "you just want it changed because you hate Christianity", "he totally WAS an apostate!"). Basically, until the obviously problematic "the apostate" (read "the traitor") element is dropped from the article name, this vote is going to be held over and over and over again. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Who decides what's dubious and what not? :) Varana (talk) 23:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Is that a threat, or a promise? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Uh, I'd say it's pointing out the obvious. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Meanwhile, you can entertain yourself at Talk:Antoninus Pius by suggesting that the 'Pius' be dropped. Cheers. --Ambrosiaster (talk) 22:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Spare me the circular argument. We're discussing Julian here. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
And spare us the false analogy. -- spincontrol 22:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Of course. Anything that impedes your designs is irrelevant and false. I concede. --Ambrosiaster (talk) 01:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
The analogy is simply false. Antoninus accepted "Pius". It's dead, Jim. -- spincontrol 02:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Some google results:

Search Hits
"Lyndon B Johnson" 1,210,000
"Lyndon Baines Johnson" 1,410,000
"Lyndon Johnson" 1,300,000
"LBJ" 2,550,000

Hmm, should we lobby to change the name of the Wiki article presently called "Lyndon B. Johnson" to "LBJ"?

Search Hits
"Ted Kaczynski" 148,000
"Theodore Kaczynski" 148,000
"Unabomber" 567,000

But strangely "(The) Unabomber" redirects to Theodore Kaczynski. Surely it should be the other way around, shouldn't it? People have been arguing that we have to be dictated to by mere popularity. -- spincontrol 22:40, 16 March 2009 (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.

I would like it if someone tells me the next time someone tries to move the page. I have twice tried to get it moved and failed. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on the proposed move 11 March 2009 (part 2)

So that people can know what the situation is in scholarly literature, here are all the articles referring to the emperor Julian in the title in the first 50 hits on the name "Julian" at JStor, searching classics:

Extended content
1. The Emperor Julian and the Schools The Emperor Julian and the Schools

by Glanville Downey

2. A Newly Discovered Portrait of the Emperor Julian A Newly Discovered Portrait of the Emperor Julian

by R. Jonas

3. Notes on the Caesars of Julian Notes on the Caesars of Julian

by Roger Pack

4. Did Julian the Apostate Rebuild the Parthenon? Did Julian the Apostate Rebuild the Parthenon?

by Alison Frantz

5. Julian and Libanius again Julian and Libanius again

by A. F. Norman

6. Aurelius Victor and Julian Aurelius Victor and Julian

by C. E. V. Nixon

7. A Law of Julian A Law of Julian

by T. D. Barnes

8. The Emperor Julian The Emperor Julian

by Walter Woodburn Hyde

9. Deification and Julian: I Deification and Julian: I

by Arthur Darby Nock

10. Notes on Julian Notes on Julian

by Arthur Platt

11. Emendations of Julian Misopogon

by Arthur Platt

12. Agathias and Cedrenus on Julian

by Averil M. Cameron

13. The Date of the Election of Julian

by Charles R. Morey

14. The Birth Date of Julian the Apostate The Birth Date of Julian the Apostate

by Frank D. Gilliard

15. Research on Julian the Apostate 1945-1964 Research on Julian the Apostate 1945-1964

by Walter Emil Kaegi, Jr.

16. The Corbridge Lanx and the Emperor Julian The Corbridge Lanx and the Emperor Julian

by Oliver Nicholson

17. The Early Life of Julian the Apostate The Early Life of Julian the Apostate

by Norman H. Baynes

18. Julian and the Men of Letters Julian and the Men of Letters

by Stebelton H. Nulle

19. The Itinerary of Alexander: Constantius to Julian

by R. J. Lane Fox

20. Julian on the Sons of Fausta Julian on the Sons of Fausta

by T. D. Barnes, J. Vander Spoel

21. Titus in Julian's Caesares

by J. F. Gilliam

22. Julian, Libanius, and Others: A Reply Julian, Libanius, and Others: A Reply

by Roger Pack

23. Julian's Knowledge of Latin

by E. A. Thompson

24. Notes on Julian's First Oration

by Arthur Platt

25. Emendation of Julian Oratio v 179C

by Paul Shorey

26. The Panegyric of Claudius Mamertinus on the Emperor Julian

by R. C. Blockley

27. The Advocacy of an Empress: Julian and Eusebia

by Shaun Tougher

28. Notes on Julian's Persian Expedition (363) Notes on Julian's Persian Expedition (363)

by R. T. Ridley

29. Notes on the Coinage of Julian the Apostate

by Frank D. Gilliard

30. A Metrical Quotation in Julian's Symposium

by Joel C. Relihan

31. The Death of Julian the Apostate in a Christian Legend

by Norman H. Baynes

32. Festus' Source on Julian's Persian Expedition

by R. C. Blockley

33. The Emperor Julian's Knowledge of Latin The Emperor Julian's Knowledge of Latin

by E. A. Thompson

34. Julian's Persian Expedition in Ammianus and Zosimus

by Charles W. Fornara

35. Empire and City, Augustus to Julian: Obligations, Excuses and Status

by Fergus Millar

36. Qeoi Qewn: An Iamblichean Doctrine in Julian's Against the Galilaeans

by John F. Finamore

37. Festive Satire: Julian's Misopogon and the New Year at Antioch Festive

by Maud W. Gleason

You'll notice that "Julian the Apostate" is not frequent. -- spincontrol 02:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Septentrionalis has twice mentioned G.W. Bowersock's popular work "Julian the Apostate". It should be noted that a search of Google scholar produces three works by Bowersock referring to Julian:

  • "The emperor Julian on his predecessors"
GW Bowersock - Yale Classical Studies, 1982
  • Fiction as history: Nero to Julian
GW Bowersock - 1995 - University of California press
  • "Julian and Hellenism: An Intellectual Biography"
GW Bowersock - The American Historical Review, 1983
(The last two are reviews of a books, but Bowersock never refers to Julian the Apostate in the reviews.)

It's notable that none of them refer to Julian as "Julian the Apostate".

It's very strange that the survey was closed after barely six days. -- spincontrol 02:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Look at the move request page, Spin. It's the standard amount of time for discussion on these issues. You may also want to look at the old attempts at doing this; they were all closed after roughly the same amount of time. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 03:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
The previous request was open for over two weeks. -- spincontrol 03:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

jstor results (a)

"it has been appropriately displayed that "the Apostate" is not at all common usage in scholarly research." This is false, and the searches above don't demonstrate anything other than the fact that a JSTOR search for "Julian" in classics journals turns up a number of results. If one searches JSTOR for Julian the Apostate, a fairly large number of articles come up. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The statistical distribution at JSTOR is dominated by lack of reference to the misnomer "Apostate" in the title (the dominant term is simply "Julian" or "Emperor Julian"), and the mention of the misnomer "Apostate" in the body of the articles. WIKI editors might think about emulating JSTOR editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.109.98 (talk) 00:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

If you're referring to the list above, it's probably good to note that "Apostate" pops up in that list of titles a few times. If you're going to go on about "statistical distribution", we need a search that finds articles about our emperor under the title "Julian" that doesn't include results for "Julian the Apostate". Until then, these results don't mean much. Moreover, JSTOR is not the only place one should look to determine what common usage is in English. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

To show that Julian the Apostate has a poor showing on JSTOR it provides a total of 510 hits from 31 classics journals, while a search for (((Julian) AND (Constantius)) NOT (Julian the Apostate)) provides 642 hits, which is obviously far fewer than the total number of articles about Julian on JSTOR, but I wanted to guarantee that no-one couldn't deny the figures so I did a conservative search. (((Julian) AND (Ammianus)) NOT (Julian the Apostate)) provides 759 hits. (((Julian) AND (Constantinople)) NOT (Julian the Apostate)) gets 741. Get the picture? There are actually 2847 references to "Julian" on JSTOR from ((((Julian) NOT (Julian the Apostate)) NOT (Julian dates)) NOT (Julian calendar)). Remove scholars whose names are Julian and basically the rest are our emperor.

31 peer reviewed scholarly journals in the area of classics on JSTOR and you would like to believe that JSTOR is not a good representation of what you call reputable secondary sources.

Your accusation of falseness, Akhilleus, is simply baseless. You are spreading disinformation. Please be more careful in the future. -- spincontrol 01:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I think Doktorspin has pretty thoroughly proven his point here. Is something like Julian (Roman emperor) on the table? Of course, logically we'd just use the man's name, but... :bloodofox: (talk) 02:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

jstor results (b)

Here I go, spreading baseless disinformation. Ok, so a JSTOR search for "Julian" NOT "Julian the Apostate" NOT "Julian dates" NOT "Julian calendar", limited to journals in classical studies, gets 2847 results. I'm going to guess that Dr. Spin hasn't read through all the results. Here's results 101-112 that I got when I did the same search, enclosed in a collapsible box so it doesn't take up too much room. (Please note the results were renumbered when I used JSTOR's export function.)

Extended content
1.
Title:
Author(s): Jonathan Edmondson
Source: Phoenix, Vol. 54, No. 3/4 (Autumn - Winter, 2000), pp. 373-377
Publisher(s): Classical Association of Canada
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1089079
2.
Title: Withdrawal: Five Verbs
Author(s): David Daube
Source: California Studies in Classical Antiquity, Vol. 7, (1974), pp. 93-112
Publisher(s): University of California Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25010665
3.
Title: The Roof of the Hephaisteion
Author(s): William B. Dinsmoor, Jr.
Source: American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 80, No. 3 (Summer, 1976), pp. 223-246
Publisher(s): Archaeological Institute of America
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/503036
4.
Title: The Foundation Day of Roman "Coloniae"
Author(s): Arthur M. Eckstein
Source: California Studies in Classical Antiquity, Vol. 12, (1979), pp. 85-97
Publisher(s): University of California Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25010742
5.
Title: The Emotions of Patriotism: Propertius 4.6
Author(s): W. R. Johnson
Source: California Studies in Classical Antiquity, Vol. 6, (1973), pp. 151-180
Publisher(s): University of California Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25010652
6.
Title: The Date of the Phaidros Bema in the Theater of Dionysos
Author(s): Alison Frantz
Source: Hesperia Supplements, Vol. 20, Studies in Athenian Architecture, Sculpture and Topography. Presented to Homer A. Thompson (1982), pp. 34-195
Publisher(s): American School of Classical Studies at Athens
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1353943
7.
Title: Septimius Severus and the Marriage of Soldiers
Author(s): Peter Garnsey
Source: California Studies in Classical Antiquity, Vol. 3, (1970), pp. 45-53
Publisher(s): University of California Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25010598
8.
Title: News Letter from Greece
Author(s): Miriam Ervin
Source: American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 72, No. 3 (Jul., 1968), pp. 265-278
Publisher(s): Archaeological Institute of America
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/503553
9.
Title: Aural/Oral Methods in First-Year Greek
Author(s): Julian G. Anderson
Source: The Classical Journal, Vol. 64, No. 2 (Nov., 1968), pp. 68-70
Publisher(s): The Classical Association of the Middle West and South, Inc.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3296143
10.
Title: Review: [untitled]
Author(s): G. D.
Reviewed Title(s): Die Schlange in der Griechischen Kunst und Religion | Das Lesbische Kymation | Theban Ostraca. Part I. Hieratic Texts | Theban Ostraca. Part II. Demotic Texts | Theban Ostraca. Part III. Greek Texts | Theban Ostraca. Part IV. Coptic Texts | Organisation Militaire de l'Égypte Byzantine | De Saltationibus Graecorum | The Loeb Classical Library | Sophocles | Euripides | The Greek Bucolic Poets | Apollonius Rhodius | Appian's Roman History | The Apostolic Fathers | Lucian | Philostratus, the Life of Apollonius of Tyana, etc. | Julian | Quintus Smyrnaeus, The Fall of Troy | Terence | Catullus, Tibullus and Pervigilium Veneris | Cicero's Letters to Atticus | Propertius | Petronius, Seneca Apocolocyntosis | St. Augustine's Confessions | Antigonos Gonatas | Musées Impériaux Ottomans: Catalogue des Sculptures Grecques, Romaines et Byzantines
Reviewed Authors(s): E. Küster | Carl Weickert | Alan H. Gardiner | Herbert Thompson | J. G. Milne | Herbert Thompson | Jean Maspero | Kurt Latte | T. E. Page; W. H. D. Rouse | F. Storr | A. S. Way | J. M. Edmonds | R. C. Seaton | Horace White | Kirsopp Lake | A. M. Harmon | F. C. Conybeare | W. C. Wright | A. S. Way | J. Sargeaunt | F. W. Cornish; J. P. Postgate; J. W. MacKail | Cicero; E. O. Winstedt | H. E. Butler | M. Heseltine; W. H. D. Rouse | W. Watts | William Woodthorpe Tarn | Gustav Mendel
Source: The Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 33, (1913), pp. 385-392
Publisher(s): The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/624122
11.
Title: Review: [untitled]
Author(s): Louise A. Hitchcock
Reviewed Title(s): Archaeological Theory: An Introduction | Time, Culture and Identity: An Interpretive Archaeology
Reviewed Authors(s): Matthew Johnson | Julian Thomas
Source: American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 105, No. 2 (Apr., 2001), pp. 330-331
Publisher(s): Archaeological Institute of America
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/507278
12.
Title: On the Idiomatic Use of Kapa, ΚΕΦΑΛΗ, and Caput
Author(s): La Rue van Hook
Source: Hesperia Supplements, Vol. 8, Commemorative Studies in Honor of Theodore Leslie Shear (1949), pp. 413-414
Publisher(s): American School of Classical Studies at Athens
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1353915

Sorry for the awful formatting. Anyway, aside from #10, none of these has anything obvious to do with our emperor. #9 and #11 have clearly popped up because one of the authors' names includes "Julian"; I doubt these citations contain anything about our emperor in the full text.

  • No. 2, "Withdrawal: Five Verbs" by David Daube contains the string "Julian" on page 110 note 119: "Suetonius, Claudius 26.1, Digest 23.2.11, Julian LXII digestorum." This is, I think, a citation to the Corpus Juris Civilis or some other Roman legal text; as a citation, it's not good evidence of ordinary English usage.
  • No. 4, "The Foundation Day of Roman 'Coloniae'", contains the string "Julian" at page 95, note 12: "Note also Parilia. Roma condita. on the Fasti Antienses Maiores (pre-Julian), and Parilia. Roma condita. Feriae coronatis omnibus. on two Augustan calendars (S. Weinstock, Divus Julius [Oxford 19711 185 and n. 4)..." This note is talking about Fasti, Roman calendars, and tells us the first pre-dates the Julian calendrical reform. Nothing to do with our emperor, but something to do with the Julian calendar, even though the term "Julian calendar" was excluded from this search.
  • No. 5, "The Emotions of Patriotism: Propertius 4.6" contains the string "Julian" on p. 166: "The tone of the first three verses of this passage bristle with energy and are shaped by spareness and urgency; then, in the fourth verse, the musical fop undoes the whole effect with his laurel-proferring hand and his Julian beaks." The "Julian beaks" in question are the Iulia rostra of Propertius' poem (4.6), which describes Augustus' victory at the Battle of Actium. Nothing to do with the emperor Julian; something to do with the Julian gens, though!
  • In no. 6, "The Date of the Phaidros Bema in the Theater of Dionysos", there are four instances of "Julian"--twice on p. 37: "Although Eunapius arrived in Athens only in 362 and the relevant occurrences took place between about 340 and 346, he had a detailed account from a reliable eyewitness, Tuscianus, a pupil of the sophist Julian. On the death of Julian, ca. 340, a fierce struggle broke out for the succession to his chair." I have no idea who this Julian is (someone should write a Wikipedia article about him!), but he's not our emperor. He's mentioned again on p. 38, and then on p. 39 our emperor is mentioned in a footnote--just a citation, and since we have another Julian around, it's disambiguated: Emperor Julian, Orationes 1.6.
  • No. 7, "Septimius Severus and the Marriage of Soldiers", contains the string "Julian" on page 48 note 15: "E.g., Digest 23.2.45.6 (Julian); 24.1.61 (Gaius); 29.1.8 (Marcellus); ibid. 9.1 (Pius); ibid. 28 (Marcus and Verus); ibid. 41.1 (Hadrian); 49.17.9 (Marcellus); ibid. 16. preface (Hadrian)." Another legal citation, and not a good example of normal English usage.
  • No. 12, On the Idiomatic Use of Kapa, ΚΕΦΑΛΗ, and Caput on p. 414: "Likewise in later Greek literature there are a few instances of such usage, as in Plato (Phdr., 264a) and Julian (Or., 7, 212)." This is our emperor, but the article is not about him and only mentions him in a brief citation.

So, to sum up, some of these results are about our emperor, but several are merely citations and not good examples of English usage; one result pertains the the Julian calendar, one to the emperor Augustus, 4 results give writing or photo credits to someone whose first name is Julian; one result tells us about a "Julian the Sophist" who was a near-contemporary of the emperor. That's just results 101-112, but it doesn't give me any confidence that the search results mentioned in this thread provide good evidence of how the emperor is referred to in JSTOR articles (let alone the wider world). It does make me think that some of the people who are complaining about "POV in the title" don't understand how ambiguous "Julian" can be, since in English, it's not just a proper name, but an adjective derived from the name of the most prominent Roman gens in all history... --Akhilleus (talk) 05:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You'll note I specifically said earlier: "Remove scholars whose names are Julian and basically the rest are our emperor." Regarding Julian as an adjective, I omitted to say that as only four search parameters were available, I didn't include the Julian basilica in the figures I gave. There were 190 articles on the basilica from my calculation (I did it indirectly), so that doesn't ultimately have an effect on the minority status of "Julian the Apostate".

You obviously accept that "Julian the Apostate" is the minor representation of the emperor, ie the reference gets fewer hits than any of the combinations featuring Constantius, Constantinople and Ammianus. If not yet, do the search yourself and be satisfied. All you are doing now is nitpicking, as the position you seem to be defending is already clearly lost. In fact I took quite a sample of the latter part of the 2847 hits and there were substantial numbers referring specifically to the emperor. You are just shaping the information to lessen the lost cause effect. Further, if you look at the reviews containing "Julian the Apostate" as the book title, 9 of the first 13 reviews never used the reference themselves. One even described "the so-called 'Apostasy' of Julian" as "a reproachful epithet, which no fair-minded Christian should have applied to him". You are obviously championing a minority form in the reputable secondary source materials. It's time you bit the bullet and stopped beating your dead horse. :-) -- spincontrol 06:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

No. I am not nitpicking, I am pointing out that your search methods are flawed. You have not demonstrated any of your claims, because your searches--all of them--turn up unrelated and irrelevant items. And you're still ignoring the small point that JSTOR is only a subset of English usage; your searches in fact employ only a subset of JSTOR. Articles in history and religion are obviously relevant, but so is the wide corpus of English that isn't contained on JSTOR. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Are you interested in simply "pointing out that [my] search methods are flawed" or are you interested in real results? You are still backing a minority position according to the hit rates. Try to be constructive and produce a non-shaped result that supports your conclusions. Failing to do so would be taken as not having any justification for the statements you make on the subject. As is, the Julian combinations with Constantius and Ammianus are better than "Julian the Apostate", showing that your position is untenable. -- spincontrol 23:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
The distinction is this: Julian would be acceptable and normal (as far as I am concerned) in a context where it is unambiguous or primary usage. Most of these articles qualify as such a context - although many of them use Julian the Apostate anyway; a classics journal might qualify as such a context; Wikipedia as a whole does not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
You don't seem to have tangible evidence for any of your claim about Wiki, Pmanderson. I've opened a subsection here below on the subject of Wiki hits on Julian and Julian the Apostate. You might like to contribute.
I put to you before that if you accept Julian, you should accept the usual methods for handling disambiguation, as seen with the emperors Geta and Tacitus, both of which lead to their full names. This would be consistent. -- spincontrol 23:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Julian: Pros and Cons

I see the following Pros and Cons of changing the title to Julian's name:

Pro

1) Legal name should be the default position

2) Legal name is the most objective. No chance of confusion over what was the legal name.

3) The cruncher as the Brits say. "Julian the Apostate" is clearly POV as this is a Christian creation. A primary purpose of Wiki is to avoid POV. As Spin has demonstrated references to Julian are influenced by POV. Hoffman I believe has the current book on Julian and it's titled Julian's Against the Galileans. Hoffman is not Christian (surprise). Our own ultimately limited survey here also reveals POV influence in title as Carl is Christian and I have faith Spin is not.

Con

1) Existing title has precedent at Wiki

There appears to be no existing policy here. Sometimes titles are based on common usage and sometimes they are not. See Dizzy Dean. Who has ever heard of his real name (a better question though is whether he should be in the HOF and an even better question is why Greenburg was not elected o the All-Star game when he set an all-time record for RBIs at the All-Star break)? On the other hand, see "Ivan". Who would know who "Ivan" is? In between see Henry VIII of England.

2) The purpose of Wiki is information for the masses which supports using the most common reference. The average person has never heard of Julian but the most common scholarly reference is "Julian the Apostate".

Conclusion = Support change to Julian's name.

--JoeWallack (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

In fact, we have guidelines against using "legal" names there's a list of them at WP:Official names. This is largely because legal names are not objective; they beg the question of whose law is valid - but there is also the problem that legal names are not, as here, what anyone uses. For example, Julian's legal name is not Flavius Claudius Julianus; his strictly legal name, as with other Emperors, began with Imperator, which is a praenomen.
We also have strong guidance for common names, most specifically WP:COMMONNAME. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Alas, the problem here is that there is a potential conflict with Wiki rules Wikipedia:Naming conventions that says:

"General conventions

Use common names of persons and things

Convention: Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things; use the naming conflict guideline when there is a conflict. Where articles have descriptive names, the given name must be neutrally worded and must not carry POV implications. "Where articles have descriptive names, the given name must be neutrally worded and must not carry POV implications."

Emphasis mine. This appears to supersede the Common Name rules. So, do we eliminate the Common Name rules here or use both as guides rather than rules?

--JoeWallack (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

As a useful collection of wisdom says. Attempts to change POV articles to NPOV invariably result from a different POV. So here; English is POV only from the opposite POV. In this case, this has also resulted in a misreading of WP:NC: the key phrase is Where articles have descriptive names (not proper names), and therefore the title is Wikipedia's own description, not usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
As the above acknowledges your POV issue, why don't you do the only honorable thing a Wiki editor can do and compensate for your past rule breaking? -- spincontrol 09:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Nickname "A nickname is a descriptive name given in place of or in addition to the official name of a person, place or thing."

Emphasis mine. I believe you are running out of words who's definition you can challenge.

--JoeWallack (talk) 23:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Believe that if you wish; but the distinction we intend is clear. WP:Naming conflicts even classifies article titles into two principal classes of names – proper nouns (e.g. George W. Bush, United Nations) or descriptive names (e.g. GNU/Linux naming controversy, 2005 Atlantic hurricane season). Julian the Apostate is a proper noun; that's why it's capitalized. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Post hoc rationalizations -- oo, look, "Apostate" has a capital -- are irrelevant. Julian never called himself "Apostate", though Antoninus allowed himself to be called "Pius". It's not a name. It's a negative epithet and we should be trying to be scholarly, shouldn't we? -- spincontrol 09:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I take this to mean you've found another excuse to justify the dubious retention of the POV title. If someone does what you do with the rules, they must be wrong. -- spincontrol 09:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
They are our rules largely to prevent True Believers in various nations, creeds, and races from imposing their Truth over the general consensus of anglophones. I am prepared to accept Julian, although others are not (we have had that discussion); those who feel it necessary to write about Julian the Wise should hire a blog - they're not expensive. The way to change English is to go forth and change the common usage, not to whine in WP:RM discussions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with PMAnderson on this, and I think it would be really great if people tabled the discussion of the title for a period of time--the move request resulted in no consensus, I don't think that grousing about it on the talk page is going to change anything right now. If you still feel like it's an important matter in a few months, start a new WP:RM request. Perhaps by then someone will have used that big list of JSTOR citations to improve the text of the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

When the man's name was Flavius Claudius Julianus, it's a non-sequitur to talk about "Julian the Wise". This is more post hoc rationalization. There are guidelines on Wiki for article names. People have attempted to be extremely zealous over the use of them for Julian. This zealousness is usually a sign of manipulation rather than NPOV. As they are guidelines, there are numerous examples of them not applying to article titles.

  • Why is the article about LBJ called "Lyndon B. Johnson", when LBJ is a far more common reference?
  • Why is Fatty Arbuckle known as "Roscoe Arbuckle" on Wiki?
  • What about the Unabomber being called Theodore Kaczynski?
  • Son of Sam? Who would ever look for "David Berkowitz"?
  • Squeaky Fromme who draws three times the hits of her real name gets placed under the real name.
  • Then the emperor Geta? Where the heck is the article about Geta?

Do I have to find more examples of where the guidelines are not adhered to? (Like Rangoon, Saigon, Caractacus or Scooter Libby.) Surely if you would accept Julian as the article title, by analogy you should also accept Flavius Claudius Julianus, just as Wiki accepts Publius Septimius Geta instead of Geta. The maintenance of the POV title of the article is totally against Wiki procedure, despite the fact that Wiki provides ways forward. Julian is obviously preferable, but then one needs to disambiguate, as seen in the case of Geta. Instead, we've had people shamelessly saying that "the Apostate" is not derogatory. We've had others claiming that it must be a part of Julian's name because that what he was called, though no-one ever called him that to his face. Septentrionalis has not a single functional argument for maintaining the POV title. His reference to Bowersock seems unaware that in Bowersock's literary output he didn't usually refer to Julian as "Julian the Apostate" (which was probably the book editor's choice). I've shown above that scholarship doesn't generally refer to Julian that way. I've also shown that most common name, while a guideline, is not a necessary criterion for Wiki. There are no arguments for the maintenance of the POV title. -- spincontrol 19:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate application. You are trying to enforce POV over the neutral name, which is a violation of Wiki protocol. Finding comments that you can pretend fit your defense of POV doesn't override the POV violation. -- spincontrol 22:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
What about LBJ, RFK, Scooter Libby or the Unabomber? Surely you can see that the guidelines are in fact just guidelines and don't overrule NPOV. -- spincontrol 22:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Neutrality is secured by sticking to English usage, as registered in reliable secondary sources; that's one reason our guidelines endorse it. Julian would also be compatible with this; the reason we do not use it is that it is ambiguous. Please note that the list of papers does not speak to that problem; in most of those titles, it is clear that Julian of Norwich or Count Julian is impossible. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Rules of thumb are often abused for tendentious purposes. How do you what is and what is not divine "genuine neutrality" here? Have I misrepresented anything as you have with Bowersock? -- spincontrol 19:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Scooter Libby is analogous with Squeaky Fromme. Note I said, "RFK", aka Bobby Kennedy and RFK is obviously more common that Robert F. Kennedy. You ducked out of LBJ again, which is only a google away. I would like to pin you down on these and, say, Saigon and Rangoon. Are they preferable to Ho Chi Minh City and Yangon, or not? Here's a great one: Cicciolina, porn star and politician, gets nine times the hits of her birth name Ilona Staller, but the Wiki article doesn't get the most popular. It's not a case of "other stuff exists", but of a lot of other stuff exists. The choice to have Ivan IV of Russia instead of Ivan the Terrible, against Vlad III the Impaler instead of Vlad III of Wallachia, has the appearance of politics. Russia is still a player, while Wallachia has been subsumed into Romania. In all the cases I have cited, I prefer the formal, proper, neutral name for everyone, but there are no ironclad rules. -- spincontrol 19:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it has been appropriately displayed that "the Apostate" is not at all common usage in scholarly research. Furthermore, Google demonstrates that it is only marginally (if at all) more common in general usage. The most common usage in scholarly research is Julian, this also being almost as common (if not more so) as "Julian the Apostate" in general English usage. Thus, the title should be Julian. In fact, since the common names of emperors own wiki articles, as per the guidelines, it is the other articles that should be disambiguated. However, it would perhaps be appropriate to add a proper NPOV disambiguation to the title, such as Flavius Claudius Julianus, Julian II, Julian (Roman Emperor, 360-363), or any other preferred method of disambiguation. Might I point out that Queen Mary I is disambiguated in the title of her article as Mary I of England and not Bloody Mary, though this is in fact common usage. The epithet "the Apostate" should of course be mentioned in the opening sentence of the article, as it already appropriately is, and wherever else in the body of the article it is deemed appropriate. It should *not* however be the title of the article. Druworos (talk) 17:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Druworos beat me to the punch here. But not to waste the entire comment, I'll append what hasn't been covered regarding the preferred reputable secondary source form "Julian".
Geta is a strict analogy with Julian. You'd need to go through a disambiguation page to get to Julian, of course, as you do with Geta. The emperor Tacitus is the same. Even et tu Brute Brutus. If you favor "Julian" as the article name, then by extension you should accept his proper name as a means of resolving the disambiguation issue. -- spincontrol 19:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
No, I do not; the purpose of using the common name is to communicate with anglophones - not to preach to them. This is defeated by using a name which few will recognize, and which the list of academic titles above does not use. But I see that the only interest being served here is the proclamation of the properly spun Truth. When you are prepared to act as a Wikipedia editor instead of a prophet, do let the rest of us know. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Why are you so desperate to save a POV title? You turn a blind eye to reputable secondary sources when they can be your only sources. You make the claim that "the purpose of using the common name is to communicate with anglophones - not to preach to them" when what you are claiming is the common name is not a name but a name and a propagandistic epithet, an epithet which has preached to people for centuries -- so much so that you appear to be oblivious to the POV. Anglophones who search for "Julian the Apostate" will still reach the same page which tells them that "Julian the Apostate" is one of the terms used to refer to (Flavius Claudius) Julianus. There is no problem whatsoever for anglophones if the article is called by the person's real name. -- spincontrol 01:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The Plaintiff will attempt to prove the following:

The Article name Julian the Apostate is a violation of Wikipedia POV rules and should be moved.

Main assertions of Plaintiffs's argument:

1) Subject's given name was Flavius Claudius Julianus. "Julian the Apostate" was a POV Nickname used by Church Fathers to refer to FCJ (Flavius Claudius Julianus).

2) The Wikipedia article for Nicknames Nickname explicitly states that a nickname is a Descriptive Name:

"A nickname is a descriptive name given in place of or in addition to the official name of a person, place or thing."

Emphasis mine.

3) The Wikipedia article for Proper Names Proper name states that a proper name does not tell us anything about the subject:

""A proper name [is] a word that answers the purpose of showing what thing it is that we are talking about" writes John Stuart Mill in A System of Logic (1. ii. 5.), "but not of telling anything about it"."

Emphasis mine. Therefore "Julian the Apostate" is not a proper name.

4) Wikipedia rules for naming articles states Wikipedia:Naming conventions

"Use common names of persons and things

Convention: Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things; use the naming conflict guideline when there is a conflict. Where articles have descriptive names, the given name must be neutrally worded."

Emphasis mine.

Plaintiff confesses strong precedent that Wikipedia rules specific to naming Roman Emperors support The Common Usage rule as decisive Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ancient Romans):

"The "most common" rule always trumps, so for instance we use Livy instead of Titus Livius, and Germanicus instead of Germanicus Julius Caesar. In addition, the usual names of emperors "own" those articles, even for the less-well-known ones, so we have Titus, Claudius, and Nero as articles on individuals, even though these are generic names shared by many other Romans; but Tacitus is the historian, not the Emperor.

The essence of the convention is to use the shortest unambiguous name as the title of the article, and to add a dated biographical detail, such as the date of a consulship, if the full name is shared by several. If a reliable birth year is not available (which is usually the case), the biographical detail should be the first time in the highest office recorded for the individual."

But plaintiff notes that as Bill Murray said in the classic Holy Ghost Busters it is actually more of a guideline than a Zul, er, rule:

"This guideline documents an English Wikipedia naming convention. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception."

Plaintiff respectfully requests the exception here based on:

1 - The extreme POV of using the descriptive "the Apostate".

Wikipedia's definition of Apostasy

"Many religious groups and even some states punish apostates. The concept of apostasy is used to enforce group cohesion and utilize fear to suppress the free will of the individual. Apostates may be shunned by the members of their former religious group[1] or worse. This may be the official policy of the religious group or may happen spontaneously. A church may in certain circumstances respond to apostasy by excommunicating the apostate, while some Abrahamic scriptures (Judaism: Deuteronomy 13:6-10) and Islam: al-Bukhari, Diyat, bab 6) demand the death penalty for apostates."

In the words of Bush the Elder, "It's bad, it's bad." Note that under the list of alleged Christian apostates Julian is the sole person with the Nickname.

"the Apostate" is further POV as misleading as per Hoffman's Julian's Against the Galileans starting at page 49, "III The Religion of Julian", the Pagan sources (including Julian) seem to indicate that Julian was already Pagan as a child while it is the Christian sources that claim Julian was a devout Christian before he became Emperor.

Wikipedia Naming Conventions Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) specifically allows an exception to the Common Naming guideline if the common name is misleading:

"Do not overdo it

In cases where the common name of a subject is misleading, then it is sometimes reasonable to fall back on a well-accepted alternative. For example a "common" name for a tsunami is "tidal wave" (this term being less often used for the tides-related tidal bore). For this reason, the Tidal wave page is a disambiguation page, with links to the two other pages, and not a page giving details about either tsunami or tidal bore."

This is than followed by another exception to the Wikipedia Naming Conventions Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) for offensive names:

"Also, some terms are in common usage but are regarded as offensive (Mormon Church, for example). In those cases use widely known alternatives (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). When in doubt, check a mainstream reference work. A term can only be considered offensive if a verifiable, authoritative source can be quoted as citing it as such."

Wikipedia itself defines Apostasy as an offensive term.

Both of these exceptions apply and note that in the cited article these are the two exceptions specifically identified by Wikipedia.

2 - Spin's demonstration that "Julian the Apostate" is not the most common usage.

Wikipedia Naming Conventions for people Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) gives the following guidance:

"Nicknames, pen names, stage names, cognomens

The most used name to refer to a person is generally the one that Wikipedia will choose as page name, even if this sounds awkward for those seeing the name the first time: Alfred the Great is the name most used in literature to refer to this person. Changing the name to Alfred-not-so-Great-after-all or whatever would be more POV than using the name that is most commonly used. It is best to remember that Wikipedia does not make reality: Wikipedians note down what is the closest to facts they can find, in this case that the name "Alfred the Great" is most often used to refer to a certain person."

Note the extreme example here of changing the descriptive to the opposite ("the Great" to "not so Great"). The logic is there that changing/removing a POV name is a POV process itself. But the example fails to quantify, which is more POV and potentially, which is much more? Guidance at Wikipedia normally brings the POV discussion into Naming Conflicts because POV is one of the 3 pillars of Wikipedia and it is therefore clear that all Wikipedia subjects, including Article Naming, are subject to the POV issue. Wikipedia in general communicates that Naming Conventions for people are exempt from the POV issue. Plaintiff could argue based on the above that this is a rule that should be modified. There is no need for Plaintiff to do so here as Wikipedia already provides for exceptions to the general Naming Convention guidelines.

--JoeWallack (talk) 15:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

5) Per Wikipedia definitions:

1 - "Julian the Apostate" is a descriptive names.

2 - "Julian the Apostate" is not a proper name.

Therefore, the use of "Julian the Apostate" is a POV name which violates Wikipedia naming policy. Quit, quote, pro (move).

6) The heart of the Plaintiff complaint is the POV issue. As a majority of English speakers are Christian, a designation of "Apostate" would be one of, if not the most, negative descriptions a person could have. If there is a conflict of Wikipedia rules here the extreme specific POV here combined with Wikipedia's general fanaticism to avoid POV should take priority.

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

""Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. The other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Because the policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. Core content policy pages may only be edited to improve the application and explanation of the principles."

Emphasis mine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeWallack (talk • contribs) 20:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

7) Pm Anderson Sues that the relevant paragraph above:

""Use common names of persons and things

Convention: Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things; use the naming conflict guideline when there is a conflict. Where articles have descriptive names, the given name must be neutrally worded."

Has an implication that "descriptive names" as used in this paragraph does not apply to persons.

This assertion is too weak to discredit the Plaintiff argument above for the following reasons:

1) There is nothing within the paragraph itself to support the assertion.

2) The reference to the Naming Conflicts article deals with naming conflicts (surprise) and not POV which is the issue at hand.

3) The Defense has not provided any reason why the intent of the paragraph would be to allow POV for naming persons. Logically, POV should be more applicable to persons than things.

4) Plaintiff argument contains clear, simple and explicit classification of "Julian the Apostate" as a Nickname which is a descriptive name. In contrast, any Defense based on the paragraph is unclear, complex and implied and is therefore superseded by Plaintiff argument.

That being said "Julian the Apostate" fails the common usage test anyway. Spin has already provided evidence that "Julian the Apostate" is not the most common scholarly reference. On the non-scholarly side, if you do a search of "Julian" at IIDB, the most popular Skeptical Internet site in the world, where a relatively high percent of the Unfaithful are familiar with Emperor Julian compared to the Masses, you will also discover that "Julian the Apostate" is not the common usage. It would appear that the only user group where "Julian the Apostate" was the most common usage was Dead Church Fathers which should not be a factor here, at least until the Resurrection.

I'll be mailing you a bill Spin. Now what's your address again?

--JoeWallack (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I trust the bill will include the court fees for filing and pleading a frivolous suit.
  • John Stuart Mill published in 1843; he is somewhat dated on logic and linguistics. The OED's definition is a name, consisting of a proper noun or noun phrase including a proper noun, that designates an individual person, place, organization, tame animal, ship, etc., and is usually written with an initial capital letter. where a proper noun is a noun that designates an individual person, place, organization, animal, ship, etc., and is usually written with an initial capital letter. This does designate an individual person, and is always written with a capital letter.
    • Mill's definition is not a Wikipedia definition; our article quotes him. It is not in Wikipedia space, and the assertion is his, not Wikipedia's. We also quote Marx and Mussolini in appropriate articles; does that make their statements binding on RM? No. Describing as such is a lie.
  • Convention: Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things; use the naming conflict guideline when there is a conflict. Where articles have descriptive names, the given name must be neutrally worded." has an implication that "descriptive names" as used in this paragraph does not apply to persons is ascribed to me. This is another lie; I did not say any such thing, and it is obviously false. The sentence about descriptive names does not apply to proper names.
  • The heart of the Plaintiff complaint is the POV issue. Quite true, at last; the "plaintiffs" find English usage inconvenient for their POV, and that of their few thousand co-worshippers.
    • Mysteriously, in the middle of their complaints, a new account has appeared, with four edits, all on this issue, quoting, and misquoting, Wikipedia guidance. Will this bill have far to go, or will it migrate from one side of a computer to the other?
    • Any Cause so desperate as to create a sock-puppet confesses its own lack of numbers, and an inability to recruit them by discussion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Through your inflammatory comments you are showing your inability to put forward a reasoned case, Pmanderson. I suggest you stop showing off this inability and I recommend that you take a refresher look at Wikipedia:Assume good faith. If you persist I will seek to have you banned. -- spincontrol 22:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I've heard people complain about Wikipedia Editors but to accuse me of lying (as opposed to saying I made false statements) and being the same person as Spin, I had no idea. So by this logic any new support for move (note only "move") must be deception.
This is all distraction. I've made the argument for "Move". Right now the "Stay" side reminds me of the Python bit where Palin goes into the office for an Argument but all he gets is Contradiction. Right now I see no argument for "Stay". If you want to leave what you wrote above as the official argument for "Stay" that works for me. But I invite anyone to make an actual argument for "Stay" and I promise not to accuse them of being a sock puppet. What's important here is the argument and not the name of the arguer (and no, this is not a confession that I'm Spin). I'm not Spin.
--JoeWallack (talk) 18:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
An interestingly limited denial: not that he's not a sockpuppet, but that he's not Spindoctor's sockpuppet. (See also WP:Meatpuppet.)
But JoeWallack's argument for moving is deeply dishonest, depending as it does on metaphysical arguments drawn from a single dated source, more than a century and a half old. While we need no more to keep this where it is, the arguments to retain the common usage are straightforward: the names in common usage are Julian and Julian the Apostate; both are proper names, as the capitalization shows. (Which is more common is a good question; Akhilleus has found 90% false positives on Julian, even in JSTOR.) Julian would be acceptable if it were not ambiguous - accordingly, we use it in the article, where it is clear that it means the subject; but it is ambiguous, so we use the long form in the title. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
"[D]eeply dishonest" argument! Another insult. You have clearly broken Wikiquette. No more. -- spincontrol 22:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


  • Oppose. The current title (Julian the Apostate) already fulfils the criteria used by our naming conventions:
  1. is the name the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize
  2. is unambiguous (unlike "Julian" alone)
  3. makes linking to this article easy and second nature.
Two more details:
  • "Julian the Apostate" is a proper name, not a descriptive name or a "nickname". Where does this apparent obsession with what names would historical characters have in modern ID cards/passports come from ? I see it much too often in our articles.
  • The allegation that "Julian the Apostate" is somehow biased or not neutrally worded is baseless. It could have been at the time it was coined, but sixteen centuries later it has long become an ordinary proper name, whose original connotations do not trouble our readers' minds. (And he got lucky, or ask poor Constantine V for his opinion on Clio's sense of humour).
Feel free to move this comment to a more appropriate place in the discussion. Best, Ev (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Do note the article on Constantine V is in fact at, errrm, Constantine V, as opposed to, say, Copronymus. Druworos (talk) 15:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Sshhh! You don't want the hordes of anti-iconoclasts coming out of the steppe to force a move to Copronymus. -- spincontrol 20:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Googling Julian

I did a google search.

  • Taking the apostate results out leaves just 41,900

Julian the apostate appears to be more common.--Pattont/c 19:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Wiki only uses reputable secondary sources, but try this google search:

You don't seem to understand what I'm getting at here. Julian the apostate is the most common name in all sources. It may be scarce in third level works etc, but the average layman knows him as Julian the Apostate, and that is why his name should remain like this.--Pattont/c 23:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I should like to point out the average layman probably does not know Julian at all. Druworos (talk) 15:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
So far you have failed to demonstrate your claim. Please look at the search I provided to see its significance.
Let me explain further. Using "Roman" in a search for Julian isn't very reliable. Taking "Julian" in the context of any of these names "Constantius|Libanius|Ammianus|Jovian|Athanasius" should mean that we are dealing with the emperor Julian. But we need to remove all references to pages with "Julian the Apostate" and to be safe we'll remove "Julian calendar", "Julian dates" and "Julian basilica". -- spincontrol 23:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
So basically you are saying this should be moved because hte results for 6 other names ishigher in total than the result for just one of the names? That's nonsense.--Pattont/c 10:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
What I am saying is that pages that mention both Constantius and Julian mean that the Julian mentioned is Flavius Claudius Julianus, that pages that mention both Libanius and Julian mean that the Julian mentioned is Flavius Claudius Julianus, and so on. We include only those pages that mention both Julian and at least one of the other names. This doesn't find all the pages that talk about Julian, but we know that most of those we have found are about Julian. From all those pages we remove those that specifically mention "Julian the Apostate" (etc.). What we have left is a large percentage of the internet pages that mention the emperor Julian, not as "Julian the Apostate". If you think this search method is not the most accurate, I'd be happy to know of a better search criterion. -- spincontrol 12:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Googling Wiki Julian

Now let's get really interesting and search Wikipedia:

"Julian the Apostate" is far the minority position of Wiki editors! Yet on the page dedicated to him we have an obviously non-consensus title. -- spincontrol 21:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Many of the results for "Julian the apostate" were due to the inclusion of Template:Roman Emperors in articles on Roman emperors. That template had our emperor as "Julian", which I've just changed to "Julian the Apostate". So the number of results should change as soon as Google catches up. This is a good illustration of why google searches of Wikipedia don't provide useful information; a single editor can easily alter the results. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Instead of further tainting the evidence, our job is to get better information, so why not approach it that way? There are 188 emperors included in the template data, so let's remove 188 hits. Result is 514 to "Julian", 423 to "Julian the Apostate", thus still the minority. That gives you something else to aim for. But remember the Wiki system inherently favors the existent name. One should expect much better figures for "Julian the Apostate", but we don't.
"Julian the Apostate" simply doesn't get the results people claim, so many supporters of maintaining the reference seem to be working under false premises. -- spincontrol 22:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
You seem to be missing the point. Searching Wikipedia is only a reflection of what Wikipedia editors have done lately. It's not a good measure of English usage, and therefore not a good way to determine a common name, which is what we use for article titles. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
That is no point. And we are specifically looking at Wiki behavior in this section, if you hadn't noticed. I did so to see what the effective consensus is on the issue, as consensus is significant in Wiki. And certainly there is no consensus for "Julian the Apostate". And the man's name is not "Julian the Apostate", so there is no point repeating what is not a common assumption between us. If you want to deal with common usage try the previous section, simply called "Googling Julian". -- spincontrol 23:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Sigh. This is a monumental waste of time. You appear to be the sort of editor who believes that by prolonging a discussion until everyone gives up, you win--by virtue of having the last word. I'm not going to bother responding to you any more--but no one should draw the conclusion that my absence from any further "discussion" means I consent to any move of the page. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Frustration is not a useful characteristic of a Wiki editor. I have attempted to develop objective searches. You should be seeking what the real situation is rather than simply nitpicking about results and getting frustrated your efforts are not found more meaningful. -- spincontrol 00:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Akhilleus said it best, "This is a monumental waste of time". In brief, the editors of wikipedia are merely trying to be in accord with 1,600 years of historical and literary tradition, wherein the man is known as 'Julian the Apostate'. If the fashion changes in 80-100 years, and scholars choose to call him by his Latin name, then Wikipedia can follow suit. In the meantime, however, this will be for the scholars and poets to decide -- not a sole Wikipedia editor. -- Ambrosiaster (talk) 02:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I have shown here that currently Wikipedia doesn't reflect the claims of those such as stated by Ambrosiaster here. More Wiki articles don't use "Julian the Apostate" than do. This means the current title of the Julian article is not a consensus title. Modern scholarship doesn't seem to reflect the status of "Julian the Apostate" either, working from JSTOR results, so it is not a single editor deciding anything, but the current scholarly consensus. The google results I've posted above do not support Ambrosiater's claims. We aren't interested so much in the apologetic atmosphere of the past 1,600 years, but what modern usage is among Wikipedians, scholars and the general public posting on internet. Ambrosiaster's comments don't have many facts behind them. -- spincontrol 02:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I refuse to entertain this discussion any further. -- Ambrosiaster (talk) 02:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Julian and search results

  • Wiki using google: To recap, the google searches at the beginning of the section above show that on Wikipedia "Julian the Apostate" is a minor variant of reference to the emperor Julian. This means that "Julian the Apostate" does not have a Wiki consensus behind it.
  • JSTOR: "Julian the Apostate" comes in second behind "Julian" when the latter is contextualized with other names such as "Constantius", "Jovian", "Ammianus", "Libanius", "Gallus", and "Eusebia" to assure that we are getting the correct Julian. (See above sections related to JSTOR.)
  • Google: the constrained searches I tried in the "Googling Julian" section return higher hits for Julian than for Julian the Apostate. I invite counter-proposals here.

If these points are correct then not one argument in favor of maintaining the POV reference "Julian the Apostate" for the title of the article regarding the emperor Julian is valid.

The reason for wanting to change the name of the article is because its current title contains negative bias, long borne by Julian's memory. For those who are not aware of the bias contained in the reference, I cited a scholar writing 100 years ago who described "the so-called 'Apostasy' of Julian" as "a reproachful epithet, which no fair-minded Christian should have applied to him". (Thomas Hodgkin, Untitled Review of Julian the Apostate by Gaetano Negri; Duchess Litta-Visconti-Arese, The Classical Review, Vol. 21, No. 3 (May, 1907), pp. 88-90.) The response to this has been the tacit acceptance of the charge of bias and then it is claimed that those who want to do away with the bias have a bias of their own.

I'm sure a reader can see that calling the article "Flavius Claudius Julianus" contains no bias whatsoever. But why call it such a long name when we know him as Julian? A disambiguation page called "Julian" already exists. One could arrive at the current page through using

  1. Julian + disambiguation,
  2. Flavius Claudius Julianus, or
  3. Julian the Apostate (people can still use it to arrive at the Julian article).

Can you think of an evidence-based reason why we should maintain the "reproachful epithet"? -- spincontrol 05:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Naturally I agree with everything spin (and JoeWallack) has said so far, since this is just a farce. And yes, I too am one of his sockpuppets. No one but a suckpuppet would ever agree that Julian the Apostate is a ridiculous title for an encyclopedia article. But since I'm here, I thought I'd make myself useful and point out that the current title is not only in violation of both policy and common sense, but also in violation of convention. Cf. with the following article titles please, and then move this article to where it belongs:
Anastasius I (emperor)
Constantine II (emperor)
Zeno (emperor)
Leo II (emperor)
Honorius (emperor)
Valerian (emperor)
-- 123.208.96.2 (talk) 11:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
The single argument for maintaining the current title would be that it is common usage. However, it has been amply demonstrated that it is NOT in fact the most common way of reference. THAT is Julian. If Julian is ambiguous, the LOGICAL way to go is either full name (Flavius Claudius Julianus) or something to the effect of Julian (emperor) (perhaps including regnal years). Note that this is not only LOGICAL, but also in accordance with NAMING POLICIES and PRECEDENT. The argument of "communicating with anglophones" is pattently false: any anglophone searching for "Julian the Apostate" will quite naturally be redirected here, and will quite appropriately find this degrading epithet in the opening line of the article. Thus, s/he will quite easily infer, lest s/he be braindead, that s/he is in fact reading about that hated enemy of the one true faith rather than some other Flavius Claudius Julianus. Should another anglophone simply search for "Julian", nothing need change: our current disambiguation page already lists this betrayer of the faith both by his full name and his nickname. In the event that people, in view of (a) evidence, (b) policies, (c) precedent and (d) common sense still persist in claiming that the most appropriate title here is "Julian the Apostate", I fully expect these peoples' support when I petition moving Ali Hassan al-Majid to Chemical Ali. Druworos (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Using Chemical Ali seems quite in accord with our general principle: it is desirable that the title of the article should give our anglophone readers some idea of what it is about. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Putting aside a possible political comment regarding al-Majid, I asked you to opine on whether you think the pages for Lyndon B. Johnson and Robert F. Kennedy should be called instead LBJ and RFK. Would you care to comment yet? -- spincontrol 03:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I could ask what led Druworos to ignore this principle, that an encyclopedia should be useful to its likely readers; but since the answer is obvious, I will not compel him to repeat his creed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
The potential usefulness to the likely readers would not in the least be diminished, lest we asume that the likely readers have IQs of roughly 50, seeing as "Julian the Apostate" would (a) redirect here, and (b) be mentioned in the opening sentence, as it already is. Our likely reader, when searching for "Julian the Apostate", is redirected here. S/he's like "ZOMG WTF who's THIS dude?!?!?!". Then s/he reads the opening sentence, namely "Flavius Claudius Julianus, known also as Julian or Julian the Apostate", and unless an utter idiot, realises that s/he is in fact reading about "Julian the Apostate". Now you might argue that we need also to catter to idiots. Perhaps, but an idiot wouldn't benefit from the article regardless of its title.
Perhaps the usefulness of the article would instead be diminished to people of a certain POV, since it would become evident to our likely readers that "the Apostate" is not an objectively agreed upon epithet, which by the way it isn't, as evident from the endless discussions here, and the numerous results from JSTOR and Google. However, this should hardly concern us here.
On another point, Septentrionalis, I suppose I can expect your support then when I do in fact petition the move to Chemical Ali, yes? Druworos (talk) 22:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure it has a better claim than the POV reference Julian the Apostate has to Julian. You overlook most of the comment to push your bias. Given that "Julian the Apostate" is not the common usage among Wikipedians, scholars or apparently internet writers in general, you should be championing the move to "Julian", rather than finding excuses not to deal with it. -- spincontrol 20:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I hope by now, that you have noticed there are two groups of people here. One group that cites scholarly sources, goes to great length to provide relevant data and provides detailed and logical examination of those data. And another group that hops up and down yelling, "OMG! I like the article how it is... OPPOSE!!!" 58.171.148.88 (talk) 05:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I hope by now, that people would stop making false characterizations of what people have done on this talk page. Plenty of people have cited scholarly sources. Some people have also pointed out that the Google Scholar searches presented above are flawed and result in a high rate of false positives, because of the wide range of uses for the noun and adjective "Julian". --Akhilleus (talk) 14:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Don't you mean JSTOR searches above? Nobody has actually shown any flaw and part of your claim of false positives had already been dealt with before you presented it. You have failed to show any substantive evidence for the claim that "Julian the Apostate" is the most commonly used name. Most opponents to the move have stated categorically that it was and yet there evidence doesn't support the claim. No evidence means false premise.
Examining the data will supply false positives, such as all the "Julian the Apostate" reviews whose books contain "Julian the Apostate" while the review writer never uses the term (about ten out of the first 15 reviews) or all those hits that produce "Julian the Apostate" as a book title in the footnotes.
I have attempted to create functional searches to number the Julian hits and have invited the move opponents to join me find search results that they will be satisfied with. Here is my latest JSTOR search to find Julian:
(((Julian) AND (Constantius OR Ammianus OR Libanius OR Eusebia OR Valens)) NOT ("Julian the Apostate" OR "Julian calendar" OR "Julian dates" OR "Julian basilica" OR "Julian emperors")) 2013 hits
or you might like this, which will certainly miss many hits for Julian, but for which you will have grave difficulties finding substantive false positives:
(("the emperor Julian") NOT ("Julian the apostate")) 917 hits
Remember that the raw "Julian the apostate" hit rate was only 510. Why not help refine a realistic search to your satisfaction? It might help to give your so far false premises some substance. -- spincontrol 19:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

In the most recent survey to move this article, here are comments regarding "Julian the Apostate" by those who opposed the move:

  • Oppose ... most commonly used
  • Oppose ... most commonly-used name
  • Oppose ... Agreeing with the above
  • Oppose ... This is common usage
  • Oppose ... the most commonly used name
  • Strong oppose ... He has been called this even by contemporaries [it's that common]
  • Strong oppose ... "the Apostate"... flags up what was most important about him
  • Oppose ... if "the Apostate" is a non-NPOV, it is a very old non-NPOV [so it's ok]
  • Oppose ... the most common used name
  • Oppose ... Use the most common name
  • Oppose ... Surely people should not be listed under names by which no-one would recognise them!?
  • Tentatively oppose ... The scholarly works I read a few+ years ago while in college referred to him as Julian the Apostate.

(Information in brackets supplied by me, so check for reliability!)

Nearly all of these opponents to the move were basing their opinions on the false premise that "Julian the Apostate" is "the most commonly used name". -- spincontrol 23:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Not a false premise, but something that has been illustrated in previous move requests by evidence, and something that has not been falsified by any of your flawed data. Are you still operating on the theory that if you keeping posting until no one replies any more, you've won the debate? --Akhilleus (talk) 14:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I just went back through the last two move requests and found no evidence to support your claim. I saw lots of attempts to find a veracious reflection of Julian hits and their detractors. Perhaps you could cite exactly what you mean. As is you have nothing. -- spincontrol 19:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

jstor results (c)

Here is a sign of the times. Searching JSTOR for hits on our emperor since the year 2000 in 31 classics journals using these criteria:

  • "Julian the Apostate"
  • (((Julian) AND (Constantius OR Ammianus OR Libanius OR Eusebia)) NOT ("Julian the Apostate"))

(To clarify this last search, Julian is a common enough name so we need to limit it, so this search looks for Julian only in the context of one or more of four names associated with the emperor, then we remove results regarding "Julian the Apostate".)

The results per decade are:

1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s
JtA 51 78 52 61 13
Jul 138 195 239 262 85


Over the last 50 years, "Julian" has been the preferred reference to our emperor. And from 2000 till JSTOR articles cut out, published scholars have preferred using "Julian" over seven times more than "Julian the Apostate". Modern scholarship is certainly not in favor of the "reproachful epithet". -- spincontrol 21:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment I read all this with great interest. I now know where are the true successors of the early churchmen who argued about angels and pins, or of the rabbis who argued the finer points of the Law. (OK, they probably didn't argue about the angels and pins - I think that's a myth. They did argue about homousion and homoiousion as spell-checkers hadn't been invented.) Has anyone considered another area to work on in this? What about all the articles about people like St George, St John, St Catherine and so on? None of them were called Saint during their lifetime - in the cases of the ones who actually lived. (And a lot of them were apostates from their childhood faiths too... But that's another question.) That should keep people occupied for a bit. He was always Julian the Apostate in my school days. And I admired him for it, and wished that perhaps his ideas had succeeded. Unfortunately, toleration is not an easy banner to campaign under. The True Belief usually has the advantage once it's got into or near any position of power. (Look at parts of the USA in recent times... Not Nehemiah Scudder yet, luckily.) Whichever True Belief it happens to be. Possibly excepting Buddhism and one or two other lesser (in numerical terms) ones). At least this 'discussion' (or repetition...) won't lead to excommunications (possibly blocking - is that the same?) or burnings (except possibly in effigy and privately). Meanwhile, several articles have been vandalised, quite a few copy-eds haven't got done, two or three attacks have slipped through the net and some SDed spam has been recreated. Ah well.... Time for tea. Peridon (talk) 19:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
As a ruler of the Roman empire, Julian is in himself quite interesting. After having received a philosophical education he proved himself an able military leader. He showed himself to be an able and sometimes original thinker. He has left us with a number of literary works of note. He brought peace to the strife caused by the Arian Christians against the non-Arians. He managed to survive an extremely hostile upbringing without taking the direction of people like Constantius (who killed anyone who could potentially get in his way) or Gallus (whose extremeness verged on sadism). His decisions as emperor were relatively balanced toward all members of the society he had absolute control of. He is worthy to be remembered for his own achievements (and his mistakes), not just by the sour epithet of his detractors. -- spincontrol 20:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • NB : Keep in mind that statistics cannot necessarily be applied to your argument, insofar as an author or historian will often introduce the Emperor as 'Julian the Apostate' in the beginning of the paragraph, but will likely refer to him as Julian thereafter for the sake of brevity -- considering it would be quite unncessary to write 'Julian the Apostate' several times in a single paragraph. It is much like if one were to write about Abraham Lincoln. One may introduce Lincoln into the paragraph as 'Abraham Lincoln', but will likely refer to him merely as 'Lincoln' throughout the remainder of the essay. --Ambrosiaster (talk) 09:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Spin very clearly stated his search parameters [((Julian) AND (Constantius OR Ammianus OR Libanius OR Eusebia)) NOT ("Julian the Apostate"))] -- any document containing the name "Julian the Apostate" would not have come up as a hit at all, and Julian would have had to have been referred to by one of other four alternate titles/names as well. Based on this, his statistics seem quite valid. Justin Z (talk) 21:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

References

Is it desirable to have a source which is included in its entirety in a footnote, also listed in the references section? Or is this a undesirable cluttering of the end portions of the article? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 06:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I should think thorough referencing to be desirable, unless of course one gives a full bibliographical reference in the same footnote. If this is the case, then maybe you could remove it from the list. Druworos (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That was the wrong answer for the questioner, who was seeking to justify post hoc his desire to control my editing by changing and reverting it wherever he deemed he could.

I wanted to make sure W.C. Wright's translations of Julian's writings -- the principal reference to Julian's writings -- were in the references, but because I cited him in a footnote, Carl.bunderson moved the bibliographical data into the footnote and Wright was removed from the reference list. It didn't matter what my opinion was, he had to remove the citation at all costs. I eventually removed the citation of Wright in the footnote and cited Robert Browning's book instead to see if Carl.bunderson would remove that book from the references list.

On the subject of footnotes, there are a lot of problems. For example:

  • #1 starts "Tougher, 12," I happen to know that "Tougher" here is the scholar Shaun Tougher, but what the reference alludes to I don't know.
  • #4 starts "Boardman, p. 44," but of what work?
  • #19 says just "Baluffi, 16". We can assume Baluffi is a writer and 16 is a page number, but beyond that, who knows?
  • The first part of #17 is merely unsupported opinion.
  • #22 lacks half the bibliographical data.
  • "Race: The History of an Idea in America" is mentioned in the text and cited twice in the footnotes, but lacks bibliographical details.

Any clarification of these would be appreciated.

There are probably other errors as well, but some improvement and consistency needs to be brought to the footnotes. -- spincontrol 13:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

W.C. Wright's translation appears in the Loeb Classical Library. This and any other translations should be noted in a "translations" section; critical editions of the Greek text (surely there are some?) should be noted in a "works" section. The current "writings" section doesn't have good bibliographic information, but rather links to webpages. What's more, it runs the risk of giving the uninformed reader the idea that Julian wrote in English! --Akhilleus (talk) 13:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The section "Writings" clarifies that Julian's works were written in Greek. As I'm working on the article, I've done a quick fix on the fact that the texts available are in fact English translations. Any improvements are welcome. -- spincontrol 14:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I was unclear: I meant the section Julian_the_Apostate#Julian.27s_writings. This section should list critical editions of the Greek text of Julian, with the editor and other bibliographic info. Right now it's just a list of links to English translations on the web. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Juventinus and Maximus

This unsourced pious legend was inappropriately included in the main body of the article in the Restoration section. Not finding any better place to put it, I've removed it from the text and placed it in a box near where it was originally located in the hope that a better solution might present itself. -- spincontrol 15:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Reorganization

I've made a lot of changes to the article and will stop now for a while to give opportunity for criticism. So far, I've mainly tried to clarify the chronological order of material and footnote some of it, though a lot more needs to be done. So much of the material is unsourced. -- spincontrol 03:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I've just performed another piece of radical surgery on the article, grouping the religious issues involving Julian in a separate section from his life, allowing a simpler presentation of his life. -- spincontrol 03:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Academics of all stripes agree that his views on and actions regarding religion are among his most defining features, a separate section makes sense. Majoreditor (talk) 01:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I've found that David S. Potter, The Roman Empire at Bay, is an extremely hostile secondary source regarding Julian. I have been using him as one source of facts, but trying to be neutral regarding what seems to me overt dislike for Julian. I've been using him and the CAH to cut through Ammianus Marcellinus material. I'm also waiting on copies of Bowersock and Athanassiadi. -- spincontrol 17:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The reorganization of the section "Julian in Gaul"

Undid new section for Julian's campaign against the Alamanni, as it only occupied half the first paragraph of two, the rest of which would be inappropriate for a section dealing with the Alamanni. One would need more material on them to justify such a section. And I think then the rest of the material would need to be separated from it by another section name. To create the separate section one would have to give body to it. Otherwise it remains only part of Julian's Gallic administration. -- spincontrol 17:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The current order of the Gaul section is natural. Changing it so that a section title can be given to the Germanic victories merely confuses the material. As it is the material regarding his victories embodies Julian's taking control first of the military issues then of administrative issues (which begin two years after his arrival in Gaul). -- spincontrol 02:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not at all clear that he took charge of the military issues. Browning's view that Constantius intended his cousin to be a figurehead and he accompanied a campaign run by his subordinates makes a great deal of sense. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I've put forward in the first paragraph of the section that he was sent out as a figurehead, then went on to say that he reached for more -- which would explain his bad relations with Marcellus, who probably felt his "brief" was being encroached upon. But if you think I've missed anything or got the angle wrong, do make a fix. I'm only interested in getting it right. There's still a lot to go, eg Strasbourg. I think he was responsible for the miscoordination with forces sent north by Constantius in 357. -- spincontrol 07:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Be careful with that. Do you have a credible source which argues that 'Julian was probably responsible for miscoordination'? Because if you don't have it, you shouldn't write it down (as it would be your own conclusion). Don't write that "he reached for more" or something similar in the article, but describe what truly happened and exactly which historians argue or even charge and accuse him of grasping for power. Flamarande (talk) 11:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
The notion of miscoordination comes from Potter (p.501) where he hypothesizes "quite possibly that Julian failed to show up on time" for the combined operation, getting "distracted" along the way. And Hunt in CAH 13, p.51, "it was Julian, it appears, who, by diverting his troops against other enemy targets elsewhere on the Rhine, left the magister peditum isolated and exposed to attack." Hunt also talks of a "high-handed neglect of co-operative strategy". To add a third, just found, "It seems to have been the intention of Constantius II that Barbatio and Julian would coordinate separate attacks upon the Alamanni. However, Julian concentrated his attention campaigning along the Rhine, while Barbatio was left isolated and was only able to make a limited attack into Alamannic territory opposite Raetia." (David Woods, "The Fate of the Magister Equitum Marcellus", The Classical Quarterly, New Series, Vol. 45, No. 1 (1995), pp. 266-267.) You can see it's not a novel idea.
There are more basic issues that need to be dealt with before such material needs to be weighed though, a description of just what can be reconstructed of the operations that happened in the years 357 and 358. Reading Ammianus is a very one-sided account. He was "embedded". And if there's anything that I've put in the article that isn't footnoted, please let me know. I've tried to document as much of the history as I could. -- spincontrol 13:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
And here's Potter again, saying that Julian "gradually forged for himself a place in government that seems to have been very different from anything that Constantius would have expected." You can get it straight from Julian in his letter to the Athenians. He went from being Constantius' mascot to active military leader. That's reaching for more than the strictures Constantius gave him, but again it is material beyond the facts. If we were to follow Ammianus Marcellinus, we'd have facts, but we'd also have a misrepresentation of the significance of those facts. Secondary sources are ever willing to impute significance, so I don't think that is a problem in itself. -- spincontrol 19:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
You have the proper sources; now it's only a matter of putting the correct citations on the proper places. If there is a disagreement between an ancient source and modern historians then IMHO you should quote the ancient source (the relevant passage) but immediately follow with the modern view (something like "ancient source said X but modern historians argue that..."). If modern historians have different views upon something then present both views objectively (unless one of them is completely ridiculous - presenting a creationist POV in a article on evolution is ludicrous). Flamarande (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure Flamarande means "may quote the ancient source". Ten books worth of disputable points from Ammianus would be a bit much. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone confirm the name "Auchenia Bassa" as the mother of Basilina? This name came from a web page [1]. Thanks. -- spincontrol 21:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I see no reliable evidence for this. Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire doesn't list her, or any wife of Julius Julianus; and Auchenius is an alternate nomen for Anicius, which they suggest was introduced by Anicius Auchenius Bassus, urban prefect for Rome in 382-3; he would be much the same age as Julian, not his great-grandfather. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Upon reflection, this smells like double guesswork (first that Basilina is a diminutive of Bassa, not Basil/Basilia; then which of the families of the cognomen Bassus is involved - half a dozen are attested.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I was just hopeful I could complete the ancestry diagram, if it could be confirmed. -- spincontrol 07:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Is the Cleanup banner still needed?

I'm not so sure that the article still needs the ugly "Cleanup" banner at the top. Granted, there are still a few Manual of Style issues which need to be addressed. However, the article is solid "B" class work and isn't so messy as to warrant the banner. (Heck, with a little work this article could meet GA criteria.)

Are there any objections to removing the "Cleanup" banner? Majoreditor (talk) 18:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Collapsable footnotes and sources

I've just added a feature that hides both footnotes and sources. It looks good, but I don't know how editors will receive the change, so I await criticism here. Thanks. -- spincontrol 01:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You've done a lot of good work on this page, I acknowledge that. And the collapsible function looks good, but if the footnotes are collapsed, clicking on a footnote in the article doesn't do anything. Is that happening for others? I wouldn't mind keeping the sources collapsed, though. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 01:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps we can try the option Carl suggests - collapsing the references but removing the collapse function from the footnotes. Just like Carl, I can't click onto a footnote superscript number and get hyperlinked to the actual footnote. Thoughts? Majoreditor (talk) 01:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Sadly it highlights the footnote but doesn't take you to it. I've removed the "collapsed" option from the footnotes, leaving it possible to hide them if you want. The footnotes behave normally when uncollapsed. -- spincontrol 05:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Persian campaign

This section has undergone a severe overhaul and may contain various new imperfections. Pointers appreciated. -- spincontrol 02:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Just moved the section Death as a subsection into the Persian campaign section. Death still needs work. -- spincontrol 03:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I only have one source that's even half-decent for this; "The Roman Emperors" by Michael Grant. It mentions that "His body, in accordance with his instructions, was buried outside Tarsus, but was subsequently taken to Constantinople." I imagine that's worth mentioning, isn't it? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 07:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Certainly. (He left Antioch angrily vowing never to go back and making arrangements to move to Tarsus. Ironic isn't it?) Libanius made his funeral oration there. -- spincontrol 21:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Heh the irony reminds me of Keynes' observation on the long run: "In the long run, we are all dead." carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 01:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Julian's works tabulated

I've turned Julian's works into a table for people to complain about. -- spincontrol 18:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

lol, despite your best efforts, I've nothing to complain about when information is actually suited to tabular format. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 19:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Do I need to draw out the parallel with crayons? -- spincontrol 00:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea what that last comment means. But the names, dates, and subjects of these works can be communicated in prose, and that's the way they should be presented. The Budé and Wright numbers aren't necessary for an encyclopedia oriented towards the general reader; but if this information should be in the article, it should be in a section that covers critical editions of Julian's texts (which would be separate from the section about the works themselves). --Akhilleus (talk) 03:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Don't tax yourself.
The original version provided Wright's numbers. I try to keep what I can of the original. The Bude reflects the chronological order and is used in Athanassiadi. And without them, you cannot check her sources from Julian. It's as much a help for the works as it is for Athanassiadi. Athanassiadi is important for her understanding of Julianic texts and their relevance to his life. -- spincontrol 08:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Let's not argue over the things we agree on. You've gained a good deal of respect from me with what you've done with this article, there's no reason to be tendentious and lose it. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 07:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
You have to earn a little respect before the loss of your respect means something. You can't see the issue. -- spincontrol 08:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

(remove indent)These insults are charming, but you seem to not understand the basic point: Julian's works should be described in prose, not a table. Or do you think it would be an improvement to start the "Life" section with a timeline? --Akhilleus (talk) 15:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you provide such prose descriptions? You've done nothing here lately. Rather than engage me at such length for trivialities, I'll reorganize the table so that it can accommodate your prose descriptions, as follows.
Bude Date Work Wright
XII early 363[1] Misopogon, Or, Beard-Hater –
Written as a satire on himself, while attacking the people of Antioch for their shortcomings. It is a light-hearted account of his clash with the inhabitants of Antioch after he was mocked for his beard and generally scruffy appearance for an emperor.
X Dec. 362[2] The Caesars –
Satire describing a competition between Roman emperors as to who was the best. It involves Julius Caesar, Augustus, Trajan, Marcus Aurelius, Constantine, and also interestingly Alexander the Great. This was a satiric attack upon the recent Constantine, whose worth, both as a Christian and as the leader of the Roman Empire, Julian severely questions.
This is an invitation to get out of the back seat and take the wheel. This article has languished for a long time and still needs lots to be done. -- spincontrol 01:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't want to add to the table. I want to remove it from the "writings" section entirely (the section really ought to be called "Works"). Take the chronological information, the title, and the description (where do these come from, anyway?) and turn them into prose. The Budé/Wright numbers should go in a table in a section that covers editions/translations of the Greek text (which is not the same thing as describing the works themselves). --Akhilleus (talk) 01:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
OK, so you're not going to do anything. -- spincontrol 02:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
No; when I have time I will do exactly what I just said--convert most of the table into prose, and create a section on editions/translations of the Greek text. But that won't be this week, nor the next. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
It won't be this year, nor the next -- given the amount of time you've spent on this article over the last few years. You've been happy enough to leave it in its awful state. But now something is being done about it, you speak up. -- spincontrol 03:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
It's true that I haven't done much to improve the text of this article, and I'm glad that you're working on it--most of what you've done seems like an improvement. But when you start a section asking for feedback, you should be prepared for negative feedback--especially since you asked for complaints! --Akhilleus (talk) 03:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't actually asking for feedback! I was letting people know what I'd done and at the same time bracing for a reaction. I'd placed a table in another article to which the reaction was as if someone had given an uncalled for enema. -- spincontrol 12:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The idea that a reader of Athanassiadi would check this article to chase down references is silly. Athanassiadi herself explains that she refers to the Budé; there's a snippet view available on Google Books, and it reads: "References to Julian's works are not preceded by the name of their author. The orations are numbered according to the Budé edition..." I would think that everyone who reads Athanassiadi's book has access to a college/university library with the Budé Julian, which is widely held according to Worldcat. If our hypothetical reader only has access to Wright, all s/he has to do is notice that Athanassiadi refers to titles such as Misopogon and Hymn to the Mother of the Gods in her text, and use this wonderful invention known as a table of contents to locate where the particular work is in Wright's text. But this is a bit beside the point, since, as I said, if Wright's and the Budé's numbers are going to be included in the article, they should be in a separate section about the critical editions of Julian's text. (A concordance between different editions is well-suited for a table, too.) --Akhilleus (talk) 15:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I have Athanssiadi in hand. I've used it extensively in the article. I don't have access to a university library that has the Bude edition or any other -- and waiting for it to be sent to the library with a wait of several days if not weeks would defeat the purpose now wouldn't it?
You just don't seem to grasp the issue. You might like to read Athanassiadi yourself but without access to the Bude edition and only Wright as your source for the text Athanassiadi cites. It is not a joy, I can promise you. When on p.140 her footnote #71 mentions IX. 190c, which oration is it and what does the text say? Use my table, it'll save you a lot of time. -- spincontrol 01:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not a huge fan of tables, but the one in question impresses me as useful. I see it not as a replacement for prose but rather as a supplemental. I'd suggest adding a paragraph or two directly above the table discussing the highlights of his other writings; some of the prose located below the table could be incorporated into the new paragraph(s) just above the table. If I weren't such a wiki-sloth at the moment I'd have a go at it myself. Majoreditor (talk) 02:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Athanassiadi, p.201, dates it "towards the end of his stay in Antioch".
  2. ^ Athanassiadi, p.197, written for the Saturnalia festival, which began Dec 21.

Julius Julianus?

I have doubts about this name, given as the father of Basilina, mother of Julian. I can't find a source for it.

In an old German book (Johannes Geffcken, Kaiser Julianus, 1914) I read that Basilina was the daughter of a praetorian prefect and consul for the year 325, Caeionius Julianus Camenius (also found here). In another old source, Smith's Biographical Dictionary, the name is given as (Amnius) Anicius Julianus.

How does Late Roman Prosopography treat Basilina's father? -- spincontrol 16:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

PLRE pp.148, 478-479 has Julius Julianus (PPO 315-324, cos. after 325) as the father of Basilina and maternal grandfather of Julian. The entry (pp.473-474) on Amnius Anicius Julianus (cos. 322; PVR 326-329) mentions no familial link to the emperor. Nor does the entry (p.476) on M. Ceionius Julianus Kamenius (PVR 333). Catiline63 (talk) 04:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to muddy the waters further, Bagnall Cameron Schwartz & Worp (Consuls of the Later Roman Empire, Atlanta, Georgia 1987, ISBN 1-55540-099X), note that a Julianus is consul in 325, replacing the previous consul of that year, Valerius Proculus. But this man is called 'Ionius Julianus'; in their critical appendix on the Fasti of 325 the authors note that the statement in PLRE that the name is recorded as Julius Julianus is simply untrue; there has been a lot of controversy about this man's name with different suggested emendations of which Julius is only one (Ionius may be correct, or a corruption of Caeionius), and there is, in fact, no reason to assume he is the PPO of 315-324. Cenedi (talk) 09:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Samarra and Apostates Dead

in it's own Article, The Battle of Samarra took place on 26 June 363 and Apostate "died a few hours later". Also in this Article here the Battle is dated to 26 June 363. The Article say in the same section, that Apostate was wounded for 3 days: "On the third day a major hemorrhage occurred and the emperor died during the night". So the date of his Dead is false or the date of the Battle - please forgive my bad english, maybe this bad english also causes a misunderstanding from facts in the Article (if so, just forget my question with a short comment) -- Hartmann Schedel (talk) 09:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where the three days come from; Ammianus at least states that Julian died in the night after the battle (Amm. Marc. XXV, 3, 23), and explicitly refers to June 27 as "the following day" (Amm. Marc. XXV, 5, 1: 'principio lucis secutae, quae erat quintum Kalendas Iulias'). The Neue Pauly also has only that version. The account of his death and Oreibasios' surgery is referenced with an article in the "World Journal of Surgery", to which I have no access; it would be interesting to know on which sources this statement is based. For the time being, I'd safely assume that June 26 is correct.
In German:
Keine Ahnung, wo die Version mit den drei Tagen herkommt. Ammianus erzählt, daß Julian in der Nacht nach der Schlacht gestorben sei, und bezeichnet den 27. Juni als "folgenden Tag" (Quellen s.o.). Die Version im Artikel, daß Oreibasios Julian operiert habe und er erst drei Tage später gestorben sei, stammt offenbar aus dem Artikel in der Fußnote im "World Journal of Surgery", aber da kann ich nicht nachschauen, auf was für Quellen die Autoren sich dort stützen. Der Neue Pauly jedenfalls redet auch nur vom 26. Juni. Fürs erste würde ich diesen Tag also als korrekt ansehen.
Varana (talk) 13:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I thank you very much for this very detailed answer and also for the very helpful and nice service, translating it for me into german, dear Varana. I also think, the date of dead was the 26th -- Hartmann Schedel (talk) 13:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I noticed the conflict after having read the article cited in the bibliography and used it as the source. I decided to leave it, based on the detailed medical analysis. I am on vacation at the moment and am away from sources. -- spincontrol 17:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

A quick check of the medical analysis article indicates that the authors used Philostorgius's version, which supplies relevant medical details and procedures unavailable to Marcellinus, so the article follows Philostorgius over Marcellinus. The issue should probably been noted in the main article. -- spincontrol 14:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

so it is still unclear when Apostate dies? -- Hartmann Schedel Prost 16:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I think, given the procedures that Oribasius performed, we have to follow the cited article and go for the three days. It's not final, but it is more probable than Marcellinus's that night. -- spincontrol 19:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
On the other hand, what are the sources for Philostorgius' account? Varana (talk) 21:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't know. I merely explained the indications of the scholarly source I cited, basically where the evidence was obtained and why it was preferred to Marcellinus, ie it showed superior knowledge of medical procedures that only someone at the skill level of Oribasius would have used and one evening wouldn't be sufficient time for Oribasius to have used them. (It is not strange to use a text which depends on an unknown source, if the source shows superior knowledge.) -- spincontrol 18:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

wondering how Julian escaped being assassinated

Wondering how Julian escaped being "done in" By the Christian majoriey of hid time Were there any attempts on his life? GThanks! (Eve,Sn,Sept.26,200921stCent Dated by DFr, Edson Andre' Johnson D.D.ULC for my records) Edsonbrasil (talk) 03:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Well first of all, not too sure about wether they were a majority at the time, especially in the aristocratic circles. Second of all, it's not too sure he did escape :P There has always been speculation that he was, as you say, done in by Christians at the battle of Samarra. Druworos (talk) 18:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Julian_(emperor)/Archive_4&oldid=1136858867"