Talk:List of Christians martyred during the reign of Diocletian

Question about dating

Since the main article dates the Diocletianic Persecution from 303 to 313, how is it that deaths outside this time are included? Cynwolfe (talk) 17:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

So are we going to get any indication of how this list was generated? Cynwolfe (talk) 23:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The article says how the list was generated. It's any Christian killed by state violence in the Roman Empire during the reign of Diocletian. Adam sk (talk) 23:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

No, where did you get the names? How did you determine that each of these individuals was a victim of the Diocletianic Persecution? Some of the individuals fall outside the time period described in the main article, for instance. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Um, I googled Diocletian, persecution, and list. And I think you're reading the main article wrong. I think "Diocletianic" is just an adjective meaning "during the reign of Diocletian", so I don't see why we wouldn't include all martyrs from his reign. The article uses the term "Great Persecution" for the period 303 to 313, but I think that the phrase "Diocletianic Persecution" would apply to earlier martyrdoms as well, such as the persecution of Christians in the army before 303. Adam sk (talk) 00:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The main article says that a series of edicts in 303 marked the beginning of the Diocletianic Persecution. The list contains martyrs from before that. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Who R you?—Who R you? (talk) 06:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

You indicate Diocletian's reign from 284 through 305. So I must wonder how a killing in 283 ends up on the list. The 'Unknown' years are of course suspect; 'Anastasia of Sirmium' article states it's known that she died under Diocletian, but that is equally unreferenced. As we all know, everything (other than the sky is blue and grass is green) should have RS.

If the list came from a Googling of Diocletian + Prosecution, is this just a copy of the returned list or was each page viewed and reviewed? I assume the latter; since if this is just the Google list, the article obviously might say 'so-and-so' died before the start of the Diocletian persecution or it is clearly known that 'so-and-so' did not die as a result of the Diocletian's Great Persecution. Either way, assuming each name listed was checked and should appropriately be listed, the links are needed. The point is that someone referring to the list may be looking for more info, or may want to provide confirmation (and a user's claimed source of "I found it on Wikipedia" will just compel them to provide additional sources), so each source here is required. If you'd pulled the list from some hard-copy source, the user could (if desired) obtain a copy of the source to review; without some indication of where this list came from, it cannot be confirmed; and, even if someone professing to be knowledgeable claimed that they knew 'so-and-so' shouldn't be listed, there couldn't be any verification since no initial sources are listed. (Just needs link to Google identified page after each name on the list).

For the names outside of the timeframe of the Great Persecution, but during the reign of Diocletian, it doesn't do any harm to list them so long as it's clear that they do/don't relate to the topic linked from; if the page linking here is only about the Great Persecution, then the list should clearly identify who was martyred during that period and who was martyred before; if linked from Diocletian's page, all the killings during his reign are certainly applicable. Additionally, having the other names from before the 303 edict gives an excellent indication of the effect of the edict compared to prior happenings. (You've already sorted by date of death, insert a couple of titles or put it in a table and add some background colouring to differentiate the timeframes. -- Before Diocletian -- Diocletian Edict -- Diocletian Abdication -- Constantine's Reprieve --). Having citations will also ensure that later additions, like Cessianus (303), aren't vandalism, etc.

Citation is also needed for the 'Modern historians estimate that some 3,000-3,500 Christians were killed...'; i.e. where's the source that this is what modern historians have estimated. — Who R you? (talk) 06:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Diocletianic Persecution is an FA that I've watched for a long time. It's very carefully put together. "Diocletianic Persecution" is the historically neutral label for "Great Persecution" (which redirects there), dated 303–313 at the main article. I appreciate Who R you?'s prompt and thorough attention, but respectfully disagree that any Christian death occurring during the reign of Diocletian counts as a victim of the Great Persecution. That isn't what the FA says. In order to qualify for this list, each saint either needs to have a citation here for an RS stating that they were martyred during the Diocletianic Persecution (a proper noun that is not equivalent to "any Christian who suffered a violent death during the reign of Diocletian"), or needs to have such verification in his/her article. Their deaths thus need to have actually occurred between 303 and 313, unless the name of the article is changed to List of Christians killed during the reign of Diocletian. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

And I see your point; but, the Diocletianic Persecution article itself identifies that Christian's were put to death under Diocletian's rule before 303. The fact that 20 were martyred in the 19 years of his reign before the decree and some 47 were killed in the subsequent 10 years (most of those in the first 3 years), adds to the significance and effect of the edict.

The introductory clause does need to be changed to indicate that the first 20 were prior to Diocletian's Persecutorial policies coming into effect, but the provision of additional, relevant, enlightening information is certainly justified in the encyclopedia. Think of it terms of NPOV, limited weight (20 names to 47) given to an alternate POV; that alternate POV being that the Diocletian's Persecution really didn't make things any worse for Christians.

No doubt you've both looked for some guidelines regarding Relevance; but from what I see, what there is is a work in progress, the answer is far from having come to a consensus on how to determine relevance at this point.

But I can't see how providing limited, non-detracting additional information is a problem. Also, in doing some research I came across St. Leocadia whom I assume should also be included in the list.

And of course the RS for the 3,000-3,500 is <ref>Frend, ''Martyrdom and Persecution'', 393–94; Liebeschuetz, 251–52.</ref> which I should have caught yesterday.

If you don't mind me asking, Cynwolfe: Other that the fact that the list won't exactly match the exact wording of the article title, and assuming that the two classes were clearing differentiated from each other, how do you see the other 20 names detracting from the information provided?

And Adam sk, again, if you don't mind me asking, do you agree that it's necessary to provide footnotes, links, something to indicate the reliable source for each of your references. I would otherwise just suggest ensuring that each linked Wikipedia article confirmed this person was a victim of Diocletian and did itself identify an RS; but I note that Quirinus of Rome doesn't even assert as absolute fact that he died in 303; so WP:RS would, I think, require citation of each source, either via validated RS in the linked article or via link to your source. Would you be prepared to do that, in order to complete all the hard work you've done so far? (And if you would like any basic technical assistance in converting the list to table format, I do tend towards the techy side of things and would be happy to help with the simple table structure; not that it's hard or undocumented, just some aren't necessarily predisposed to such computereze; and that, of course, assumes you'd like the list to appear in table format [which I would suggest is a common form for lists].)

—— Who R you? (talk) 02:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion is that the article title be changed as I redlink above; it doesn't list only Christians killed during the Great Persecution (Diocletianic Persecution), but Christians killed under the reign of Diocletian. I'm not sure how else to state my objection, other than the FA gives a set of delimiting dates for the Great Persecution, and there are deaths that fall outside that. One main point of the FA is that the Great Persecution (proper noun) differs in its virulence and official sanctioning from sporadic, unofficial, or localized persecutions (lower case). Under the current title, this isn't "additional" information; it's inaccurate and misleading as to the scope and dates of the event it supposedly covers. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Still a valid point. But as precedent; I'll cite the List of bus routes in London, which includes, subsequent a list of all the bus routes in London, a table entitled Other routes within the London area which, as one can imagine, does not meet the precise confines of the article's title; and yet is sufficiently related by proximity to qualify for inclusion on the page.

Similarly here, so long as no one is confused, which I grant they would be by the current introductory phrase "This is a list of Christian martyrs who were killed during the Diocletianic Persecution, along with the likely date and place of their martyrdom:"; but subject to that being changed, perhaps to something along the lines of "Christian martyrs killed during Diocletian's reign up to and after the Great Persecution started in February 303, along with the likely date and place of their martyrdom:", I hope all sides can accept the page.

The preceding line was to end, hoping that it could be agreed that the list was complete and accurate, but as a brief review of the following indicates, that assumption will require some verification and perhaps some substantial revision. In continuing to look at some of the issues, I came across this excerpt of AN ACCOUNT OF THOSE WHO SUFFERED IN THE FOURTH CENTURY - SUMMARY OF THE MARTYRS OF THE FOURTH CENTURY which appears to list some additional names, but may also call into question some of the timelines specified in the list (I specifically noticed Irene, with her two sisters in that source and Agape, Chionia, and Irene in the list), all of which also reinforces my belief that, when dealing with matters this ancient, some error and flexibility must generally be assumed in regards to dates relied upon.

I considered the compromise of a truly accurate list article title, but "List mostly of the Christians killed during the Diocletianic Persecution, plus those killed during Diocletian's Reign prior to the Great Persecution, and a few possibly killed shortly after Constantine enacted the Edict of Milan" seems a little wordy. And of course you (Cynwolfe) offered the earlier redlink but that doesn't really accurately reflect the list which is primarily (70% and perhaps to be substantially more) victims of the Great Persecution.

In fact, from the looks of it, if the list is separated, depending on how precise and reliable we all think the dates are from 1,700 years ago, and whether we think that they are all accurate to within ± 2 weeks, it might mean that the 13-year-old Saint Eulàlia being put to death for not renouncing her beliefs would either be the first name on the list, or would fall in the plain old every day being killed for believing in God, versus Quirinus of Rome who, assuming some RS can be found to say he died in the Great Persecution rather than just as part of the regular everyday persecution, would have the dubious honour of being the first on the list. (Seriously, how hard do you want to argue to keep the 13-year-old girl, who was tortured 13 times and still refused to recant, off the list as her martyrdom not being Great enough?) And I say that tongue-in-cheek recognizing your argument in response; however, even if my argument is acknowledged as not supporting a reason to include the other names, and the other issues; I still refer you back to my earlier point regarding reliance upon precision of dates.

How sure are you that February 24th, 303 is the correct date for the start of the Great Persecution; perhaps the article's source, and their source, are all impeccably correct that this was the date that the Nicomedia church was destroyed, but did the RS say that others (like Eulalia) weren't killed as the first act of the Great Persecution and that razing the church was not the second or third act following the beginning of the Persecution? I'm not looking to create OR, but I am also leery about ascribing steadfast reliablity to information (particularly dates) so ancient. We (collectively) must be certain not to place a greater reliance on our regurgitation of information which (according to Note 14 of the other article) may not be as perfectly knowable at this point as we might like. In this situation, a larger combined list of recognizedly less than guaranteed perfection, rather than restrictive selection if names for inclusion, may yield the most accurate result. — Who R you? (talk) 09:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a List of Christians killed during the reign of Diocletian. I myself would prefer List of Christians martyred under the reign of Diocletian, because in fact it isn't an attempt to list all Christians "killed" during the time in question, but presumably those who were killed for their faith and not in a bar fight. You're arguing facts that are better argued at Diocletianic Persecution, which is an FA that's been edited very little since it achieved that status. To dispute the facts of that article here turns this article into a POV fork. I'm going to post a notice at the main article and at the Classical Greece and Rome project seeking opinions. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that Who Are You? has just made a good, unintentional case for renaming the article exactly as Cynwolfe has sensibly suggested. The entry for Diocletianic Persecution reflects the current state of scholarship on a recognizable historic event. Referring to this list with the term "Diocletianic Persecution" in its title is what is restrictive, since that term has its own definition; to include individuals who have nothing to do with the events following the edict of Nicomedia guarantees not that the list is "less than perfect", but incorrect. If the concern is with providing as much information as possible without reflecting accepted scholarly positions about the Diocletianic Persecution, then a List of Christians killed during the reign of Diocletian is what we want here, and all that's needed now is to correct the article's name. A link to Diocletianic Persecution in the introduction can then provide the reader with adequate context within which to appreciate this inclusive list. If we want a List of Christians killed during the Diocletianic Persecution, then the individuals who clearly don't belong need to go, and those who are borderline should have their entries commented upon here, with reliable sources. The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 13:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there seems to be confusion about what that capital "P" means: Diocletianic Persecution is the historically neutral way to name Great Persecution as a delimited historical event with a beginning and end; the phrase that would encompass all Christian persecution during the reign of Diocletian would be "Diocletianic persecutions." It's the difference between English Civil War and English civil wars. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I had hoped to see Adam sk's thoughts on this, since he was the one who started the list; not that that makes it his, but still. However, from the looks of it, he's a once a week to once every couple of months editor and so it might be a while before he's back here, if at all. My interest was only in response to a 3^rd Option request, and of course, we now have four (assuming we count and deem ourselves able to deduce Adam's original option). My opinion, after looking at the list originally was that the additional names were appropriate. You two members of the Greek/Roman group disagree, with Adam's opinion assumed to be that they should be included (which I deduce from his inclusion of them) we are far from consensus on the topic. If I thought it a major issue, I'd suggest that the other 95+ members of the Greek/Roman group chime in with their opinions and see where we stand.

However, I note that Adam's original response, on his talk page, seemed to indicate that anyone who wished should feel free to contribute additional information and names to the list. I take that as an indication that he is not overly possessive of his work and has no problems with additional contributions. Whether or not he would really care if the list title is changed will, I suppose, have to wait for him to return his opinion here if we are really to know for sure; but, of course, he did apparently oppose it before I became involved. Whether or not he would change his mind now is unclear (at least to me).

For my part, I don't particularly care one way or the other, except to note, as I already did, that the wiki article on Saint Eulàlia, and my own POV relating to God and faith (not to be confused with Religion), compel me to believe that she should be included in the list. Whether I may be a Forker aside, I none-the-less question the accuracy of any date cited as absolute, fixed and irrefutable fact when it's a date from 1,700 years ago; but even excluding that and whether or not I would care to dispute the specificity of February 23^rd, 303, (and the fact is I really don't care or care to), the reality is that: a) I can't check the source for myself simply because they aren't online sources and I'm not about to go to the library to try to find these documents to review such issues, and b) far more to the point, even if Feb 23 is actually the exact right date for the edict to destroy the Nicomedian church, and even assuming that this was the first edict issued in relation to what is now referred to as the Diocletianic Persecution, the FA does not sufficiently speak to whether or not individuals executed in late 302/early 303, (for example on February 12^th, 303), were executed just for kicks as part of the general Roman persecution of Christians, or whether it would have constituted the beginning of the Persecution. And I don't believe anyone in the 21^st century can have that answer unless they've got their time-machine running properly. So the question then simply becomes, do you decide, without any possible method of knowing which is or is not correct, do you decide to include or exclude Eulàlia from the list? And then there's the staggering question of whether Eulàlia of Barcelona is in fact the same as Eulàlia of Mérida or whether there actually were two 13-year-oldish virgins tortured and slaughtered for their belief in Jesus within about a year. I, as I said, am generally unconcerned either way, and, depending on Adam's opinion, I wouldn't have any concern with the list being renamed, or not, whatever (See WP:Fuck). Personally, I find having read the story of this 13-year-old and her faith to have been far more important to me than this list (or Wikipedia as a whole for that matter; not that there's the slightest thing wrong with WP!).

Regardless, I'll start a separate thread below on this discussion page to repeat the sources I found earlier and an additional one which indicates some names not previously included in this list. I would add St. Leocadia to the list now, but the web-page that I found the other day is coming up with an error right now, and I won't add something without being able to quadruple check my sources. I am uncomfortable enough using the source cited in Diocletianic Persecution for the 3,000−3,500 killed without being able to read the source for myself. But hopefully someone else will be able to access the webpage identifying St. Leocadia when they are otherwise adding to, updating, and adding references for this list. I (choose to) believe that someone (besides me) is meant to be learning a little more about faith in this process. — Who R you? (talk) 03:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Just a note to explain why I just undid the note that was brought over from Diocletianic Persecution (which Who R you? admits to being uncomfortable about using without seeing the texts): those references actually concern the main topic of that article (i.e. c. 303–313) and not the entire reign of Diocletian. I'd love to help improve the introduction, too, but I think it might be best to wait until we have some consensus on the scope (and title) of the list. The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 04:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Glad u caught that; thx — Who R you? (talk) 20:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I was also able to access that Catholic Encyclopedia webpage on St. Leocadia again, and then noticed that she has a WP article, so I added her to the list. Interestingly, her death (with some equivocation) dates to Dec 9/304 and she was (apparently) inspired by the martyrdom of St. Eulalia; but since Eulàlia of Mérida was (according to what we're saying) martyred on Dec 10/304 (the next day), I take this to (sort of) confirm that Eulàlia of Barcelona was a second, separate person/event (either that or well orchestrated church propaganda). Just weird how things play out sometimes; anyways, I've added Leocadia to the list. I'm also wondering if any/all of the names should be "Saint …"/"St. …", or does the fact that they were martyred (in the Great Persecution) mean that they've all been declared saints? Can't say that I know much about Catholicism. I've added her without the "Saint" since that seems to be the standard for most of the list; and I'm wondering if there should also be a standard as to "So−and−so of Such−and−such (a Place)" or if it should just be "So−and−so" if the same place is listed afterwards as their place of death; just wondering about some form of standardization for the list. But on some levels it makes sense to me for all the names (& article titles) to be St. So−and−so of Such−and−such just for consistency and proper form if say school kids are using this as a reference.

I also noticed that this New Advent/Catholic Encyclopedia site talks about how "[t]he last great persecution gave the Church in Spain a succession of martyrs, who from 303 until 305 suffered death for the Christian Faith"; and our list (as it stands now) only lists 4 deaths (known) after 305; so does this mean that the Diocletianic Persecution should really only talk about a 3−year period (303 − 305 incl.), even granting that Constantine didn't officially rescind it until 313; ah, but then I suppose I'm Forking again; never mind. — Who R you? (talk) 22:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Our emotions regarding the suffering of these individuals has nothing to do with whether the article was given the most accurate name. I have yet to see an argument against naming the article List of Christians killed during the reign of Diocletian, so as not to suggest that the Diocletianic Persecution (= Great Persecution) is the same as "Diocletianic persecution," lower case. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

And as I said, I offered my opinion, but it doesn't really make that much difference to me under what name the list appears. The issue of the name associated with a minor list that has a 'Low' importance rating quite honestly appears rather trivial to me. (And if I didn't think it'd be rude to just ignore others, I might just drop the whole thing and stop watching the page; but I generally respond when spoken posted to). Thus the only person who might have an actual problem with renaming, Adam, is the only one who hasn't replied as yet.

If you'd like, check if he's set up to receive emails and invite him to return here & share his views; or, alternatively, just go ahead & WP:BOLD the change and if Adam really objects, input from others can be sought for an after the fact consensus. Or if you're not comfortable with that, leave it for a week or two and see if Adam's been back to comment by then. But regardless, the list, as it currently stands, is unref'd and incomplete, so I'd think that to be the issue of greater importance. And personally, while I have found it interesting to read the few related topics and learn what I have about it, I can't say as I'm looking to undertake the task of bringing the list, under whatever name, up to the high standards for which we hopefully all are striving.

So I'll be a prick, and throw it on you dear; since you have had a concern from early on as to whether things were properly sourced and whether or not the right title is assigned, I will suggest that you pick up the torch and carry it through to a quality end (under whatever name, and I will say that I agree with your much earlier point that "... martyred during the reign..." is better than "...killed during the reign..."); and once complete, it can justifyably be linked from the main article. And rather than trying to determine who does/doesn't make the list of Great Persecution only martyrs, (particularly given that some of the dates are Unknown), as I said, feel free to BOLDly rename; but as it stands now, it's an incomplete and unref'd list regardless of the name. But if you post more here, or Adam or Cardiff Chestnut return to comment, I'll respond (with the intent of being civil by responding rather than trying to stir up stuff); but I'll still always respond from my opinion 'cause that's just the type of guy I am. Relax, have fun, enjoy, & ttyl. — Who R you? (talk) 05:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no objection. Adam sk (talk) 03:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

So we're done here, no? The rename is necessary because the headword of this list is an inaccurate derivative of another article's headword. The initial author's (Adam sk) misunderstanding of the term "Diocletianic Persecution" is expressed at the beginning of this thread; the other user (Who R you?) that has expressed reservations regarding Cynwolfe's initial concerns has stated that he/she is not opposed to a rename, but wants the list to be inclusive. A new title, "List of Christians killed during the reign of Diocletian", is as inclusive as possible and will not alter the content of the list as the creator has presented it. (Had the initial author a true concern about the title, Adam sk would presumably have engaged in this discussion over the past few days; he has been editing. Adam has now commented directly above this post.) The introduction to this list needs to be altered as it is currently reflective of the creator's misunderstanding, but, other than that, all the list needs is the rename. I volunteer to edit the intro. Cynwolfe, can you initiate the renaming process since I'm a bit too green to do it myself? (Or please explain to me the proper way to go about it.) The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 07:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, yes, sorry; I'm starting a break but remembered this was in the air and stopped by to check. Since I appreciate that you want to learn to do this, I'll give instructions instead of just doing it. On the row of buttons where you open a page to edit, click on the "down" arrow next to the star (where you mark a page to put it on your watchlist). You'll see a button for "Move." Click on that, and you'll get a self-explanatory page where all you have to do is give the new title, and a brief reason (such as "moving to reflect article scope as a result of talk page discussion"). Click "move page" and you're done. The old title will automatically redirect to the new. It's a very simple procedure (unless the desired page name is already taken, but we already know that isn't the case here because of the redlink).

There is one further step that's etiquette. After moving, go to the article under its new name. In the bar down the left side of the page, click on "Toolbox," and then on the drop-down "What links here." It's good maintenance when possible to make sure that any links in other articles go directly to the newly renamed page, and not through an alternative name (see Wikipedia:Double redirects). You only need to change links in articles, not user/talk pages and such. Thanks for your diligence. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Ahhhh ... a button: I can handle that. Have a great break!. The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 01:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Excellent to see that not only a consensus, but indeed unanimity, was eventually reached. And Cynwolfe, I hope you enjoyed the vacation and return feeling rested & restored. — Who R you? (talk) 07:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Missing Martyrs — Additional Sources

This separate section (which repeats those already initially identified above) seemed more appropriate to consolidate and catalog the growing list of brief references sources and references to others who should (likely) be included in this list:
— Who R you? (talk) 03:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

St. Leocadia	http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09173b.htm
AN ACCOUNT OF THOSE WHO SUFFERED IN THE FOURTH CENTURY - SUMMARY OF THE MARTYRS OF THE FOURTH CENTURY
St. Christopher and St. Demetrius	publish.ucc.ie/researchprofiles/A008/dwoods/research 2nd-last sentence.

Specificity of dates

I think we might have another problem. Going through the list I've noticed that the specific days of death are all the feast days in the Western tradition and that the uncertainty expressed at many individual pages as to a saint's year of death disappears in this list once the form becomes "August 9, 2011". The Eastern tradition often differs, so right there we have a POV issue, not to mention the fact that assuming a one-to-one agreement between dates of death and feast days is not a strong historiographical approach. Several of these people appear to have more secure biographies, but I wonder if, to avoid the confusion that would be inherent in giving a specific day for some and not for others (and would lead to feast days simply being reintroduced by well-meaning editors), it might be advisable to change the content to simply year of death. The reader can deduce what he/she wishes at the page of the saint. That is, Saint Gabinus' info would go from (May 30, 300, Porto Torres) to (c. 300, Porto Torres).

Another option is to create a more complex system for the page. Namely, a table with the following columns:

• Name
• Year of Death
• Place of Death
• Feast days—giving all of them. The new title of the list would allow for the inclusion of non-saints, but the likelihood that an editor would come upon a mention of a specific Christian killed who wasn't sainted and wish to enter the name here is pretty unlikely. We could deal with it when it comes.
• Notes—if there is better evidence than the calendar of saints for a specific date of death, it could be mentioned here. This field would also allow for clearing up confusion with people like Anastasia of Sirmium

Thoughts? The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 08:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

My opinion has always been that dates going back that far are inevitably unreliable; (elsewhere I'm finding it challenging to establish the correct year when going back only 190 years). And even in terms of what dates were originally selected to be commemorated, was the first association of a date to an individual based on the date of their death, burial (or similar), a rough guess, or the Friday that seemed good six (or 150) years later when they commemorated the event for the first time?

But I guess the criteria always comes down to the consensus of the WP:RS; and, like I said I really don't know anything about this topic of religious history, but I would assume that the calendar of saints you mention (I'm guessing from the title that's an official Catholic Church list) is probably a standard that would be reflected in most/all of the other sources you'd be likely to find.

I'd think the most simple and straight forward is, if the calendar (and the WP article) give a specific date, note it, and if those sources are vague, be equally vague in the list; basically the way it is now. As for feast days vs. actual date of death, would it be easiest just to word the opening paragraph to reflect that where specified, these are the dates that are used to commemorate their deaths or something similar?

I'm just torn between the idea that a relatively simple list of the (now) saints, associated with Diocletian's reign and the Great Persecution, is all that most people would expect or need and it's probably much less work to create, versus a thorough concise table layout like you describe which my first instinct says will require a tremendous amount of work to review everything so thoroughly. But, the opposite side to that is, if you're willing to invest the hard work (you will be looking up and referencing all the sources anyways) if you're going through the process, doing it right and creating the absolutely best possible, most definitive list is what will stand the test of time; and it's not like the list is likely to change anytime soon (other than one-off new additions that might have been missed); I seriously doubt any large number of Reliably Sourced additions is coming any time soon.

If you decide to go the detailed table route, I can certainly give you some assistance with laying it out setting up the codes, etc; if you aren't already comfortable with that part, I'll assist with the technical side of things. tty tomorrow — Who R you? (talk) 11:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Dropping by with my daily check-in during my break. I agree with the POV issue raised by CC above. If these are asserted as historical events occurring within the reign of Diocletian, there need to be sources that are historical and neutral, not just a particular saint's calendar. The distinction between a feast day and a historical date of death is a matter of encyclopedic importance. CC's point essentially gets at my initial reaction at the top of the page: how was this list generated? Some WP articles on saints are quite careful in examining the relation between sacred tradition and history; some are not, and were pulled from an antiquated non-neutral public-domain source early in WP's creation. That's why I raised questions about sources. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

In terms of your question of a list format, I came across Chronological list of saints in the 3rd century; which doesn't help any in terms of the questions of Feast Day or the like, but it might help crystalize the format for the list. That list isn't specifying anything other than year of death (& year of birth); perhaps as a result of the same questions arising here. I'm of the opinion that it doesn't necessarily matter which date is listed (feast or death), as long as it's indicated which it is. Ideally, if both dates are available, I'd be compiling both dates; it may not be until the research is almost complete that you'll have any sense of how many you'll find only one or the other or both for. And, as CW rightly keeps in the foreground, the reference is needed for every fact. But again, I think that comes down to compiling a raw data list (whether that's on this page or elsewhere), and then using the most available/reliable info to create the finished list. You may find that the first 20 have only a feast date but the rest have more historic sources, or perhaps the opposite; you won't know until the data's collected. Based on the other list, I'm thinking something along the lines of:

Name	BirthPlace	BirthDate	DeathDate	DeathPlace	FeastDay	Notes	Source(s)
Leocadia †	Toledo	Un­known	304/12/09 ≈	Toledo, Spain	12/09	Died in Prison	CATH. ENCYC.
Gabinus †	Un­known	Un­known	300 ∉	Porto Torres, Italy	05/30	Roman Soldier converted while guarding Priest & Deacon; all three put to death

† indicates Saint; or have we figured out that that's redundant and everyone found is going to be a Saint? Or maybe we don't know that yet either.

≈ following a date indicates that this date, while thought to be accurate, cannot be reliably verified.

∉ following a date indicates that this date is known to be questionable; however no more accurate date is likely to be found.

But when you're creating your working list, I'd either be doing it a spreadsheet (but then nobody else can see and try to help you with any of it); or I'd do it like the original list here, in point form, and plan on adding formatting to it later for a table. E.g.:

• Leocadia+|Toledo|?|304/12/09~|Toledo, Spain|12/09|Died in Prison|http://www.....com
• Gabinus+|?|?|300?|Porto Torres, Italy|05/30|Roman Soldier...|Some source for this info (probably from the foreign language external web pages listed on his wiki page).

Depending how much of the data's available, there may be the option of setting up a table to allow sorting of the data which some users would no doubt find useful, but I figure a lot of the rows will only have some of the info available (like a Feast but not Historic Death day), or no BirthPlace or Date; but I think it's a matter of collecting the basic data then seeing what more info can be found and see what makes seems the most sensible method for displaying the info available. The possibility of sorting is also why dates appear in the format yyy/mm/dd or mm/dd.

But regardless, I guess it still comes down to seeing what info can be found, from what sources, then deciding how best to format it. — Who R you? (talk) 10:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I would definitely suggest that you add all the links right away (another reason to just do it here or in your sandbox), since you'll have the appropriate pages open and can easily cut & paste web addresses and verify that links point to the right pages and not disambiguation pages and the like. I've just found that if I don't do it right away, I end up having to do the same work over, reopening pages and re-reading info to make sure I'm at the right spot. (But I expect I'm only reminding you of what you already knew.) ttyl — Who R you? (talk) 10:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

This article presents legend and fiction as fact

Let's just look at the first and last names on this list for right now. Saints Chrysanthus and Daria - the WP article on them calls this a legend. This story says that Saint Doria, an ex-vestal virgin, was sent to serve in brothel but a passing lion jumped on her first would-be client and pinned him to the ground until the saint signalled to the beast to let him go. She was then buried alive for refusing to have sex. Notre Dame professor of the New Testament and Early Christianity Candida Moss in her recent book "The Myth of Persecution" calls this story "completely untrue...Historically, it makes no sense. This simply could not have happened...unthinkable...the story was invented...fantastic and unbelievable...far from the truth." Philomena was unknown until the 19th century, when the remains of a young girl were discovered in a catacomb and in 1833 a dream revealed to a nun that the body was that of a princess martyred by Diocletian! "On 14 February 1961, the Holy See ordered that the name of Saint Philomena be removed from all liturgical calendars that mentioned her." There never was such a person, even the Church admits it. Wikipedia should not be a platform for repeating legends, lies and fabrications as fact, in my opinion it is quite disgusting. I will have to think about how to try to rectify this, for the moment I am putting neutrality and factual accuracy tags on the article.Smeat75 (talk) 05:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

As you can see from the first discussion when the article was started, its intent has always seemed a bit "pointy" in the Wikipedia sense, and seems to have originated with "I found it on the internet". The first part of Diocletian's reign is actually considered part of the Little Peace of the Church—and that's according to Eusebius, suspected by a few scholars of fabricating the events at Lugdunum in 177 and not known for minimizing persecutions. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any ideas as to what should be done about it, Cynwolfe? I have not looked through all the names on the list but I would be surprised if a single one is actually supported by any independent historical source. The first and last entries are absurd fictions, to me it seems intolerable to have these fabrications presented as history. I am thinking about nominating this article for deletion, do you think that is a good idea?Smeat75 (talk) 14:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I've been mulling this over, and I don't know. Certainly a better introduction that explains how secondary sources evaluate the historicity of these figures. I know I wouldn't have time to devote to checking each of these. My initial question about how the list was generated never really got a satisfactory answer. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

That these names are based on legends should be a given. There is no doubt that most (if not all) of the names were just handed down over the generations by tradition - without historical documentation. Were some of them for real? Probably. But John Wanamaker said it: "50 cents out of every advertising dollar I spend is wasted, the problem is I don't know which 50 cents". So probably some them were real but no one knows which ones. The point is that in that period Christians kept to themselves a lot and most of them did not meet WP:Note in the 3rd century version of Wikipedia. The only way is to present the list as items built into the Christian tradition/legend rather than historical fact, and for those few where historicity can be determined make special cases. But that will take serious work. Alas these lists get generated by the advance J-development method as editors just add things... History2007 (talk) 00:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

By the way, "killed" does not make sense because I am sure a few others were killed by burglars a few were killed by getting kicked by horses, etc. and were not intended as part of this list. Can probably say "List of Christians killed in the Diocletianic Persecution" History2007 (talk) 01:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I raised this point when the article was first created. if it's a martyrs list it should be a martyrs list. One of the reasons it seems like synthesis to me is the vagueness of "Christians killed". As I recall, the name was chosen to get around the fact that the Diocletianic Persecution is defined as the period from 303 to 313, and the creator wanted to include any Christians who were killed during the reign of Diocletian—as you note, the current scope of the title would include a Christian killed in an industrial accident or executed for an actual crime, and not just those recognized by the Church as a martyr. I see this list as not fully complying with the criteria at WP:SAL. The scope is not clearly defined, and no one seems able to explain how the list was or should be generated. I have no problem with listing even martyrs whose historicity is questioned or rejected by the Church itself—as long as we make these issues clear. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Move

Should the move from "Christians killed" to "Christians martyred" prove to be controversial, I just wanted to support it after the fact. I think this title defines the scope of the article much better, since it isn't a list of all Christians "killed" during the reign of Diocletian, and a martyrs' list has much clearer criteria per WP:SAL. Thanks to StAnselm for going ahead with this. Cynwolfe (talk) 11:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The new title is a bit of an improvement I suppose however this is still not a good subject for an encyclopaedia article in my opinion as the "great persecution" started in 303 and Diocletian only reigned until 305. I imagine whoever started this article really meant "martyrs of the Great Persecution" but as it says "during the reign of Diocletian", it can only cover the years 303-305 of the "great persecution", a rather silly and arbitrary cut-off date, as the persecutions went on, in one form or another, to 313. But that was the result of the AfD nomination and consensus, and it will I suppose be better than the list was before.Smeat75 (talk) 05:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I am removing all those dates for the legendary figures, I think the person who created this article just made them up.Smeat75 (talk) 05:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I have not finished, in case anyone wonders, and I have been checking all those dates as I go along to make sure that there is not any evidence for them - I did find one, Eulalia of Barcelona, whose traditional date of martyrdom is as given, but as far as I can see the rest of those dates consists of their saint's day which the person who created this article decided meant the day they were martyred, there is no reason to think that, combined with a year s/he just made up in most cases.Smeat75 (talk) 06:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Just an example of the junk this list is

This list, which I am re-working, currently includes : "Anastasius of Antioch, Julian and Basilissa (January 9, 304, Antioch)" which would lead a reader quite reasonably to suppose that it is a fact that these three people were martyred together on January 9 304 in Antioch. Click on Anastasius of Antioch, and it takes you to a stub on that figure which says nothing about a date. Click on Julian and Basilissa and you go to a page which says they were husband and wife who died about the year 304, on 9 January, or maybe 8 January, either in Antioch or more likely it was in Antinoe, and nobody knows a thing about them ("There exists no historically certain data relating to these two holy personages") and get them mixed up with other saints and martyrs all the time.Smeat75 (talk) 00:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I, for one, get the picture and thank you for attempting to make this list worthy of inclusion in WP. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Smeat, as much as I appreciate your efforts to fix this mess, I'm still bothered (as I was at the beginning) by the time frame, since the list includes figures who died after the reign of Diocletian. If it's a list of those who were martyred during the "Great" Persecution, everybody before 303 has to go, and the article needs to be renamed "List of Christians martyred during the Diocletianic Persecution" (to match what the article calls the "Great" Persecution); if the temporal scope is the reign of DIocletian, everybody who died outside the years 284–305 has to go. The article creator didn't seem concerned when this fuzziness was pointed out. I don't care which of the two time frames is chosen, but it has to one or the other: 284–305 as currently named, or 303–313 and renamed. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree with you Cynwolfe, I just haven't got to the later names on the list yet, and am still working on it, it is very time-consuming checking all these figures (I found one, Margaret the Virgin, originally on this list as martyred on the very specific day "July 20, 304", who was " declared apocryphal by Pope Gelasius I in 494"!). As we had a AFD discussion and the article was moved to "List of Christians martyred during the reign of Diocletian' I thought we might as well leave it that way, and yes I am going to remove those listed as being martyred after 305, it is all a bit moot anyway since for the majority of these names no one knows when, or if, they were really martyred or even if there actually were such people. I have added quite a few from Eusebius, which is as close as one can get to a historical reference for most of this, that were not on the original list.Smeat75 (talk) 17:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I was pretty amazed at the example of Margaret the Virgin—somewhere else I commented that if the Church itself doesn't recognize a figure, then why is Wikipedia in the business of validating or endorsing Christian martyrs? And apologies if I seemed to be critical; I know all this requires painstaking efforts. So you think we can't just go through and delete figures who are outside scope of the current article (that is, outside the time period 284–305)? Cynwolfe (talk) 19:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

My plan was to check those later ones just to make sure the dates on this page actually relate to the dates on the pages they link to, I just haven't got to them yet, but if you want to delete those listed as post 305, go right ahead.Smeat75 (talk) 22:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

So I have gone through all the names that were on the list now and removed those that the WP articles linked to said died after the reign of Diocletian. Since I put on the "neutrality, factual accuracy and original research" tags, I will take them off now, and if there are not any objections after a couple of days I will remove the "additional citations needed" tag also.Smeat75 (talk) 02:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)