Talk:Persecution of pagans in the late Roman Empire/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Persecution of pagans changes to lead, moved from user talk page

Hi Richard! I noted your "bold" changes to the lead and while I don't disagree with anything you said, it seems to me the content you added reads more like a discussion that belongs in the body and less like a summary that belongs in the lead; what you removed was a summary and it was more focused on the titled topic than what is there now imo. I would like to see a slight redo that tightens this up and focuses it a little better. It wanders a bit right now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I shall do it. I'll also move this to Talk:Persecution of pagans in the late Roman Empire unless you object. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I have no objection. I usually keep these type of discussions on talk pages out of consideration for the other person's ego. That apparently isn't a problem for you, which is pretty cool actually. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey I love the lead now! I actually think it is a much more neutral and balanced lead than the one you replaced. I added one phrase to the sentence where you had 375 saying that 'in parts of the empire it continued into the 600s' - same source, but could add another source if you think it needs it. I like that you included that. I didn't really like the tone of the previous lead but left it since it did summarize and I don't generally remove things just because I personally don't like them, but this is a genuine improvement I think.

The whole concept of persecution in this article takes a modern day concept and overlays it on an era that never thought like that. The entire premise of persecution is dependent upon that particular POV - persecution is defined here by modern values and not by the values of the time or place. I am uncomfortable with that generally, and there is no discussion of that anywhere in this article - interpreting the past using modern ethics is a kind of fallacy in most cases - so if you wanted to add that somewhere, it would be good - probably. They make a point of it in the 'Persecution of Christians in the Roman empire' article - that Rome didn't think of it as persecution - at any rate it used to, I don't know if it still does. Anyway, just thought I would mention it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:23, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Me again! I know you're thrilled... :-) Do you have a source for this sentence: The followers of traditional polytheistic cults (in the 300s increasingly and pejoratively called "pagans" by Christians) also suffered unofficial violence and menace as Christians found that their increasing numbers made direct action possible.? Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:09, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Lovely to see you! I hope you're well. Wikipedia is a great place for cooperation... A specific source for those exact words - I really hope not, we are supposed to write the article ourselves, though the sentiment is from Ramsay MacMullen and Michael Gaddis and the primary records would include St Martin, the Spanish bishops denying the title of martyrdom to people who attacked sacred sites, and the more aggressive Eastern bands of monks.

Persecution is indeed a modern term, and perhaps we should repeat its definition in this article. I don't have a problem with judging the past or other cultures by modern values, so long as it's clear what we're doing. Do you have any suggestions for terms used in antiquity that cover what we'd call persecution? Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I've never been happy with the term "Persecution"; it's not how Christians (the persecutors in modern parlance) would have self described. "Champions of the Way" more like. But then they would, wouldn't they? Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Laurel Lodged it's good to see you and Richard here as well. Yes, the term 'persecution' presumes a conclusion doesn't it? So perhaps we should all think on this a bit and what would be neutral and not POV instead. The assumption is POV, but saying something about it also seems POV to me, and the title is the likeliest to be looked up by readers I think. If we can't come up with anything that won't violate neutrality, I think we are compelled to leave it, but perhaps something could be added to the tolerance section at the bottom? Something like a single sentence or two??? IDK. I don't have strong feelings about it, I just thought for the sake of neutrality it might be good to point out as the average reader would be unaware.

Scholars on violence and Christianity tend to divide into two camps: those that interpret from a modern ethical perspective and those that interpret from the historical setting. (Hmmm, I think I have a source for that in another article I wrote.) Richard seems to be saying he is of the first group while I am firmly in the latter. IDK if that matters or not to any of this, but perhaps you can mediate.

So Richard Keatinge - nice way to weasel out dude! But no, paraphrasing isn't a valid excuse for this sentence. The Spanish bishops denied the mantle of martyrdom to those who damaged pagan shrines long before the fourth century, and there is some evidence that it seems to have worked at discouraging that, so this is the opposite of support for your claim. The aggressive eastern monks were limited in their location and time frame and don't provide sufficient support for a broader claim about "Christians" either.

I am concerned, primarily, about the claim that Christians found that their increasing numbers made direct action possible which I doubt is an accurate reflection of any source - even Ramsay MacMullen. I don't think any scholar has described the Christians as that self-aware. There is no indication anyone was keeping track of numbers and promulgating that information. We would have some record of it, somewhere, and there are no records from that period of numbers of Christians anywhere I have heard of. There are only modern scholarly estimates, so Christians back then would not have had that knowledge. I would like some source that says they did. Local leaders would have known their churches were growing, but how would they have known that was happening elsewhere? There were no newspapers, no internet, there was no church newsletter. One guy could write a letter to another guy, but as far as I know, there are 'no' such letters discussing the increasing Christian population and what it might mean for taking action against the pagans.

Besides, the whole jist of Christian triumphalism after Constantine is that the battle was won, it was all she wrote for the pagans and paganism would inevitably decline. It didn't require overt action from the Christians. That is well sourced and seems kind of the opposite of what you say.

Also, this statement indicates intent, but the problem is, I don't really know what 'direct action' means - and neither can anyone else. I have a quote from Brown that talks about the fierce 'attitude' of the Christians toward pagans of the fourth century, and I have a couple that discuss their condescending and even violent 'rhetoric', but modern sources indicate rhetoric is pretty much where violence stopped. There was very little physical violence acted out at pagans or Jews, and the examples can be counted on your fingers. I have half a dozen sources saying that, and they directly contradict what seems to be being implied here - though its vagueness leaves that up for grabs doesn't it? A source that could clarify this would be appreciated.

Temple destructions are surely a primary example of any "direct action" but aside from the one guy, Maternus Cynegius, there is no indication that any but a miniscule number of temple destructions intentionally occurred in the fourth century, anywhere, across the entire empire. Though Theodosius certainly saw those eastern monks as a pain in his backside, I would still like to see a source that takes modern archaeology into consideration that says this indicates a desire or a practice of 'direct action' on the part of any majority of Christians, please.

So, paraphrasing aside, I need actual statements from sources, please, no weaseling - or just revert the sentence.Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

From this article: there were no pagan martyrs. Lives were lost around the imperial court, but there is no evidence of judicial killings for illegal sacrifices before Tiberius Constantine (574–582). So what kind of direct action is being claimed?

References

Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, I think I'm trying to give a modern perspective on the historical setting... I think that's a good approach for an encyclopedia. In this specific case we would be using a modern definition of persecution to describe a variety of activities which the Romans would certainly have found meaningful but didn't necessarily have a single word for. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:48, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Richard Keatinge Perhaps you should read our article on that: Presentism (literary and historical analysis); or this: [[1]]; or the book this quote is from: "presentism, “a term of abuse conventionally deployed to describe an interpretation of history that is biased towards and colored by present-day concerns, preoccupations and values. It is a truth almost universally acknowledged among historians that an aversion to presentism 'remains one of the yardsticks against which we continue to define what we do as historians'.” You'll find that one here: [[2]] I don't see how anyone who is the least bit informed about the study of history can legitimately claim that as good for the encyclopedia.Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:26, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

It's an attitude well-sourced to later Christian triumphalists, but of very limited relevance to what actually happened. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:48, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Richard Keatinge Going backwards and finding these inserts makes it very difficult to answer you, especially when you don't ping me. This response dismisses all of Peter Brown's work and everyone who has since followed in his footsteps, which is quite amazing of you, really! Part of Brown's anthropological thesis is that this attitude did in fact determine actual behavior, and is more representative of what actually transpired than imperial law which was never enacted. I doubt there is a source anywhere that says it had limited relevance. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:09, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Martin of Tours. I don't think anyone is claiming that a majority of Christians went around preventing religious meetings, destroying temples, and cutting down sacred trees. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:48, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Richard Keatinge Martin of Tours is addressed below. But this statement is disingenuous Richard. Your sentence said "Christians". Anyone who writes, "Americans think this way", or "pagans did that", or "Blacks are like this" will get called on it because such claims about a group are always evidence of bias, stereotyping, over-generalization and lots of other kinds of sloppy thinking. Groups have variations within them and if those are not acknowledged and described, they are innately false claims. You made a claim for all Christians in the way you wrote that sentence.Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:09, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Martin of Tours's activities by themselves demonstrated that self-selected Christians did put an end, using heavy persuasion backed by the well-documented legislative threats, to at least a large proportion of the non-Christian practices and sacred sites. This does bear on what we define as "persecution"; does your definition of "persecution" encompass this sort of activity? I'm open to discussion on this one; we can choose to define persecution narrowly, as actual grave personal violence, in which case we indeed don't need to mention it here. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:48, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

In primary sources it's mostly casual mentions, of things that modern and even contemporary Christians seem to find mildly embarrassing. For example, Ammianus Marcellinus 22.4 on palace attendants: "For some of them, fattened on the robbery of temples and scenting out gain from every source, on being raised from abject poverty at one bound to enormous wealth, knew no limit to bribery, robbery, and extravagance, always accustomed as they were to seize the property of others." Not really the sort of thing that attracts official documentation. But enough to document at least heavy pressure. Whether it counts as "persecution" we may discuss. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that everything we mention in this article counts as persecution while also acknowledging that it is a modern evaluation. I know not to take any of the primary sources at face value - they were all biased to their own POV is the consensus of scholars and both sides exaggerated - it is still true that there was pressure, just as there had always been pressure, in the empire for everyone to get on the state-religion train. I think that is covered well here, with good quality secondary sources, and neutrality w/o pov judgment. I think I am taking back my concerns! Yes, calling it persecution is a conclusion the people of the day would not have reached: Augustine called the persecution of the Donatists "church discipline" which the church had a right and even an obligation to practice - but that has no place in this article. It already says here that Christian writings about pagans were violent and condescending - but so were pagan writings, which we don't say. IDK. I am inclined - now - to be sorry I brought this up and leave things as they are. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:12, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Richard Keatinge As to Martin of Tours, I assume you are referring to his "wanton destruction" of pagan temples and places of worship and the whole tree thing. That underlines the problem of taking those primary sources at face value, Richard, rather than depending upon the professional historians who interpret them, and it's why I asked for a source that included the findings of contemporary archaeology. Archaeology shows that only 2.4% of all the known temples all over Gaul were destroyed by violence; Tours would have been an even smaller percentage. Problematic isn't it?

References

Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Richard Keatinge Since I did not hear back from you, I boldly went ahead and removed the questionable sentence and two other phrases that were clearly POV paraphrases not supported by the referenced sources. Please don't revert if you have a problem with that, come here and address my request for sourcing instead.Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Richard Keatinge This indirectly addresses the claims Christianity made for Martin of Tours. It's chapter four of Lavan's collection of essays on The Archaeology Of Late Antique Paganism. It starts on page 165. You can read it here: [3]

The abstract says: Literary sources emphasize the role of Christian iconoclasts and church-builders in the demise of Gaul’s pagan temples. But the picture from archaeology is different. Excavated remains suggest that the main story is one of voluntary abandonment from the late 3rd c. onwards. This may be linked with the military invasions of the period, but indirectly, via factors such as financial difficulties and changing elite priorities. Meanwhile, the imperial adoption of Christianity and the beginnings of official hostility towards pagan religion had little impact. By the time they came into effect, the hey-day of pagan sacred architecture in Gaul had passed.

Apparently, the original source material is biased and exaggerated. They made stuff up - both sides did -so none of it can be taken at face value and used without a secondary source evaluating it. (The crusade historians have the same problems.) I don't know if the early writers thought of it as lying, (it seems like lying to me) - all these Christian historians - but the victors write the histories according to their desires, and apparently they felt free to portray their heroes in exaggerated terms. Continuing to quote those original sources as though that's all there is without secondary source evaluation is misleading and inaccurate. It's not what's good for the encyclopedia.

References

Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:07, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• Just a comment. That quoted excerpt from Ammianus is just his assessment of the sort of people kept at court by Constantius II, whom the author disliked and often criticized. There's nothing in that passage indicating that robbery of the sort was widespread. Incidentally, the same passage is used in Anti-paganism policy of Constantius II as evidence for widespread vandalism. I'd go ahead and remove it, but my opinion of that article decreases each time I read it, and I don't think now that it should exist. Avilich (talk) 21:01, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Avilich You've lost me - what quote from Ammianus? Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:52, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

RIchard Keatinge's above Avilich (talk) 01:01, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Avilich Ah! I had considered that discussion closed, so I apparently proceeded to overlook responding to it entirely. Proceed as you wish, of course, but so far, it has been my experience that Richard Keatinge doesn't discuss or respond much. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:10, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I know it's closed, just remarking on something that went unremarked. Avilich (talk) 02:14, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Perfectly fine. Hope you are well and keeping busy - and out of trouble. :-) I am working on an article on the Jewish kabbalah that is making my head hurt... Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:05, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

And I do seem to recall suggesting that I'd let you lead on this one. Indeed, this particular matter is closed. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

That's cool, but it doesn't mean you have to be excluded. You inspired me to add something on Martin of Tours here - though you probably won't like what I added, it is evidence of your participation in this, which is good imo. Avilich is probably the best prose editor I have ever encountered, and he's as big an accuracy nerd as I am. You inspire. I like having both of your inputs. I think everything you have argued here has made this article better. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Definition

We aren't explicit here about our definition of "persecution". A narrow definition - an organized requirement to do or die as was done in the earlier and undoubted persecutions of Christians - would exclude pretty much everything that happened during the decline of Greco-Roman polytheism and indeed require us to turn this article into a redirect. So, do we think - and can we substantiate with reliable sources - the inclusion of legal menaces, confiscation of temple treasures, axing sacred trees, disrupting religious services, denial of public support, Christian officials being advantaged for promotion, even mob violence etc, as within the scope of this article? Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey Richard Keatinge! Nice to hear from you, really. This is a question I have been asking concerning the definition of persecution for about two years now. I even went so far as to take it to arbitration in the Persecution of Christians article. I lost. There are as far as I can find, (and trust me I have researched this to the nth degree), no accepted agreed upon definitions of persecution that one can point to. There are only specific uses by different scholars who say "we define persecution for the purposes of this study to be such and such" and then they will sometimes mention the things they excluded - or not. And of course, other scholars will define it completely differently. Some require and some do not require acts of physical violence. The United Nations has a very broad definition they use that does not require violence. The State department likewise, but again neither are agreed upon as any kind of a standard definition we could quote. (Getting into listing all the different views would turn this into an article on the definition.)

Mostly the broad definitions do include the idea of different types and levels of persecution, and therefore include as 'mild' persecution the things you mention here. Most of us would agree the 'Jim Crow' laws of the US represented a type of persecution even though no one died from them. Applying that to the Roman empire means the anti-pagan laws were persecution of a type even though they were not universally applied and no one died from them either. Lynching was certainly persecution even though it was mob violence.

In my experience so far, it isn't possible to be explicit with a claim of any specific individual definition. There is only differing individual scholarly and common usage, and we both know how dependable common use is as a source. Still, common use indicates these actions on the part of any government or society would be seen as persecutory by our modern standards. I think perhaps common sense is all we've got. In the article Religious persecution many of the countries listed do no more than the Christian Roman empire did, and they are still seen as 'highly restrictive' of religious freedom which grants them a place on the persecution measurement bar.

If you redirect, by redefining this one, you will need to go back and argue the same at these other articles in order to protect the encyclopedia and OMG that will get into a mess. Persecution of Christians in the post–Cold War era is nothing but a list of all the countries that do everything from "legal menaces and restrictions, confiscation of church moneys, destruction and confiscation of sacred materials, disrupting or preventing religious services, denial of public support or the ability to appeal for it, being advantaged (or disadvantaged) for promotion or work of any kind, even mob violence" while maybe or maybe not including actual violence, false imprisonment and so on - all of these are listed as evidence of persecution in these other articles. Having already lost this argument once myself, I don't imagine you will be able to win it, but it is always possible. Perhaps you will come up with better arguments than I did. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I like to avoid arguments wherever possible. Especially, arguments about definitions. In this case, we have been implicitly using a broad, modern, tendentious definition, and while we can do this if we wish, it occurs to me lately that this approach tends to cause friction between editors. One obvious solution is to list the things that did happen and that we are classifying as "persecution" for the purpose of this article. (Another would be to merge this article into decline of Greco-Roman polytheism, with notes saying that some modern sources would classify these activities as "persecution" and others wouldn't. But I gather that you aren't immediately keen on this idea.) So, what about starting the article with something like "In the Christian Roman Empire, non-Christians were subject to disadvantages including legal menaces, confiscation of temple treasures, disruption of religious ceremonies and sites, denial of public support, Christian officials being advantaged for promotion, mob violence, and, occasionally, criminal prosecution. These disadvantages are the subject of this article." ? Or some better form of words? Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I like the phrase "subject to disadvantages including legal menaces" because it covers the theoretical possibility of prosecution as well as the de facto experience that the legislation was rarely, if ever, used. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

No cause for argument. I immediately put in something in response to your comments last night. The third paragraph now opens with: "Still, Constantine did practice what can be seen as a mild persecution of pagans: he destroyed a few temples and plundered more, converted others to churches, and neglected the remaining temple complexes; he refused to personally participate in pagan beliefs and practices while also speaking out against them; he periodically forbade pagan sacrifices and closed temples, outlawed the gladiatorial shows, made laws to make Christianity beneficial, and markedly favored Christianity and Christians with gifts of money, land and government positions."

Is that sufficient? It looks to me like I did exactly as you suggest here - before you suggested it - so great minds and all that. :-) I have no problem with you tweaking it as you see fit. Never worry about arguing with me, really. My priority is accuracy and if you are the one that has it, I am glad that at least someone does!

References

Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:44, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Richard Keatinge and Laurel Lodged. I think I will add "legal menacing". I like the phrase too. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Third paragraph of the body now. I moved all the other "intro" type stuff down to evaluation so all commentary is together at the bottom of the article. If you have sources on defining persecution, then by all means, add it up front here. I make the claim this qualifies as persecution but I don't source that claim, so if anyone gets tendentious about it, I will have to do so - if you did, that would be awesome for me! :-) I will go see what I still have, but I generally dump stuff once I am done. I need to start keeping files! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:58, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay, so this is new since I first started searching for a referened definition of persecution: this [4] defines persecution as “the intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights contrary to international law by reason of the identity of the group or collectivity” (Art. 7.2.g of ICC Statute)." So while it is not fully applicable to Roman empire since there was no such thing as international law, I think we could still apply the first half of the definition quite reasonably.

International Refugee law is a big area that has spent some time trying to get a workable definition of persecution tied down. It is important for identifying who qualifies as a refugee. (Read page 119+) Here is an article [5] It says Although the term ‘persecution’ is not codified under International Refugee Law, it has evolved significantly by means of doctrine and case law. Not being codified means we can't quote this as authoritative of course, but his core elements are spot on and they are attributable at least. Beginning on page 125, he asks the pertinent questions for identifying persecution: It is widely accepted that, as a rule, persecution is carried out by State actors. When it comes to recognizing non-state actors as persecutors, case law is divided. Put a check on that one for the Roman empire.

There is no requirement that the persecutor must intend to harm the person in order for the treatment to be considered persecutory. The fact that the persecutor does not intend to persecute does not change the character of his or her actions. For example, a law that prohibits the practice of a certain religion may be persecutory even though the legislators firmly believe that it is best for those who adhere to the proscribed religion to convert to the dominant faith. page 125. Put another check on that one for the Roman empire.

Persecution does not need to be directed against the asylum-seeker. ...violation of the rights of one member of a family as an intimidation measure may give rise to a right of asylum for others page 126. Okay so this is about refugees and asylum seekers but I think the standard for "Who is a victim?" still applies.

How is ‘persecution’ carried out? There are three basic persecutory methods: physical, psychological and economic. Then there is a long list of all types of physical harm which we don't argue - then there is the less intrusive forms of harm where the individual suffers mental anguish... persistent threats to detain do not deprive a person of liberty or livelihood but may in the long term cause injurious psychological stress amounting to ‘persecution’ I say the Late Roman empire (well, the entire Roman empire actually) deserves another check on this one.

Discrimination in economic and social matters may also be an element of the threat directed against the claimant, although economic misfortune alone is not a valid basis for a refugee claim. page 128. Check on this one too.

Finally, the cumulative effect of putative incidents of ‘persecution’, which must be considered as a whole, may indicate that the applicant’s fear is ‘well-founded’ This is the only one we can't verify since the Romans would have had to think in these terms and write out their fears and that simply isn't anywhhere in the sources. Concluding remarks on page 136 are worth reading too.

This is just one guy, I know, and there is no "official definition" out there as of yet, but the need for it is recognized, and the lawyers will accomplish it eventually, and chances are it will look much like this. In the meantime, perhaps we could use these as references of the ideas represented in my summary of Constantine's actions?? What do you think? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:40, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. So would you be thinking in terms of "Actions against pagans in the LRE bear many of the modern characteristics of 'persecution', though may not have been identified as such at the time"? Or instead, "these LRE actions may be termed "persecution" because they meet the modern standard definition of "persecution"? Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:59, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey Laurel Lodged Yes. I went ahead and put something along those lines in the article yesterday. It reads a little awkwardly but conveys the ideas discussed here - I think. See what you think. It is most certainly adjustable to what you both might prefer. Third paragraph of the body of the text that now begins with Constantine. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:57, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, an excellent approach. The Romans may not have had a single concept of "persecution" but, so long as we make it explicit, we can certainly apply a modern definition. This is one point for which the source might profitably appear in the main text. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:18, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Well Richard Keatinge I would do that except I can't figure out how without creating an obvious use of synth. In order to make the statement I have - which only makes the claim that this definition is a modern idea - I have taken that modern definition - one that never mentions the Roman empire - and applied it to Constantine all by my little old self. I am already skating up right to the edge. I don't think it crosses the line - but it gets right on it! If you can think of a way to include an attribution without it turning into synth, then please do! I vote for you to take the lead on that one! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

• Before discussing definitions, a precise function and name for this article must be outlined, and this never seems to have been done before. Several people in the past have already voiced misgivings about using 'persecution' in the title, due to neutrality or accuracy concerns. Several related articles have already been moved to "anti-paganism policies of ..." (should've been "anti-pagan policies"), which may be preferable to "persecution" and is probably more accurate. As of now, the de facto scope of this article is a broader "decline of paganism" with a lot of focus on state policy. Although decline of Greco-Roman polytheism already purports to cover this, it's almost completely original research and I think it should be deleted. Imo it's difficult to make persecution the main theme of the page when scholarship seems to be moving away from catastrophism and a conflict-based view of things. Avilich (talk) 21:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I too feel that the article name is not really helpful - I don't see "persecution" widely applied by modern scholars, however well the historical facts may fit into some modern definitions. A merge to decline of Greco-Roman polytheism, with necessary rewriting, might be good, possibly also redirected from something like "anti-paganism policies and actions in the LRE". Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:27, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

This single edit by a now-banned user appears to be the ultimate origin of all pagan persecution and decline articles, including decline of Greco-Roman polytheism. The low quality is quite evident, so I would focus on improving this current article alone, where the work is already being done, and completely ignore the others (no rewriting, no merging). Atm my preferred title is "decline of paganism in the Roman Empire", or possibly "anti-pagan policies of" something. Avilich (talk) 22:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh bother! Avilich you are always stirring the pot - :-) - so why do I always end up agreeing with you? Because you are always focused on what's best for the encyclopedia. (Notice that I am avoiding saying because you are so often right. I am saving you from getting full of yourself understand...) AAarrgh! Is this going to mean another visit to the Greco-Roman mafia?

I agree that decline of Greco-Roman polytheism should either be merged with this one or deleted altogether. I have no problem doing the work necessary for a merge, and while I haven't looked at it yet, I am guessing everything in it is either duplicated here or can't be reused at all, since you already think the article should be gone. Therefore I am okay with seeing it gone too. I will go with whatever you guys agree to.

One thing concerns me about all of this. I think 'persecution of pagans' is something readers look for and expect to find, since it has been the hegemony for 200 years. Therefore I agree with Richard that if we change the title, we must have a redirect from the old title to this article. If we can do that, then I agree to retitling this one, and I agree that "Decline of paganism in the late (or Antique, since it begins with Constantine) Roman Empire" is the best choice that most accurately reflects the content.

Well - here we go again! Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:26, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I am taking all of this back now. I have begun a rewrite of the other article which I believe needs to be a stand alone separate from P of P - which will end up a daughter article to the much larger topic of the multiple causes of the decline of polytheism. Since persecution - however mild - was one of the factors, this article should remain titled as it is imo. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:54, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I sympathise with @Jenhawk777: about skating on the edge of Synth; however, I believe that her re-writing has avoided it to date. Nevertheless, an additional source talking about the modern due of the term "persecution" as applied retroactively in this case, would be useful. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:09, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the title of this article should include persecution.Shakespeare143 (talk) 06:41, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Proposed title change

I would like to propose changing the Title of this article to "Paganism in the Christian Roman Empire". We should remove the claim of persecution, which is now disputed, as it is not neutral, and is not supported by the majority of current scholarship. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd agree with removing the word "persecution" from the title. We could use it, because the use of central and local state power, from Constantine onwards, to encourage conversion and discourage traditional religion can be fitted into respectable modern definitions of persecution. But it was a very different use of power to the classic approach, current until the early 300s, of systematically searching out individuals and giving them an immediate choice between offering sacrifice and a horrible death. Jenhawk777's new title strikes me as an improvement, though we might consider Discouragement of traditional religion in the later Roman Empire.

Separately I would like to rethink the present article structure in this area. We now have Persecution of pagans in the late Roman Empire, Christianization of the Roman Empire as caused by attractive appeal‎, and Decline of Greco-Roman polytheism. The first three strike me as an exaggerated contrast of reasons for religious change, artificially separated from recorded events and encouraging inappropriately POV analyses. I suggest that at least the first two, possibly all of them, would be better combined as a single article, perhaps Religious change in the later Roman Empire. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Initial impression is that I would fear that it would create the impression that there were at least 3 Roman Empires: the Western Roman Empire, the Eastern Roman Empire and the Christian Roman Empire. Would also raise the question, was there a Non Christian Roman Empire or was it just the Pagan roman Empire or just the Roman Empire (pre Christian)? Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Separately, are Christianization of the Roman Empire as caused by attractive appeal‎ and Decline of Greco-Roman polytheism not just two sides of the same coin? As the one expands must the other not contract? While people were quietly drifting away from paganism even before the advent of Christianity, was it notable enough to deserve its own treatment? Instead, are we looking at a single "Changes in religious adherences in the late Roman Empire" article? Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• I support the suggested "Paganism in the Christian Roman Empire" since the article is already about that and not just limited to persecution, and because sources like Brown and Bradbury suggest that there are too few attested cases of state-sponsored persecution for there ever to be a standalone article about it. Persecution would still be covered by the article. Placing "discouragement" in the title strikes as unnecessary, as it's easy to deduce that paganism would be discouraged. A merger of this and "decline of Greco-Roman polytheism" could be done at a separate occasion. Avilich (talk) 13:04, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

OK, but Laurel Lodged does have a point; we know approximately what we mean by the Christian Roman Empire but we can't assume that most of our readers will have the same idea. What about the Later Roman Empire? It is at least a recognized periodization. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:31, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Richard Keatinge I would support merging Decline of Greco-Roman Polytheism with this article. It would require lots of 'removing' on both articles, but the end result would give that broader more comprehensive overview. I dislike Religious change in the later Roman Empire because it would quickly become unwieldy as all the different pagan religions would also require discussion, and there is an article that kinda already does that: Religion in ancient Rome.

Christianization of the Roman Empire as caused by attractive appeal‎ is already a daughter - type article in that it only presents one theory. If we make this an overview article, we could subsequently create other daughters that discussed other specific theories as well. I don't think there is an article on Gibbon's theory on religion as such, and that might be valuable - and fun - to write.

Laurel Lodged As far as scholarship is concerned, there were 3 different Roman empires. Late Antiquity is now a field in itself, and there are almost no scholars who study both the Western and Eastern empires. It has affected results, and they are generally aware, but still handicapped by language limitations. Not many people qualify as true scholars in both Greek and Latin - not at this level anyway.

Still, I think your concern about what our readers know is valid. So, perhaps "Paganism in the later Roman Empire"? I do like keeping this article focused on paganism. In answer to both your good questions: As the one expands must the other not contract? While people were quietly drifting away from paganism even before the advent of Christianity, was it notable enough to deserve its own treatment? In my view the answer to both is yes. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Overall, I think I agree. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Avilich Agreed. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:11, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how "LRE" is any better than CRE. The latter is unequivocal and unambiguous: it refers to the empire when Christianity became dominant, politically and demographically. "Late Roman Empire" means, what, the period starting with Diocletian? What has that to do with religion? "Paganism in the later Roman Empire" sounds exceedingly vague and purposeless, and arguably qualifies as a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization or just original research. Not to mention that the de facto scope of the article already matches the proposed title, "Paganism in the Christian Roman Empire". Avilich (talk) 17:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

"Christian Roman Empire", after our audience has thought it through, could refer to the time when Christian emperors ruled (from 306? from 324? Not including 361-363 anyway. All the way to the last of the Byzantine rump states? Or until some date for the fall of the Western Empire?) Or from when something vaguely recognizable as modern Christianity was first devised - 100s onwards? Or from when Christianity reached some (unmeasurable for lack of data) demographic milestone, name your own date? Or from the Edict of Thessalonica? No, really, I can't see that it's defensible as a title. The Later Roman Empire is a well-defined academic construct, and others exist. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I agreed with Richard's last mentioned points above. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

It starts with Constantine and ends whenever paganism disappears in the records (the 7th or 8th century, going by this article or with decline of Greco-Roman polytheism). This is the period covered by the sources which deal with religious-motivated violence or anti-pagan laws or whatever. There's nothing more to it, and there's nothing wrong with it. It's hard to imagine what else can "Paganism in the Christian Roman Empire" refer to: there was no paganism in the last Byzantine rump states and there was no Christian Roman Empire before Constantine. Nobody is disputing that LRE is a notable concept. But it's not inherently related to religion, and consequently "Paganism in the LRE" cannot be regarded as an encyclopedic topic. Avilich (talk) 21:04, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

This may be clear to you and indeed you have provided a perfectly reasonable definition of the term. But it isn't widely accepted or recognized. And "Paganism in the later Roman Empire" is perfectly OK as a page title here, also much less likely to muddle people. Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

So there is agreement on dropping persecution and retitling and all we are haggling over is 'Christian' vs. 'Later'? Avilich I ask you, meet Richard half way, compromise, give him some of what he wants so you can get some of what you want. He has agreed to retitle - though he is not 100% behind it - so give your 50% on what that title will be, please. Dates for the later Roman empire are usually given as 284 AD – 476 AD. If you google Christian Roman empire there is nothing. No one recognizes that as a characterization of a period. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: I don't know where to start. To begin with, a quick 30-second search of mine completely contradicts your (of all people) stunning claim that there is no such thing (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). The only bogus concept here is precisely the proposed title. No source, not a single one in the article or elsewhere, discusses "paganism" and "LRE" jointly. I'll say it as much as I need to: that's a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization and original research, because neither the article as it stands nor any source support it.

The most important point to consider here is that, since this article's topic has no formal designation, the title must be descriptive. There's no conceivable reason why the title shouldn't, you know... describe the topic accurately. LRE isn't a religion-based categorization, for which reason it doesn't describe the topic properly, and that's all any of us need to know. That it's a popularly recognizable (questionable) and widespread periodization is completely irrelevant. The subject matter at hand concerns Christian attitudes and actions towards paganism when Christians were dominant politically in the Roman Empire. You can have that as the actual title if you're not comfortable with the short and digestible "Christian Roman Empire". Anything else would entail changing what this article is actually about. Avilich (talk) 01:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Now, just so I won't come off as completely intransigent, a possible compromise would be to merge this page with decline of Greco-Roman polytheism into one single "decline of paganism in the Roman Empire", thus avoiding the problem altogether. But a merger takes time and effort, and you yourself, Jenhawk777, made a good case to me sometime ago that those two articles may be best kept apart. The only short term solutions are the two that have been put forward. And describing the scope of this article as the "Late Roman Empire" is vague and misleading. Avilich (talk) 01:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

So Wow, Avilich, okay, my bad, I did not do a scholarly search, I just did a quick google, but you supplied valid quality sources. Richard and I are mistaken. Christian Roman empire is a valid term. Yes, I made the case for keeping this one and 'decline' separate, but I am willing to give on that. There are other possible approaches to that as well, which can be decided down the road, but right now I suppose the focus should be on retitling this one. You have made a strong case. Let's see what the others say. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

:-) I'm not saying its invalid. Just confusing, especially to encyclopedic readers without much background. The title must be descriptive, but "Paganism in the Christian Roman Empire" causes my one-person testing panel, smart and sophisticated but not a history enthusiast, some confusion. I had to explain quite a bit about the history, including the meaning of the word "paganism", and they finally settled on something very similar to your alternative suggestion of "Christian attitudes and actions towards paganism when Christians were dominant politically in the Roman Empire". Maybe a shorter version, perhaps something like "Non-Christians under the political dominance of Christianity in the Roman Empire"? I'd just really like to find a title that is clear to an encyclopedic reader. Someone who's possibly new to the entire subject. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Richard Keatinge that possible 'confusion' is easily fixed with a simple definition of dates in the first sentence of the lead. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC) I have to say I actually like your long sentence - not as a title!!! - but as part of the first sentence of the lead. What if we agreed on Paganism in the Christian Roman Empire and then wrote "Paganism in the Christian Roman Empire encompasses Christian attitudes and actions towards paganism when Christians were dominant politically in the Roman Empire (dates here)". It's viable - I think. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:36, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

"there was no paganism in the last Byzantine rump states and there was no Christian Roman Empire before Constantine." I disagree with both parts of this sentence.:

• • Gemistus Pletho was a pioneer in neopaganism, as he "rejected Christianity in favour of a return to the worship of the classical Hellenic Gods". Paganism enjoyed a rebirth during the 14th and 15th century in the Byzantine Empire.
  • We already have the article Philip the Arab and Christianity explaining that Philip the Arab favored Christianity during the 3rd century. And several primary sources claimed that Philip was the 1st Christian emperor. Dimadick (talk) 20:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Pletho was a genuine and good Platonist philosopher, but by his time, the Renaissance had begun, and it is generally accepted that even those who embraced "pagan classical interests and conceits, still remained overwhelmingly Christian". He personally did not, I agree, but "According to present scholarship virtually all the thinkers [surrounding Pletho] are usually taken as good Christians". If you have evidence of a "rebirth" that contradicts this, I would be interested in reading that.

• • • Dimadick I have not looked at the WP article on Philip the Arab yet, I will, but I do know that while there are multiple ancient sources claiming he was a Christian, they all stem from the same one source, Eusebius. Modern historians deny he was a Christian. There is a good discussion of the question here: Check out his conclusion on page 473. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

The supposed Christianity of Philip the Arab hardly seems to be a consensus view, and Gemistus Plethon was a crypto-pagan, no more than an isolated example. Avilich (talk) 22:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• Replying to Richard above, I can't see how CRE is confusing: it's simple English! "Christian" is a qualifier of "Roman Empire", and the most common-sense interpretation is that of a Roman Empire dominated by Christians, and indeed all the sources I cited above agree. That said, the suggested "Non-Christians under the political dominance of Christianity in the Roman Empire", while hardly WP:CONCISE, is much better than the previous "PLRE", and I'm trying to convince myself to accept it as a compromise, if nothing else ends up convincing anyone anyway. I still strongly think PCRE can be used instead without any visible loss of meaning. Avilich (talk) 22:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I too would hate to present myself as intransigent, and indeed "Non-Christians under the political dominance of Christianity in the Roman Empire" is scarcely WP:CONCISE. It remains, I think undisputed, that the "Christian Roman Empire" lacks a meaning that is either academically agreed or clear to encyclopedic readers. I'll go with consensus; my feeling at the moment is that the merge idea is the best available. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:55, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

What goes inside the heads of "encyclopedic readers", however these are actually defined, is anyone's guess. I could just as well argue that the the full meaning and extensive scholarly baggage accompanying the term "Later Roman Empire" will not be fully grasped by the average reader, and that the average English speaker is perfectly able to interpret "Christian Roman Empire" as "Roman Empire under Christian political dominance". Again, we have zero need to reach out to formal academic concepts, our purpose here is to just find a short and easy-to-understand description for this article. That CRE lacks an "academically agreed" meaning (assuming that's even true, for the sake of the argument) may just as well then be a point in its favor. Avilich (talk) 18:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

References

(A) "Paganism in the Christian Roman Empire encompasses Christian attitudes and actions towards paganism when Christians were dominant politically in the Roman Empire (dates here)" - I like that as an opening sentence but not as a title. (B) "Christian attitudes and actions towards paganism in the Roman Empire when Christians were dominant politically in the Empire (dates here)" - I like even better. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:36, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

IMO these are both good and usable Laurel Lodged according to what the others think as well, and I agree, not as titles. I think they solve Richard Keatinge's problem, and that is progress that puts us squarely back at picking a new title.

Richard Keatinge I think we need to focus on one thing at a time as a merger doesn't solve the titling problem. (Title first imo, since it's where this started. I promise to come back to the merger which I am perfectly willing to do.) If you would look at Laurel's suggestions above for a first sentence, I think they solve any reader confusion that might occur.

The problem here, I think, is that Avilich made some good points, with references, demonstrating the claim that "Christian Roman Empire" lacks a meaning that is either academically agreed or clear to encyclopedic readers is incorrect - at least it looks that way to me. If you would be so kind as to address this with some references that say what you say, it would give us something of substance to evaluate. I do not want to ignore your feelings, but on WP, sources trump feelings, so if you would please get something we can assess properly, that would move us closer to agreement. Thank you Richard. I appreciate your input - even when it requires things I don't much want to do. :-) You make articles better, and that is what we are all committed to here as well.Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: What do you think, then? Again, whether CRE is an "academically agreed" term doesn't really matter, what does is that you can understand what it actually means (the value of a descriptive title is that it's understandable, not that it's widespread or "academically agreed" upon). When I first suggested this title (P in the CRE) to you, you seemed to have no problem in understanding that "CRE" is short for "Roman Empire under Christian political dominance". Isn't that enough? Btw, I agree that we should settle this issue before going into a merger discussion. Avilich (talk) 18:54, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Richard Keatinge I am rereading all that has been posted here, and it looks to me as if you and Avilich are having a deeper disagreement than one word in the title. It looks like you have different visions for this article. Right now it is purely on how paganism was or wasn't treated - persecuted - by Christians once they were in power. Avilich says LRE isn't a religion-based categorization because he wants to keep that focus.

You, on the other hand, say Separately I would like to rethink the present article structure in this area. We now have Persecution of pagans in the late Roman Empire, Christianization of the Roman Empire as caused by attractive appeal‎, and Decline of Greco-Roman polytheism. The first three strike me as an exaggerated contrast of reasons for religious change, artificially separated from recorded events and encouraging inappropriately POV analyses. I suggest that at least the first two, possibly all of them, would be better combined as a single article, perhaps Religious change in the later Roman Empire and my feeling at the moment is that the merge idea is the best available.

It looks to me like you want to change focus and content and not just the title, and I do not support that. I know this shifts my position on a merger, but my willingness to do that didn't recognize the idea of completely changing the focus of this particular article. Sorry. I now think that what you want can not be produced here - but it can be in a rewrite of "Decline", which that article absolutely needs more of. Decline should actually be separated into BC and AD anyway which are two very different topics. I would support retitling it accordingly, so AD could benefit from the addition of politics and economics. I just got tired of it, and got distracted, and never finished. You should do the change of content you want there, and expand it into a more complete overview - use stuff from Fall to connect it to more recorded events - include discussion of when Christianization actually began, and whether there was persecution in the fourth century before Julian, and all the rest. I would totally support renaming that article Religious change in the later Roman Empire. It would vastly improve everything. I'll come help. But it seems to me the narrow focus of this article should remain as it is. How paganism was treated is a notable enough discussion for it to remain a stand alone article imo.

You also said The title must be descriptive, but "Paganism in the Christian Roman Empire" causes my one-person testing panel, smart and sophisticated but not a history enthusiast, some confusion. so I tried your approach on my own one-man panel, and there was no confusion at all. He said Christian Roman Empire was a phrase he had heard all his life. He is a psychologist - no history background. I know this proves nothing.

It looks to me like what needs deciding is whether you think the suggested title best describes the narrow focus of this article or not. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:44, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Avilich I misunderstood what Richard was proposing, so yes, I support the original title suggestion using CRE because I do agree the focus of this article should remain as it is. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:44, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

OK then. Sticking to just this article. Sticking to current scope. Sticking to just possible name change. The question of "academic acceptance" does not really arise. The appropriate policy for this question is WP:CommonName. A quick look at Google Trends (here) shows that "Late Roman Empire" trumps "Christian Roman Empire" by a factor of 8 to 1 worldwide over the past 5 years. And when you compare the terms "Persecution of pagans in the late Roman Empire" & "Persecution of pagans in the ChristianRoman Empire" (see here), the latter barely registers at all.That's good enough for me Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Laurel Lodged, well done. "Later" isn't specifically religious, which Avilich asked for, but it does set a time frame, is apparently commonly recognized, which Richard did ask for, it gets rid of persecution in the title, which everyone agreed on, so that gives us part of what Avilich wanted and part of what Richard wanted, and that works for me. Anyone else want to chime in before we close this out? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

The prevalence of each term in a web search has no more bearing on this discussion than the prevalence of each term in academia. Commonname literally says, in no uncertain terms: Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources, as well as Search engine results are subject to certain biases and technical limitations. "Late Roman Empire" has nothing to do with the subject whatsoever, as it's not a religious designation, so we're back to square one. On the other hand, "Paganism in the Christian Roman Empire" describes concisely, accurately, and in simple English, the actual topic of this article. Why is this even controversial? Why is there a need to avoid this simple conclusion and solution with such an unnecessarily long discussion? Avilich (talk) 19:50, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I feel that if I haven't got the point across yet, I'm probably not going to. So I'll drop the subject at this point. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:12, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Liken Richard, this too is my final suggestion and contribution to this question: Category:Paganism in the late Roman Empire. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• A final attempt at compromise I can do is "Paganism in the Christian-dominated Roman Empire", avoiding the problem of CRE being supposedly hard to define. I can't think of anything else. LRE should still be out of the question here, for the simple reason that LRE in historiography has nothing to do with the relationship between christianity and paganism. Avilich (talk) 23:28, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry Avilich I just don't like it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:39, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Neither do I, but I can't sound completely intransigent here. I'll probably just move the page to PCRE, then. There's at least consensus that the current title is inadequate, and none of the objections to PCRE are, as we've seen, valid. Avilich (talk) 16:49, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

It isn't proper WP etiquette to just do that on your own without consensus. I don't support this, it is not bold, it is precipitate. Richard is very reasonable. You are very intelligent. Come up with some new arguments that will reach him. Your refutation did not convince him. That does not prove it is impossible to convince him, it only shows you haven't hit the right chord yet. Consensus is necessary. Please keep trying. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I rested my case already, and I don't know how can I possibly make this clearer. The arguments against the original proposal are as follows: (1) the average reader is too unintelligent to understand what "Christian Roman Empire", a basic descriptive term in English, means; and, (2) LRE, a term that has nothing to do whatsoever with the subject matter, should be preferred over CRE, which describes the subject accurately, because it has more Google hits. There is no reasonable basis for either supposition. WP policy on titles says they should accurately describe the topic and be concise, and we've seen that COMMONNAME explicitly excludes inaccurate names. What else is there to say? And what about you? You've spent this entire time trying to please everyone, and never actually argued your position in depth (you switched sides several times, in fact). Avilich (talk) 14:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Consensus

Avilich I don't really have a personal position on the title of this article. I don't care if it stays as it is. What I do have a position on is the importance of consensus. I have in fact tried to please everyone as much as it is possible for me to do and will continue to do exactly that in an effort to gain that consensus. That is not actually the flaw you seem to see it as. I am stubbornly insistent on this and will not flex on the importance of considering and incorporating other's views. It does mean that I am willing to change my position on pretty much anything pretty much any time as there is very little that is worth offending others over. I believe in meeting people part way and doing whatever is needed to bring about consensus. If that offends you, I'm sorry, but that is probably the one thing I cannot compromise on. If you don't make the effort to meet people part way then I do not support you acting on your own to do as you please. That won't change. If that's a problem, you can be done with me any time you feel like it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:50, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Speaking of consensus, I'm a bit confused that the issue of renaming the article is being brought up again. I see from the talk page archive that this has been brought up several times in the past, and a formal request for change was clearly rejected. One of the people discussing it here again was actually the individual who initiated that request, so they should be aware of its outcome...

Since you are saying that you don't have a personal position on it, I think we can agree that there actually is no consensus to change the title? — Uiscefada (talk) 01:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

One of the two people Uiscefada? I don't feel strongly about it, but others also clearly do, and since consensus isn't formed merely by numbers, but by weight of argument, and because consensus can and does sometimes change with time and new scholarship, I really can't say whether there is any or not. This was never answered - as you can see.Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

If a consensus existed, it would by definition be apparent. If none can be identified, that answers the question. There is no consensus to change the article title. — Uiscefada (talk) 04:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Not necessarily. There is no definition of consensus that would make it apparent of necessity. In fact, it is often difficult to construct, locate, and/or identify. Your personal declaration is no different in tenor or nature than Avilich's was a year ago. Neither is anyone's definition of consensus. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:26, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I made no "personal declaration," I reiterated what was already determined by the RM and which evidently has not changed in the interim. Until a Move Review has been completed or entirely new arguments evaluated through a separate RM, no one should claim there is any new consensus to change the title.

I would say the outcome as stated by an RM is what makes a consensus "by definition be apparent".

I apologize if I was unclear before, but please refrain from hasty accusations about the "tenor or nature" of what others are saying. There was clearly a misunderstanding and that can be detrimental to the collaboration process. Thank you. — Uiscefada (talk) 16:30, 25 March 2022 (UTC)