Talk:Julian (emperor)/Archive 6

Julian did not die at Maranga
This wiki article is unfortunately massively spreading erroneous infornation about Julian's place of death being Maranga.It is clear from several sources,including major and most trustworthy one from Ammianus Marcellinus,that Romans themselves did not identify his place of death with Maranga and it is no wonder why.Roman army was several days and miles from Maranga at the time Julian suffered his death wound and the battle they fought on 26-27 June 363 was clearly not the same battle they fought at Maranga several days and kilometers before(and yet both battles are often erroneously propagated as the same).Ammianus Marcellinus himself clearly states that place where Julian died named "Frygium".Several other Roman late ancient and medieval authors on the other hand says that place named "Asia". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.245.106.74 (talk) 07:38, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Quality of sources
I still don't get why you insist to keep an outdated 18th century source (Gibbon) when newer sources (like the one i added) are available. The fact that that source is outdated is not my "opinion" ... Thanks in advance for clarifying. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  20:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's quite simple. Sources don't become "outdated" because they're old.  They become "outdated" when the points that they make no longer reflect scholarly opinion on a topic.  While Gibbon's perspective on various topics is limited by the age in which he wrote, most of what he wrote is, in its broad lines, still part of the foundation of classical scholarship.  In this particular instance, he's being cited as support for the statement, "[Julian's] rejection of Christianity, and his promotion of Neoplatonic Hellenism in its place, caused him to be remembered as Julian the Apostate by the Christian church."  Hardly a controversial statement, and one that wasn't being changed to reflect a shift in scholarly opinion.  To the extent that this is what you would get from reading The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, it's a perfectly valid source.
 * Your contention seems to be that the book you added—published three months ago—is necessarily a better source than Gibbon for this statement, based on nothing other than its age—not peer review, not acceptance in other scholarly sources, not based on any obvious difference in content, with respect to the point being made. But rejecting a time-honoured source for a very general statement, based on nothing more than its age, rejects scholarship in its entirety in favour of arbitrary criteria having nothing to do with a source's content or reliability.  That's not how Wikipedia works: we don't simply throw out sources because they're old, or substitute whatever is newest for whatever was there before.  Who's to say whether the source you cited, the brand new book on the topic, will still reflect a scholarly consensus on the topic in ten or twenty years?  It's so new that it's not even clear that it represents the broad view of scholarship in the present day.  It may be destined to become a classic—or it may be forgotten in just a few years' time.  You could simply have added it as a source—if the brief, general statement for which it's cited really needed a second source to back up what Gibbon said two centuries ago—but you didn't.  You simply substituted the latest volume off the presses, and then insisted that Gibbon has to go—it can't remain in the article at all, not because it's wrong, but because it's old.  Have you really thought out the implications of this policy for other sources?  P Aculeius (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying, however, if the claim that Julian was "remembered as Julian the Apostate by the Christian church." is not controversial, then why would we need any source in the lead to support it ? I stand here by Manual of Style/Lead section. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  14:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I could have been clearer. I don't consider it controversial; most other editors don't consider it controversial; this has been the consensus of scholarly opinion for centuries, and you wouldn't think it necessary to cite it to anything.  But if you've watched or edited this article for very long, or participated in the numerous debates over the article title and the lead over the years, you'd have seen that any discussion of Julian's religious views, actions, and epithets is frought with controversies among different factions of editors.  Some editors think the article should be titled "Julian the Apostate" because that's how he's called in many venerable sources; others that the word "Apostate" is a vulgar slur that shouldn't appear in the lead at all; and there are numerous opinions somewhere in between those stances.
 * The current state of the lead is the result of considerable debate and various compromises reached over the years by the editors here—and having a source like Gibbon, which has stood the test of time, is actually rather helpful for stabilizing things: Gibbon isn't open to charges of "recentism" or historical revisionism; if his judgment in many matters is old-fashioned, he's nonetheless a foundational author for the modern study of Roman history, and in this instance what he says about Julian still represents the consensus of modern scholarship. I'm not arguing that Gibbon's opinion on Julian is better than more recent evaluations; but all interpretations of history are necessarily coloured by the times in which they were written, and discarding sources whenever a new book or treatise on the subject is released doesn't get us any closer to the elusive, ephemeral notion of "pure objectivity", which all experience tells us does not exist.
 * While all sources strive to present and explain the "facts", history is built on a series of evaluations and interpretations built up over time, challenged and re-evaluated repeatedly—not just the prevailing views of the age. That's why sources like Gibbon still matter tremendously in classical studies, and why we should be wary of removing references to his work—particularly if the only reason for doing so is that someone else has recently written about the same topic.  P Aculeius (talk) 16:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Per the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_34#Edward_Gibbon_and_The_History_of_the_Decline_and_Fall_of_the_Roman_Empire
 * Gibbon should not be used unless to reflect historiography from that time.
 * "It can certainly be used for historiographical information (ie in an overview of how views of Rome's history have changed over the years) but more modern scholarship should be used for factual info. Blueboar (talk) 15:46, 9 May 2009" --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:14, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The "Reliable sources/Noticeboard" archive is not a policy. You've taken one comment from a very brief eleven-year-old conversation out of context (omitting the parts that disagreed with your point) and presented them as a statement of official Wikipedia policy—which they're not.  Again, you need to consider what the citation is being used for, whether the source supports what is said, and whether what is said still reflects a scholarly view of the topic.  P Aculeius (talk) 19:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "The "Reliable sources/Noticeboard" archive is not a policy."
 * Never said it was.
 * "and presented them as a statement of official Wikipedia policy—which they're not."
 * Nope. Simply supplied information that you do not like. I never said anything about Wikipedia policy(strawman argument), you did.
 * "Again, you need to consider what the citation is being used for, whether the source supports what is said, and whether what is said still reflects a scholarly view of the topic."
 * Again, I see no reason to continue a dialogue with someone who has to resort to libel/slander to get their way. But hey, you did!
 * "(omitting the parts that disagreed with your point)"
 * Really? Then why would I leave a link? Doubt you will answer that question! HA!
 * "You've taken one comment from a very brief eleven-year-old conversation out of context (omitting the parts that disagreed with your point).."
 * and considering you are ignoring what was said on Reliable_sources/Noticeboard indicates you are not here to discuss anything. Here is the conversation in it's entirety, there was no omission simply what I could copy with my cellphone, hence the link(since I was trying so hard to omit something, but you were clearly in a big hurry to slander someone and thus cover up your own issues). Next time you should take care not to libel someone, but considering that I am dealing with someone that refuses to take anything into account except their own opinion, I see no reason to waste my time here.
 * Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_34
 * Congrats, I had consider rewriting this article like I have numerous others and getting it to GA. Let it wallow in the mire of outdated historiography and bias! Wikaviani, do not waste your time. This article is owned by P Aculeius. Done here! --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I have taken recently to updating articles that rely heavily on Gibbon citations, and replacing him with more recent reputable sources - see the article on Arcadius as an example. The reason I started doing this was because Gibbon's work is so old, it is never clear to the causal reader whether any statement that uses Gibbon as a support is something that modern scholarship still holds as correct, or whether it is a statement or article that has not been reviewed by a Wikipedia editor. That, IMO, is the crux of the matter. So while Gibbon is pretty good when it comes to Julian (but to be honest, he is using Ammianus Marcellinus as his principal source, whose work is very solid), I wouldn't cite ANY of Gibbon's work when it comes to Gallienus (sourced by Gibbon from the Historia Augusta) or Galerius (Gibbon using the polemist Lactantius). Now we know these specifics because we specialize in Roman history, but the casual reader or researcher would not have any idea about who Gibbon is, just that his work is over 200 years old if they look at the date of his publication. I don't have a problem if someone wants to double cite a particular statement, with Gibbon included along with a more recent source, but I wouldn't go overboard in an article with double citations just because we want to keep Gibbon in all of the statements he is cited against! Anyway, that's my 2 cents worth.Oatley2112 (talk) 12:15, 25 April 2020

(UTC)
 * Gibbon's outdated - no ifs/ands/buts. His place in history is rock-solid, and a lot of his work is still usable, but much of it isn't - due to the unreliable sources he used, and modern scholarship's discoveries since his time - texts, inscriptions, etc.  Modern historians incorporate him in their work when he's useful, and discard portions that have shown to be erroneous, and you'll see that in their footnotes and bibliographies of their papers and books.  We need to utilize modern scholarship where possible - I have Gibbon in a special place in my library, but I know what parts to give a quaint smile to and move on to more accurate documentation.  Many of our articles are relying on Livy, Gibbon, Plutarch, etc., etc. without noting modern historians' review of their work and pointing out when they fictionalize or when their biases are more than apparent, or where their assumptions are later shown to be false.  This has got to be fixed if Wiki is ever going to be more than just a fan hobby. We as professional historians need to work hard to correct these problems. This has been born out in consensus after consensus on the historical article TP's.  I've edited numerous articles but the task of updating is daunting and we need help! -HammerFilmFan 50.111.51.247 (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * HammerFilmFan, is there any particular reason for not using your account to sign? Dimadick (talk) 20:07, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

"Christian influence?"
The article says that Julians belief in monotheism show Christian influence. But that's absurd, because pythagoreanism, orphism, and neoplatonism believe in an underlying reality (The Monad), which is essentially the same as the Brahman in eastern philosophy. The Enneads are full of references to The One, the Monad. Wikipedia "scholars" once again showing they don't really have any clue what they're talking about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.215.211 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't make it up, you know. I think your quarrel is with Tougher, who we cite. Johnbod (talk) 20:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 17 March 2022

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure)  NW1223  &lt; Howl at me &bull; My hunts &gt; 15:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

– The emperor Julian is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term 'Julian'. In the last 90 days, his page had 69 thousand views, while the next 10 articles titled 'Julian' had |Julian_(disambiguation)|Julian_(name)|Julian_(surname)|Julian_(album)|Julian_(novel)|Julian,_California|Julian,_North_Carolina|Julianus_(frog)|Julian,_Pennsylvania 25 thousand combined views, so people searching for 'Julian' are probably looking for the emperor. As a Roman emperor, he also has more long-term significance than any of the other Julian articles. We can add a hatnote linking to the Julian calendar, which is more significant than the emperor but not known by the single term 'Julian'. Galagora (talk) 14:03, 17 March 2022 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Julian (emperor) → Julian
 * Julian → Julian (disambiguation)
 * Strongly oppose. Page views alone do not establish a primary topic, and it is highly probable that people searching for "Julian" will be searching for topics other than the emperor.  I don't dispute that he is the most important person, and perhaps the most important topic by the name, but I see no advantage to readers—and multiple potential disadvantages, to this move.  Besides the risk of creating ambiguity, the present title is the result of consensus reached following several very protracted arguments concerning this article over the course of a number of years; this move would almost certainly result in that entire cycle of arguments beginning again, with no more prospect of resolution, except that this move would become an objection to the one title that finally achieved consensus.  So in my view, the proposed title would result in minimal benefit, but substantial detriment to the community.  P Aculeius (talk) 15:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per P Aculeius. Galagora's stats show that users are quite often looking for something else. Furius (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Julian has a notable amount of long-term significance, but the Julian calendar, even more so - and |Julian_calendar quite a few more pageviews, too. Even though it is the "Julian calendar" rather than just Julian, dates under the Julian calendar are sometimes referred to simply as Julian dates. Back when Julian linked to the article on the given name, it used to catch a lot of mislinks from editors intending to link to the Julian calendar. For those reasons, I do think it's worth taking into consideration when discussing if there's a primary topic for Julian, and if we do, then the emperor definitely doesn't meet either criteria. Egsan Bacon (talk) 02:09, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose no clear primary.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose fails WP:PT as noted above In ictu oculi (talk) 13:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Added move for associated disambiguation page. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 21:16, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose as a proper noun the primary topic is the given name. As an adjective the primary topic is related to time, being the calender, date, and day. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 01:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Julian" is such a common name that I can't see there ever being a primary topic for this. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment., the pageviews links you intended are probably these: for the emperor, and |Julian_(disambiguation)|Julian_(name)|Julian_(surname)|Julian_(album)|Julian_(novel)|Julian,_California|Julian,_North_Carolina|Julianus_(frog)|Julian,_Pennsylvania for the other uses. The total figures from the second link aren't completely representative as that tool can't display the views for more than 10 pages, and I see that some popular ones, like Julian (given name), have been omitted. The related tool "Massviews" can be useful in such case . A more fundamental problem with the pageviews is that they don't give you any direct indication of usage (most of an article's incoming traffic comes from either links or from external search engines; only a small fraction is from readers searching on Wikipedia). Sure, the pageviews may often correlate with usage, just like they may correlate with long-term significance, but in both cases the connection is weak. When the primary title is occupied by a dab page, we have access to a much more direct indicator of what readers want when they search: Wikinav , which has data about how many times each of the links on the dab page has been clicked during the previous month. – Uanfala (talk) 15:31, 20 March 2022 (UTC)