Talk:Julian the Apostate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by the Royalty and nobility work group.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. To participate, improve this article or visit the project page for more information.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
???	This article is on a subject of -importance within classical antiquity.

Before starting a discussion on the name of the article, or proposing a move to a new title, please read the previous discussion.

Archives 1

Contents 1 Raising on a shield 2 It's not all religion 3 Page name is POV, so what? 4 Notice box at top of talk page

[edit] Raising on a shield

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

[edit] It's not all religion

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

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

[edit] Page name is POV, so what?

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

So what? Every historical account has a bias and thus reflects some POV. This is hardly an excuse to stop using historical accounts nor is it a point against using historical labels such as 'apostate'. Christianity is our European heritage - even if we don't like it. We can't escape the christian heritage and we should not try it, because the christian bias is informative in its own way, especially for this article.

Please, remember this is an encyclopedia and people need to find articles easily. The most common name for this article is 'Julian the apostate'. Nobody, not even specialists, will try to look it up under his real name. I hope there is no need to explain that Wikipedia is not a place for pagan (or atheïst) revisionism. And the poll above here is clear. johanthon 10:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC) (an uncurable atheïst).

I didn't realize that Christian POV is acceptable, or that Wikipedia is meant to be used primarily by Christians. All I see is a good case for a redirect at "Julian the Apostate" pointing here. Take a look at the Numiswiki entry for Julian II: "Julianus II, Julianus (Flavius Claudius) [Julian II], usually called Julian the Apostate,..." This is from the 1889 "Dictionary of Roman Coins, which nicely puts to bed the notion that "specialists" expect to find the entry under "Julian the Apostate" or that indexing him under "Julian II" is somehow "pagan revisionism"; the Numiswiki editors point out that the authour of the Julian II article "... is very much biased against anything not Christian." The Japanese Wikipedia article is titled "ユリアヌス" (Julianus) - the Russian Wikipedia article is "Флавий Юлиан" (Flavius Julius). In short, there is no real reason to persist with a POV name when simply using his real name is commonly done and is the norm even in other language Wikipedias. Whogue 10:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Pointing at other projects' and languages' policies is a total red herring. Our own policy is to use the most common name in English. There is no question but that the most common name in English is "Julian the Apostate". If trying to use a less common name solely for "PC" reasons is not revisionism according to you, what then do you call it? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a note: the original title of this section was "Page name is POV", as Whogue wrote it; shouldn't it be left that way? Codex Sinaiticus is absolutely right about policy: see WP:NAME. The Oxford Classical Dictionary lists our man as Julian 'the Apostate' (Iulianus (RE 26), Flavius Claudius), confirming that many experts do expect to find him under this name, as the titles of the articles & books listed under "secondary sources" confirms. I really wish that people would stop focusing on this supposed "POV" issue, which I find to be very trivial, and concentrate on improving the content of the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Previous discussion included a poll on moving to "Julian". A careful read of the comments shows that many "oppose" voters felt that "Julian" was not specific enough. Indeed, He was "Julian II" not "Julian" so the proposed move would not have been accurate. After reading the comments on the previous polls it is clear that many were not happy with the present name, but the proposed alternative was not acceptable either. Several good alternatives were proposed. Let's take a look at them. The fellow had a name (Flavius Claudius Julianus) and a simple designation exists in the line of emperors (Julian II) and I simply think we should use one of those as the title. "Julian the Apostate" can redirect here. Otherwise I don't see why we don't move "Richard M. Nixon" to "Tricky Dick"; after all, that's what most people called him. (Akhilleus: I moved your sig to what I hope is the right place. It looks like "Rory" put his comment above your sig by accident.) Whogue 01:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for moving my sig. But as for the article title, it doesn't matter whether editors are happy with the name or not. What matters is policy, expressed in WP:NAME and associated pages, and the very clear fact that the subject of this article is most commonly known as "Julian the Apostate" in expert sources, as the entry from the OCD, Bowersock's book, and the titles of many other books and articles show. In contrast, Richard Nixon is not usually known as "Tricky Dick"--it's a common nickname, yes, but not nearly as common a way to refer to him as "Richard Nixon" or "Richard M. Nixon". --Akhilleus (talk) 01:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the question is whether "the subject of this article is most commonly known as "Julian the Apostate" in expert sources", and there are are some examples of that, but there are counter examples as well. Gibbon doesn't use "J the A", for example, and the numismatics text I cited don't either. My examples from other wikis were just meant to show that we can't claim he is universally known as "J the A" and those other wikis were at hand, so to speak. The coin in the article shows him as "Fl Cl Julianus", and that is the way coin people know him. I guess I'm just not willing to give "J the A" a slam dunk as "universal", or even "most common by experts". Further study is needed, and I hope we can take a close look at the comments in the archived discussion. My "Tricky Dick" comment may have been a bad joke, but "T D" is a redirect in Wikipedia. Whogue 04:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. The most common name in English for julian the Apostate is Julian the Apostate, and the most common name for Richard M. Nixon is Richard M. Nixon. That last comment is purely facetious and borderline contentious. And once again our policy is not affected by other projects policies. We are not ruled by a minority either although a good example of a system that was ruled by a minority would be pre-1990 South Africa. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Whogue, numismatics are a very rare minority, even amongst historians. They use labels related to their coins. Those coins are produced by Julian himself and obviously he didn't call himself 'apostate'. The majority of people will not be interested in his coins, but in his policy. This is related to the struggle between pagans and christians. The current tittle is very helpfull to point at just that, and it helps the more clever people in understanding how christian propaganda really worked. This is informative in its own right and that is what an Encyclopedia is about: finding information easily under well known informative labels.

BTW Julian was never called Julian in late antiques. He was called Iulianus. The J in his name comes from Christian-Carolingian churchscript. How come you don't protest against that? Have you protested against calling Iulius Caesar labelling as Julius? Think about it. johanthon 10:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

As others have pointed out, there is a lot more to Julian II than that particular issue. The current "tittle" may be "helpfull", but if you want an article about any kind of propaganda then it should be that, an article. I simply think we should use the normal English form of his name, without the nickname, as the title, same as we do for Richard Lionheart, which redirects to Richard I of England. I have said from the beginning that a redirect from "J the A" would be fine. Whogue 13:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Sinnigen, W. & Boak, A. "A History of Rome to A.D. 565" (1977) Macmillan. Index has "Julian (Flavius Claudius Julianus),..." Whogue 06:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notice box at top of talk page

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