This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Julian (emperor) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greek history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
This article is within the scope of the Roman and Byzantine Emperors WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Roman and Byzantine emperors. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Roman and Byzantine emperorsWikipedia:WikiProject Roman and Byzantine emperorsTemplate:WikiProject Roman and Byzantine emperorsRoman and Byzantine emperors articles
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 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 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Oppose. Julian has a notable amount of long-term significance, but the Julian calendar, even more so - and 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. ([1][2][3][4][5][6]) 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)[reply]
Weak oppose no clear primary.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose fails WP:PT as noted above In ictu oculi (talk) 13:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Comment. Galagora, the pageviews links you intended are probably these: [7] for the emperor, and [8] 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 [9]. 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 [10], 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)[reply]
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.
I know that this nickname is very widespread in many languages, including English. I tried changing this on another account a year ago but it got immediately reverted. I’m going to try it again now. If anyone thinks it is not widespread enough or has any other counter arguments I’m open to learn. Populares rome (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I dont really have anything against the edition, but if anyone has sources to suport this claim it would very helpful Optimates greece (talk) 15:29, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I saw some on Google Books—some aren't any good as sources, but a few look valid. An ngram suggested that the title is pretty rare, but not a new coinage. I just couldn't decide what to do with it, so I decided to defer and let other editors decide. P Aculeius (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the claim because of a lack of sources to support it. If anyone has the sources needed feel free to add it again. Reman Empire (talk) 22:16, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly doesn't belong in the first sentence, before "the Apostate" has been mentioned, which is by far his most common nickname. If it really is used in reliable sources (none have so far been cited), it probably belongs down in the section on "Religious issues" Furius (talk) 22:42, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From what I could gather it’s mainly used by modern pagans, but also several historians and philosophers trying to reevaluate Julian as a good ruler, mainly in french, so the term has probably got some neutrality issues in general and not just religious. Reman Empire (talk) 01:16, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which would make it unfit for the article Reman Empire (talk) 01:16, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me, I just didn't want to make the call based on what I found. I didn't really dig into the sources that weren't obviously no good (the first result was based on an earlier version of this article, for example). P Aculeius (talk) 01:17, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still, a lot of other Wikis, notably the simple English and French ones, have Julian the Philosopher cited at the top as one of the principal nicknames Julian had and has. Now those articles aren’t necessarily the best, neither are they necessarily better than the English one, in fact they are often inferior in quality to the English Wiki, but still like it’s been back there a long time from what I can understand, so wouldn’t it be better to look at the situation a little closer than saying
"it’s mainly used by modern pagans but also several historians and philosophers trying to reevaluate Julian as a good ruler, mainly in French"
because if it were really only used by super bias Historians and Philosophers, which are according to this guy "mainly French", then why would specifically the French article have this nickname cited alongside Julian II and Julian the apostate. Now the thing is I have some hard time believing that all those editors on the French Wikipedia page are all "modern pagans" and "historians and philosophers trying to reevaluate Julian as a good ruler". And those editors, considering the fact they’re all (or almost) speaking French, would most likely be aware of such shananigans. Plus if any of those "historians and philosophers" are modern, then that would definitely count as a (most likely) pretty valid source. On the other hand while I don’t think there’s any issues with neutrality here we are on the English Wikipedia and the thing seems to be not very known back here. Yet again it’s on the Simple English article. But then again it’s the Simple English article. Anyway I just don’t think it’s good to stop this discussion know because if there are truly "several historians and philosophers" claiming this it would be nice to know which ones and maybe give the thing a second look. I’m the Editor who wrought the message I just finished criticizing, and I don’t remember much , but while I did do research, It was quick and honestly bad research. Most of the research here was done by simply scrolling down the discussion page on the French Wikipedia. The editors there had some good arguments. Reman Empire (talk) 17:56, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In all probability, the language in those Wikis originated here. Including it based on those would be circular (see WP:CIRCULAR). P Aculeius (talk) 19:49, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After further research the French article seems to have originally been titled "Julian the Apostate", which is why there was a lot of discussion about the nicknames of Julian. One editor said that, out of all books (admittedly French) on him written after 1960 (that was in 2004) , there are 27 books simply referring to him as Emperor Julian, and only 8 referring to him as "Julian the apostate" and 6 out of those eight are newer editions of works from the early 20th century. Moreover out of the two remaining works, one adresses the nickname in irony. There is one book calling him "Julian the Philosopher". I’m not saying it should be here because it’s in the French article, I’m just saying that if there are somewhat reliable sources stating other nicknames in other languages then why not in English. In general I think it would be good to give other surnames a chance on the article in order for it to not just be featuring the Christian Name. Reman Empire (talk) 15:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found a source. The name is also mentioned on a fairly reliable YouTube channel (Kings and Generals, I think. That’s obviously not a reliable source, but it’s worth mentioning), and the sources for that Neo-Hellenic religion site may also be worth looking into. As a result I’ve added the name again; this time after the apostat was mentioned. Il do some searching and add a few more soon. Have great day ! Reman Empire (talk) 13:02, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a source: it's the title of a book, which makes it what the author of that book decided would make a good title. What does she say about him in that book? Does that or any scholarly source actually claim that he was called "Julian the Philosopher" by his contemporaries, or by historical sources before people started trying to publicize this name on the internet? If not, then it doesn't belong in the lead, if at all—that gives undue weight to what is basically historical revisionism. P Aculeius (talk) 14:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@P Aculeius: There are. As I’ve said at least in French, as you can see from the above list. The name probably isn’t contemporary of Julian, but it’s most likely a courant of revisionism important enough (in this case trying to rehabilitate Julian’s reputation) to be mentioned in the lead. The rest obviously belongs to religious issues. But academic sources do mention the name. I usually edit on the Inca, so I’m not to engaged here. But revisionism or not, it is mentioned by academic sources. I do not have the work at hand. *The author is a historian*, just so you know when I’m telling you the following: It’s most likely a nickname used in the book, because from what I’ve read the nickname is sometimes used in France to replace the old Apostat with a more "laïc" name. In the description available on Amazon the author made Julian the inventor of a (primitive) "laïcité". That’s obviously anachronistic , and that’s also the words used. This historian is not a outlier, and is fairly mainstream as well from what I’ve seen. The name needs to be mentioned somewhere behind The Apostat. If mentionning in the lead is really that bad, maybe we could put it to religious issues, but it’s important enough to be mentioned.
It also isn’t just present in French historiography, as that YouTube video (which I do obviously not claim is a good source, but it shows the name is present) and the Hellenic site prove. All in all it’s old and known enough to get the mention. Il try to procure myself the book to see further. Maybe for now it should be removed. Il inform you if the name is used. Have a great day !
Note: I am not using the term Revisionism in its negative meaning here.
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.
Julian (emperor) → Julian the Apostate – WP:COMMONNAME, this is how he is usually known. I realise that some might consider that this reflects Christian bias. However since nearly everything we know about him has been filtered through Christian sources, even non-Christians usually refer to him by this name e.g. even the Turkish Wikipedia uses a version of this name in its opening line. PatGallacher (talk) 22:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We've had this argument at length repeatedly, and achieved consensus on a name that's neutral and uncontroversial. I understand the argument for the old name, and I agree that it's got a lot of history behind it and that it's not out of the question to use a title that reflects the hostility of a particular group, when it's commonly used with little of its original intent. But I still like the present name better, and it doesn't cause any confusion. I see no advantage to re-opening this debate, which certainly brings out strong feelings on both sides. P Aculeius (talk) 00:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"What about..." some other article isn't really a persuasive argument, particularly in the case of Ivan the Terrible (I note that that article was moved from the comparatively unrecognizable "Ivan IV of Russia" following consensus in 2011). There's still a scholarly consensus about that name, which wasn't bestowed as a form of religious condemnation, and for which there is plenty of historical as well as etymological justification: he wasn't called "the Terrible" because he was very bad, but because he was terrifying; it's an older use of the word, although many of the things he did, and the consequences of his actions, still make sense if we understand "terrible" to mean "very bad". Only a fringe minority seems to argue that the epithet doesn't fit in either sense. Meanwhile, apostasy is a concept that modern readers generally have to look up in order to understand, as it's no longer hurled around in everyday life, and isn't considered particularly relevant; as Furius points out, scholarly sources have increasingly moved away from it, while appraisals of Julian as emperor, from anything other than an extreme religious perspective, are generally positive to neutral.
But besides these distinctions, the title of this article was argued at length in 2006 (two discussions, including one formal page move discussion), 2007–2008 (seven discussions, including three formal page moves), 2009 (one page move with extended arguments with multiple sections, subsections, collapsed boxes, etc. that continued from March to June), 2010–2011 (two extended discussions), then finally in 2013 a proposal for the current title received strong consensus. And since that time most of the discussion—apart from a move request for an undisambiguated name last year—has been about the highly dubious claim that Julian was widely known as "Julian the Philosopher". The current title is stable, unambiguous, and consistent with both modern scholarship and the way other articles about Roman emperors are treated. Having finally achieved consensus after years of argument, I see no persuasive reason to plunge back into the same argument again. P Aculeius (talk) 14:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Meanwhile, apostasy is a concept that modern readers generally have to look up in order to understand" Not in Greece, where I live. The term has no religious meaning, but it is used for political defectors. It is commonly used for the Apostasia of 1965, one of the events which led to the formation of the Greek junta (1967-1974). Dimadick (talk) 07:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support By far his most common name.★Trekker (talk) 13:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Inclined to support, mainly on the grounds that the arguments for the current title are weak and natural disambiguation is preferred.
Works using 'Apostate' in the title:
Julian the Apostate (1978)
Julian the Apostate (2007)
The Last Pagan: Julian the Apostate and the Death of the Ancient World (2008)
Emperor and Author: The Writings of Julian the Apostate (2012)
Julian's Gods: Religion and Philosophy in the Thought and Action of Julian the Apostate (2013)
The Last Pagan Emperor: Julian the Apostate and the War Against Christianity (2017)
Beyond Intolerance: The Meeting of Milan of 313 AD and the Evolution of Imperial Religious Policy from the Age of the Tetrarchs to Julian the Apostate (2018)
A Companion to Julian the Apostate (2020)
Julian the Apostate in Byzantine Culture (2022)
Works using only 'Julian' in the title:
The Emperor Julian (1978)
Emperor Julian: Panegyric and Polemic (1989)
Sons of Hellenism, Fathers of the Church: Emperor Julian, Gregory of Nazianzus, and the Vision of Rome (2012)
The Specter of the Jews: Emperor Julian and the Rhetoric of Ethnicity in Syrian Antioch (2019)
The Emperor Julian and the Jews (2019)
Julian: Rome's Last Pagan Emperor (2023)
As can be seen, reliable scholarly sources don't seem to have a problem with the nickname. And why would they? Srnec (talk) 21:01, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It has been said in the past to be POV, implying a Christian outlook, which of course it does. Try this vintage discussion from the archives, one of many such that should have been linked by the nominator. Johnbod (talk) 02:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do any scholars explicitly reject the name "Julian the Apostate" for that (or any other) reason? Surtsicna (talk) 21:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
InThe Emperor Julian and the Jews, Adler refers to the epithet as "opprobrious" and having "been added to his name by his opponents": In spite, however, of the opprobrious epithet of 'Apostate' having been added to his name by his opponents, and of the fact that he has been accused of being one of the bitterest persecutors of Christianity, more sober critics have arrived at the conclusion that ...Jhvx (talk) 21:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, specifically When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others. Both names are fairly common, but "Julian the Apostate" has neutrality problems. Jhvx (talk) 11:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The name "Julian the Apostate" has neutrality problems. He is also commonly known as Emperor Julian, so the name of the page should stay with the commonly used neutral title, not the slightly more commonly used biased title. UmbrellaTheLeef (talk) 11:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As pointed out by others, the name "Julian the Apostate" has neutrality issues. Jhvx also raises a good point about WP:COMMONNAME. LVDP01 (talk) 12:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Absolutely the common name. Raising NPOV issues for someone who died nearly 1,700 years ago is verging on the ludicrous. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:POVNAME does allow for non-neutral WP:COMMONNAMEs; the question is whether "Julian the Apostate" is overwhelmingly more prevalent than more neutral ways of referring to him. I see that it's above "Emperor Julian". Ham II (talk) 21:19, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But "Emperor Julian" isn't the title of this article—it's "Julian (emperor)", which is consistent with how several other articles about Roman emperors with potentially ambiguous names are titled. That point was raised in previous discussions, including if I recall, the one that led to the article being moved to its current title. P Aculeius (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I see no reason to reflect Christian hostility in an article name, and Julian's status as a Christian was at best nominal. Dimadick (talk) 08:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per oppose arguments above. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
