Talk:Mithraism: Difference between revisions

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Classical Greece and Rome High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Mythology High‑importance This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. 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.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 (April 2004–Dec 2006) Archive 2 (Dec 2006–Oct 2009) Archive 3 Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Out of the 4 parties originally involved in the mediation discussion, one lost interest early in that discussion, and another has now resumed editing of the article itself. As one of the two remaining, I think there is little point now in regarding the mediation process as on-going. Although it has been a very worthwhile discussion, especially on the question of Cumont, and the points raised and sources mentioned should be kept in mind in editing. I think it is time for participants in that process, and other interested people, to get back to work on the article itself, and for further discussion as necessary to take place on this talk page. The notice at the top of this talk page, about the on-going mediation, should be removed now, I think. Though I hesitate to take this step myself, as I wasn't the one who put it there. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 21:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the mediation process has lost momentum and I don't know if it is meaningful to participate in a mediation process after one of the involved parties has "lost interest". As such, it may be better to regard the mediation process as "over", and to continue discussions here. The notice on top of this talk page does needs to be taken down, but so do some other comments sitting there. Talk page comments should be in archivable discussion threads, not at a place where they would sit permanently.-Civilizededucation^talk 09:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How's this now? I've taken down the notice about on-going mediation. I've also put in a thread header above those general comments at the top, which now appear immediately after the table of contents. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The touch of a master!!!!-Civilizededucation^talk 01:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Civ, some of your recent edits have CE or BCE. I have no personal disagreement with you on this. But I think we need to look at what the WP style manual says WP: ERA

"• Use either the BC-AD or the BCE-CE notation, but not both in the same article. AD may appear before or after a year (AD 106, 106 AD); the other abbreviations appear after (106 CE, 3700 BCE, 3700 BC). "• Do not change from one style to another unless there is substantial reason for the change, and consensus for the change with other editors."

"not both in the same article". That means that if we are to use BCE-CE in the article at all, then all notation in the article should be changed to this system. However, it is apparent that other editors, who have contributed a lot to the article in the past, prefer BC-AD. So I think that perhaps we should stay with that, to avoid unnecessary arguments about a matter that pertains to style rather than substance. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. Please let me know if you have any other concerns.:)-Civilizededucation^talk 06:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for reworking/rewording the "Membership of the Cult" section. I think it is much clearer now and it's encyclopedic value has been increased greatly. Of course it would be unnecessary to discuss things like that beforehand. Please go ahead modifying the article whatever way you think it can be improved. Should I have any concerns, we can always discuss it later on.-Civilizededucation^talk 10:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for the use of CE in direct quotes, it occurs in some quotes from Boyce. Originally she was using the notation "A.C.". I had changed it to CE. You think I should change it back to "A.C." or do you think it should be changed to "A.D."?-Civilizededucation^talk 15:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should change it back to A.C., because a direct quote should be the exact words of its author. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have copied two refs from the "Mithras in comparison..." article. I intend to check them or replace them soon.-Civilizededucation^talk 06:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both these refs were present in this this version of the article. Restoring sourced content should not be so much of a problem? I am still trying to find more reason to have confidence that these refs are correct.-Civilizededucation^talk 07:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One of the references for the claim that Mithras was born December 25th, the Encyc. Brit., says "The ecclesiastical calendar retains numerous remnants of pre-Christian festivals—notably Christmas, which blends elements including both the feast of the Saturnalia and the birthday of Mithra." It doesn't actually say December 25th, and it's possible to read the statement that it combines the birthday ceremonies and story of Mithras with a date to rival Saturnalia. I have not reverted it because of the use of the word birthday instead of birth, but I raise this because it's not explicit and the other reading is not exactly twisted. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The main ref for the point is the ref from Vermaseren. The EBO ref was added as a support for what Vermaseren says and to indicate that it is not an isolated claim. Since the EBO says "birthday", I think it would be obvious enough?-Civilizededucation^talk 08:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was a good idea to put in more info about the images of his birth from the rock. The only trouble is, we now have two different sections about iconography, both fairly detailed. What to do? I think it is necessary to have a few lines about the bull-slaying (as a new historical development) close to the section about earliest history of Roman Mithraism, because a notable historical question is exactly when the first bull-slaying images appear. And in saying that, perhaps we should also note in passing that the bull-slaying is not the only sort of image found in Roman sites, there is also the rock-birth and the banquet scene. But I think the detailed discussion of iconography should all be in one section, which I suggest should remain where it is now, i.e. after the sections about origins and history. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, absolutely. I too was having the feeling that it is awkward to have two sections discussing iconographic details. Thanks for solving that.-Civilizededucation^talk 00:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am presently trying to investigate the changes in scholarly thinking in view of the finds at doliche, caesarea and huarte. another aspect is the statue of ahrimanius at london mithraeum. They seem to revalidate cumont's theory of east-west transfer and it seems that the controversy is still intensely debated. There seems to have been a workshop in 2009 where this was discussed [1]. There are also some other papers.-Civilizededucation^talk 02:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the statue from York with the inscription Arimanius? That is not reliable evidence for anything. It was not found in a context with other Mithraic objects. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure the debate will continue. However, it is not necessarily an either/or thing. Even if it is true that Cumont overestimated the continuity between Zoroastrianism and Roman Mithraism, it may also be true that others have overestimated the element of Roman innovation... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 04:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair comment. Both sides to the issue may be like reading into an argument from silence, to some extent or other.-Civilizededucation^talk 08:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When Vermaseren says in Mithras: the secret god -- "no Mithraic monument can be dated earlier than the end of the first century AD", the meaning seems clear enough... until you have a look at what else he says on the same page of his book, which I have just been doing. On the same page, he writes at some length about the first century BC statues and inscriptions at Commagene, and he says that they are evidence of reverence paid to Mithras, though not of a secret initiatory cult. So, what does he mean when he says there is "no Mithraic monument" earlier than the end of the 1st cent. AD? Is he using the word "Mithraic" in some special sense, according to which a statue or inscription can be about Mithras, without being "Mithraic"?

I've looked at the original Dutch text of his book, Mithras de geheimzinnige god. I found that the term translated as "Mithraic monument" is "monument van Mithras", the word "van" being roughly equivalent to "of". I also checked that (in Dutch as well as English) he uses the same form of the name "Mithras" (not "Mithra" or anything else) when talking about the earlier Commagene material and the later Roman material. So what does he mean? Well, the sentence about "no Mithraic monument" comes after a statement about what has been found in Rome, and before a comparison with the city of Pompeii. Does he, perhaps, expect readers to understand that he means no Mithraic monument in Rome before the end of the 1st century AD?

The bottom line is that, when you take more of the context into account, his statement can hardly mean what it looks like at 1st glance. By citing it without that context, perhaps we are misrepresenting him... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 09:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With works like CIMRM, on field experience of conducting numerous excavationt,...., Vermaseren is probably the strongest source for this article. A misrepresentation of Vermaseren is no small issue. The mind boggles at the thought that someone could do something like this. Thanks for locating this. I do not have access to the source, but looking at the context, it is obvious that this is a clear case of misrepresentation. If he is not talking about Rome, why would he talk about Pompeii. How can the failure of the excavations at Pompeii alone show that no mithraic monument can be dated earlier than the end of 1^st century. The spread of Mithraism is much wider than Rome and Pompeii and Vermaseren is the guy who knew ALL about this. It is obvious that he is talking about Mithraic monuments in Rome only. How else can he refer to Mithras in the commagenian statue and inscriptions. I think it is crystal clear that what we had was a misrepresentation. We either need to take it off permanently, or present it in a non-misleading way if it is needed.-Civilizededucation^talk 16:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree it is no small issue. I'm fortunate to live near a library that has books like these on its shelves. Anyway, I've just added in to the section about "earlier images" a sentence about what Vermaseren says about Commagene in Mithras: the Secret God. I think the sentence about "no Mithraic monument" should probably be left out, because its meaning is not apparent without a lot of context, and giving that context would take a lot of space. I will quote here the passage from Vermaseren I'm talking about, for your information, and also for anyone now or in future who wants to check why we removed that particular sentence.

Vermaseren, M. J. (1963), Mithras: the Secret God, London: Chatto and Windus, p. 29 "Other early evidence of the first decades B.C. refers only to the reverence paid to Mithras without mentioning the mysteries: examples which may be quoted are the tomb inscriptions of King Antiochus I of Commagene at Nemrud Dagh, and of his father Mithridates at Arsameia on the Orontes. Both the kings had erected on vast terraces a number of colossal statues seated on thrones to the honour of their ancestral gods. At Nemrud we find in their midst King Antiochus (69 - 34 B.C.) and in the inscription Mithras is mentioned... But the inscriptions do not say anything about a secret cult of Mithras; the god simply takes his place beside the acknowledged state gods.

"Though Plutarch's information is important, it must be borne in mind that the historian wrote his life of Pompey at the end of the first century A.D. and it is not until then that we find in Rome the characteristic representation of Mithras as bull-slayer. The poet Statius (fl. c. A.D. 80) describes Mithras as one who "twists the unruly horns beneath the rocks of a Persian cave". One other point worthy of note is that no Mithraic monument [in the original Dutch: monument van Mithras] can be dated earlier than the end of the first century A.D., and even the extensive investigations at Pompeii, buried beneath the ashes of Vesuvius in A.D. 79, have not so far produced a single image of the god."

The Dutch text I consulted is Vermaseren, M. J. (1959), Mithras de geheimzinnige god, Amsterdam: Elsevier, p. 23 Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed explanation. It is now even more obvious that Vermaseren was talking about Rome only. Its just fab to know that at least one interested ed has access to a good set of resources. I agree that it is better to leave out this sentence. That archaeological excavations of mithraea begin from last part of 1^st century only is already noted elsewhere in the article. That is a clearer way of conveying the point.-Civilizededucation^talk 06:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I'm sorry to tell you that the article is now very unreliable as a source of information about Mithras and Mithraic studies. I have added WP:RS and WP:POV tags, therefore, and it probably violates other policies as well. Let me say why we have a problem; why I haven't just waded in and fixed it; and where you should go to get better information.

My name is Roger Pearse. I am the editor of the Tertullian Project website, and of a number of other scholarly initiatives to make ancient sources freely and directly available online. I can be contacted at my blog, which is dedicated to the same purposes.

For the last few years I have been the major contributor to the Mithras page. I got interested after discovering how much sheer nonsense was circulating online. I've written or referenced much of the scholarly material in the article (at least as it was). What I've been trying to do, is to reduced the quantity of daft hearsay on this subject online, by ensuring that the article reflected only material referenced to scholars who have published peer-reviewed research on Mithras, and gave a balanced picture of that research, with enough links to and quotations from primary materials that none of us would be at the mercy of "authorities". I don't see how anyone benefits from getting the raw facts wrong; whatever their likes or dislikes.

Unfortunately three months ago a pair of editors turned up and seized control of the article, with the stated intention of rewriting the article to say that Mithras predates Jesus, and Mithraism is like Christianity. Yes, dear reader, we are dealing with an agenda. The approach taken was to introduce material from unreliable sources. Sadly I can't spend my days fighting with such people -- too much else to do.

At the moment, therefore, I must warn you that the article is thoroughly misleading, and thoroughly unreliable as a guide to Mithras studies, the ancient sources, or the consensus of modern research on them. Many references are neither neutral, nor reliable, because they have been chosen for POV rather than to inform. The article has been contaminated with irrelevant material relating to Persian Mithra. In addition useful material has been deleted, sometimes seemingly out of spite.

The best I can do is to give you some useful and reliable sources, from which you can access pretty much everything else. I suggest these:

• The last reliable version of the Mithras page is this one. It is not perfect, but it does reflect the consensus of modern Mithraic studies, without neglecting older views. I looked up the majority of the references myself, as far as possible, and I quoted them. The idea was so that you can see to what extent the reference supports the statement. So you should treat all edits subsequent to this as questionable, because sources are selected to support the POV, not to inform the reader.

• The next source you should use is Manfred Clauss' "The Roman cult of Mithras". This single volume text, translated from German by Richard Gordon, is an up-to-date review of the whole subject. Sometimes there is a Google Books preview of it available, at least in the US.

• I would recommend that you also get an idea of what the ancient sources actually say. To this end I have gathered English translations of all the primary literary sources here. Use these to check claims about what did or did not happen in ancient times -- "Mithras born on 25 Dec." is a favourite of the headbangers.

• An idea of what the inscriptional sources contain is also useful, although in fact most of them merely say "Sextus gave this to Mithras in fulfilment of a vow" or some such. Clauss will give you a good idea of the good stuff. The comprehensive reference is Vermaseren's Corpus Inscriptionum et Monumentorum Religionis Mithriacae, but this is accessible to few. You will therefore have to rely on the Textes et Monumentes of Franz Cumont. These are a century old, and are linked from the reliable version at the bottom. (Note that Vermaseren's other publications such as Mithras: the secret god do not today pass WP:RS. The translator made some awful errors, and Vermaseren's views are merely those of Cumont. The English translator of Cumont is not to be trusted unreservedly either; the French contains much more, and better references).

That should be enough to allow you to ascertain the raw facts. I won't go through all the defects of the current article; that would be morose.

Please be aware that there is a real problem with Mithras material in books, even in some academic texts. The problem is that Mithras studies changed around 40 years ago. The founder of Mithras studies, the great Franz Cumont, believed that Mithras was the same as Persian Mitra, and the Romans called Mithras "the Persian god". But the archaeology discovered in the last 50 years makes that impossible, and the two are always treated as distinct today in reliable sources.

However not all scholars read the latest Mithras scholarship. So you can find the outdated views, often stated very crudely, in works really about other subjects. People wanting to "prove" Mithras predates Christ like the views of Cumont. People who want to advance those views like quoting "scholarship" from such sources, which are easy enough to find in Google Books. So WP:RS means being pretty careful what you use, unless you want to be misled. Don't trust any modern source written by anyone who is not publishing peer reviewed material on Mithras, except as a way to access ancient sources (and verify those).

I hope all this helps. Good luck! Roger Pearse (talk) 20:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I see that the culprits, CivilizedEducation and Kalidasa, have also gamed the archiver, so as to move into Archive 4 the evidence of their misdeeds on the talk page. We need hardly ask why. Roger Pearse (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about not assuming bad faith, Rog? 'Misdeeds' indeed, pfft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.92.231 (talk) 03:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about replying to Roger's well-founded concerns, instead of acting cute and dismissive, Anon? "Assuming" indeed. pfft. Oh, and learn to sign your comments. You wouldn't want to come across as a lazy and/or cowardly troll, right?

I completely agree with everything Roger says. About a year back, this article was actually coming around and starting to reflect modern scholarship regarding the historicity of Mithras. Now, it's regressed into the same "pagan parallelism" nonsense that has been plaguing the academically illiterate corners of the Internet for years. And yeah, the edit pattern makes it abundantly clear that someone is deliberately deleting factual content in order to push their own views into the article. 85.228.97.208 (talk) 22:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roger, thanks for your comments. I find that many, many articles on ancient religion in Greece and Rome are rendered virtually unusable by agglomerations of interpretation, instead of doing as I think you're suggesting, which is describing the evidence via neutral scholarship. However, having read through the article for the first time, I'm not seeing the issues of neutrality in its perspective. The article really does have to address the idea, commonplace in some circles (including programs on Discovery and the History Channel), that Mithraism was a rival to Christianity; it seems to present scholars who argue both sides of this in a neutral way, including those (and I'd say favoring those) who pooh-pooh the idea. I live in a college town, and I've certainly had casual conversations with people (and not those practicing alternative or Neopagan religions) who'll say things like "the Nativity is just the birth of Mithras." I don't think the article does this at all, nor do I see any assertions that Mithraism predates Christianity, with implied influence of the former on the latter. Cumont's interpretation is largely discounted, but not the value of his work as a whole; that is, he has an important place in the history of scholarship on the topic, and to omit discussion of him would be to leave readers at the mercy of discovering his views without any cautionary framing (and the earlier version of the article that you pointed to also covered him). For instance, I'm trying to get my head around the notion that Mithraism was something made up entirely at Rome; this is so out of keeping with anything I know about religion in ancient Rome that it simply doesn't make sense to me. Anyone who's studied archaic Roman religion finds Mithraism somewhat startling; where did it come from? It has to have imported elements. Beck's view seems as good as any, and from my limited knowledge he does account for conscious incorporation of perhaps not very well understood Persian material. I could be utterly wrong about all this, based on extremely limited knowledge and a single reading of the article, but I'm really not seeing a lack of neutrality here. Nor do I see major differences between the earlier version and this one. I feel that I must be missing something. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cynwolfe. Good to hear another voice here. Not sure it's a case of you "missing something"... Perhaps it is inevitable that differences between versions will seem more major to editors who've been directly involved. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 04:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I should've read the talk page before commenting, aka stepping into the hornet's nest, since I've recently scoffed elsewhere at using anything titled "for Dummies" as a source for an encyclopedia article. I hope, Roger, that you don't abandon this article. I think my problem is that I don't see specific points tagged, so in terms of verifying, I wouldn't know where to start. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think Roger's account of what happened is entirely fair. E.g. his statement that a couple of editors "seized control" of the article... No-one has done so, but some of us made an effort to correct what we saw (rightly or wrongly) as problems in it... I would invite any interested WP user to check back over the history for himself or herself... I will say, though, that I respect Roger's work with the Tertullian Project website, which I consulted just recently when looking up Porphyry for this very article. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 07:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article used to start with a long section on the origins of the *word* "Mithras". This I have moved out to a separate article on The name "Mithras" while we think about it. The material is actually quite impressive, but I think it needs to be developed and tied down more, and it looks a bit too much like OR at the moment. (It also contains stuff which just doesn't belong to the subject of where the name comes from). I thought I would list what we need to say, and then perhaps we might address the issues.

• The word Mithras / Mithra in Greek and Latin literature is used for two purposes; (i) to refer to the ancient Persian deity Mihr or Mehr. (ii) to refer to the cult of Mithras discussed here. Issues:
  • We need a reliables source to state this, true though it is.
  • We need something for the headbangers who don't understand that, just because two things have the same name, they are not therefore the same thing (although they might be). Two different people can both be called John Smith, and there really are people who can't grasp this point, so we need to cater for them.
• I think it's fairly clear that the originator of the Roman cult borrowed the raw name (as he did Areimanios) from the Persian source for his new god, but stuck it onto stuff of his own imagining. Again this has to be said from WP:RS or not at all.
• The derivation of the term Mithras, referring to Mihr, in Greek literature such as Xenophon's "Cyropedia" from Old Persian is something we should have. But it needs to be attached to the article on Mithra, the Persian god. Likewise material from the Avesta and Rig Veda fits perfectly in there, but not here.
• We do have a statement that the nominative form in Latin is "Mithras", from Richard Gordon.
• But frankly, do we have much that clearly belongs in this article? I have my doubts.

Not sure how to take this forward. Roger Pearse (talk) 13:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Roger.

At least you and I are agreed that WP needs to have information about the name Mithras. I am pleased that you find the material "quite impressive". A couple of questions...

1. At present, Mithras redirects to Mithraic mysteries. If information re Mithraic mysteries and info re the name "Mithras" is going to be kept on separate pages, where then should Mithras redirect to?

2. On the talk page for the name "Mithras", you've said that we need info from scholars, not dictionary entries. Are you suggesting that the standard dictionaries of classical languages were compiled by non-scholars?

3. I agree with you that two things can have the same name, without being the same thing. Is this more or less important that the converse point, that one thing, or person, often has names in different languages which look and sound rather different?

A WP user who looks up Isis immediately finds information about where that name comes from, and how it got changed when it entered Greek and then Latin. Why shouldn't a WP user who looks up Mithras find similar info? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 01:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have discovered on my shelves an English translation of all the references to Mithra in Greek and Latin literature. It is astonishing how *few* there are. Some may recall that I have a page of all the Mithras references (which got delinked from the article, dammit). I'm thinking of adding those into it. That would cover all uses of the name in Greek, Latin and Armenian literature. Roger Pearse (talk) 14:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why was your page containing literary refs to Mithras delinked, Roger? Cynwolfe (talk) 15:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The pretext was that it wasn't a peer-reviewed scholarly publication, which of course it wasn't. But I think that, if someone has collected the sources for something online, or made translations of primary material, they should be linked anyway as a resource in the external links. They can't be used as *authorities* for the article -- because that's WP:OR --, but it's very useful to be able to skim through them. Imagine if the Wiki article on the orations of Himerius (or someone equally obscure) ignored a (non-exisent) online English translation of the orations on such a ground -- that would be really strange, IMHO.

The link is here, btw. I made it when I wanted to know just what we *could* know from ancient sources about Mithras. Roger Pearse (talk) 15:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An external link to a page that provides source passages is usually acceptable. The page doesn't appear to promote your own work, nor to offer your interpretation, and as you say it isn't used as a source to support claims in the article. It's offered as a resource. This would seem to fall under WP:ELYES, point 3, as an example of "sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail … , or other reasons." Your page contains "neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject," when giving all the passages within the article would definitely be TMI. I don't see it meeting any of the criteria outlined at WP:ELNO, with the possible exception of point 11, "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority." But articles regularly link to LacusCurtius, for instance, Bill Thayer's "personal" web site in the sense that it's his and his alone, and he even posts a journal there; but the links are to texts and excerpts. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll bear this in mind - thanks. Bill Thayer's site is very useful, isn't it? Roger Pearse (talk) 19:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that WP:ELYES, point 3 seems relevant here, and accordingly I've just restored the external link. However, if the person who removed it (no, it was not myself!) wishes to provide arguments based on WP policy, those arguments will need to be civilly considered. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 07:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roger, here [2], you removed material about Commagene images and gave as your reason that "they do not relate to Mithras but Mithra"... Only thing is, Vermaseren's CIMRM (which was cited), says that the images relate to "Mithras"... And the Greek text of the inscription, given by Vermaseren in CIMRM (which was also cited), bears this out... Roger, in your statement above "To the reader, article violates..." you recommended Vermaseren's CIMRM as a source. Well, does CIMRM cease being a good source when it says something you don't like? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 03:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roger, you wrote: "I see that the culprits, CivilizedEducation and Kalidasa, have also gamed the archiver, so as to move into Archive 4 the evidence of their misdeeds on the talk page. We need hardly ask why. Roger Pearse (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)" If you take a look at the history page, you will find that the change to the archiver, from 90 days to 60 days, was made neither by myself or by CivilizedEducation, but by User:Wwoods 06:43, 21 April 2011. If the change to archiving troubles you, Roger, I suggest that, yes, you do need to ask that person why. I would also suggest that in future you check facts before making allegations. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 21:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, everybody should probably just calm down a bit. I really don't think the problems with the article are as bad as they may look to those of you on the inside at the moment. As is often the case with religion articles, going into too much detail sparks arguments over the finer points in ways that frankly aren't in the interest of general readers, who are looking for an overview and description. Way too much focus on interpretations and origins, both of which are always disputed in religious matters. This is an encyclopedia article, not a textbook; the info needs to be digested. At the same time, if I came here because I was curious about the presence of the Mithraic mysteries in southern Gaul, I'd be disappointed, because there is no coherent look at the distribution of the cult in the Empire. I also find it distracting that Cumont's work (that is, the history of scholarship) is presented before the description of the cult. Readers need to know what this is all about before they start looking at theories. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can see a case for saying more about the iconography, ritual and membership before going into details about interpretation and origins. Which would mean separating the basic information about Mithraic iconography from the theories about it, which may be a good idea in itself... I'd agree that historical questions about religious origins are often contentious... But does that mean these questions can or should be avoided? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 06:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fundamental writing error that WP editors make all too often, leading to talk page discussion that is quite literally endless, if scholars themselves continue to debate without resolving certain questions. The task is to describe what the questions and approaches are, not to decide them. The reader should leave the article with a feeling of confidence, of having a grasp of the subject, not thinking "well, I didn't really get all of that." Overwhelming readers with the details of the scholarly arguments is not a service to them; it's really just the intellectual equivalent of writing "in universe". Scholars and serious students of (in this case) religion don't get their information from Wikipedia, but from the scholarship itself. Too many WP articles are starting to sound like the first chapters of dissertations. Sorry, there's my general lecture on the subject, but I keep encountering this in article after article. Cynwolfe (talk) 11:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the task of WP is to describe different approaches rather than deciding between them. That was my main issue with earlier versions of this page (February and earlier) -- especially in the intro and the first half dozen sections, it strongly implied that Mithraism was simply a Roman invention. That (it seemed to some of us) amounted to a decision in favor of a particular view about history, although other views were already mentioned further down... I also agree that a Wikipedia article should not sound like a dissertation or an article in a specialist journal. The aim should be to present stuff accessibly, as well as accurately. How to realize this, though? One idea I've had is that we should try to avoid expressions like "tauroctony", which in a specialist journal would be fine -- perhaps better to say something like "bull-slaying scene"? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I do think you need to explain "tauroctony" as a technical term required for the subject. I'll address some of your other points when I have time to do so thoughtfully. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further on the archiving thing... After writing my note above, I noticed that after the change by User:Wwoods from 90 days to 60, a further anonymous change was made from 60 days to 30. No idea who did that one, or why. I've reversed it, not only because 60 days seems a sensible compromise between conciseness and accessibility, but also because I am concerned that such a further change, made anonymously, is likely to fuel suspicions and misunderstandings. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 09:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The WP page Template:POV#When_to_remove states that the POV template may be removed when "Discussions about neutrality issues have stopped (for more than a few days)". As this seems to have happened, it seems appropriate to remove the template now. It would be appropriate to put it back if (and only if) someone want to restart discussions about neutrality issues. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 21:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]