Talk:Julian (emperor)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Christian influence?"[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 17:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]

Requested move 17 March 2022[edit]

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 <Howl at meMy hunts> 15:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

– 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[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[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[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[reply]
  • Weak oppose no clear primary.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strong oppose fails WP:PT as noted above In ictu oculi (talk) 13:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Added move for associated disambiguation page. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 21:16, 19 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[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. -- (talk) 01:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose "Julian" is such a common name that I can't see there ever being a primary topic for this. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 07:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[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.

Attempt to rebuild the Jewish Temple[edit]


THEODORET of Cyrus: „Historia ecclesiastica“ („The Ecclesiastical History“), Book III [A.D. 361-363]: „Chapter XV. - Of the Jews; of their attempt at building, and of the heaven-sent plagues that befel them.“ → „20. Die Juden und ihr Versuch des Tempelbaues und die von Gott über sie verhängten Strafen“ →

AMMIANUS MARCELLINUS: „Res Gestae“ XXIII.1. [A.D. 390-392]: →*.html (Seite 490))

GREGORY NAZIANZEN (Gregor von Nazianz) (he was a fellow student of Julian the Apostate in Athens): "Julian the Emperor" (1888). Orationes XLV; Oration 5: Second Invective Against Julian, 3.+4.+7. → 3. → 4. → [s. footnotes! / Fußnoten!: Chrysostomus + Ambrosius + Sokrates + Sozomenus + Theodoret + Rufinus + Philostorgius + Rabbi Gedalja + Ammianus Marcell. + Cyrillus + Julian (!) ] 7. →

-- (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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[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[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[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[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[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[reply]
Which would make it unfit for the article Reman Empire (talk) 01:16, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]