Talk:De Viris Illustribus (Jerome)

what wikipedia is not

This lengthy series of articles chapter-by-chapter is not an appropriate use of Wikipedia. Even with the commentary that you have added- each chapter does not deserve its own article. Brian0324 18:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Each chapter of Jerome's biographies has special meanings and gives ancient histories as he saw them. They are very special individually and gives information that otherwise is lost and not otherwise available. There is many meanings here over and above what a person may see at first glance. After much studying there are several "levels" of information conveyed in each biography. There has been much thought put into these biographies and there is much more information in each biography than many "stubs" that exist on many Wikipedia articles (many with just a line or two). These biographies were put together by Jerome and there is much more information to each one than meets the eye initially. They are not "stubs", but complete biographies as Jerome wrote them. When he wrote them he put much energy and thought into each one. These are not my biographies. There happens to be dozens of Wikipedia articles that reference individual Chapters of Jerome's De Viris Illustribus, which are linked back here. --Doug ^talk 19:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is that you are using a source text for an encyclopedia article. Sorry, but this needs rethinking. All of the information deserves a place in Wikipedia, but you will find many opposed to "dumping" the text of this work in this fashion. What about Wikisource or Project Gutenberg – with a link to a brief description here? I suggest you figure out a way to merge/or re-write in encyclopedic language before someone nominates the entire series for deletion. Just a friendly warning.Brian0324 19:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you give me an example of where one of my article biographies is of "dumping" (exact copy of the public domain text) from another article? All of these biographies have followed the Wikipedia policy (see discussion for Chapter 2 "James the Just"). Wikipedia policy for biographies: "worked to fix them appropriately—adding links (in both directions), formatting, and editing for a neutral point of view and encyclopedic style" = which I did. Also here are some examples of other articles that make reference to individual chapter biographies of Jerome's De Viris Illustribus: Justin Martyr; Lucian of Antioch; Apollonius of Ephesus; Hippolytus of Rome; Amphilochius of Iconium; Ambrose of Alexandria; Pontius of Carthage; Rhodo. --Doug ^talk 20:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

While the biographical material in Jerome's De Viris Illustribus is certainly addressing noteworthy people, each chapter individually of this text will not pass muster for notability. No doubt it is a valuable reference. Still, I suggest you re-evaluate your attempt to add this information in this way before it becomes under more harsh scrutiny than my own.Brian0324 20:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I have had this looked over already by several editors (that specialize in these related fields) and some administrators as well (where it is ther speciality). So far there has not been any objections, as you can see. I have a similiar article on Petrarch's De Viris Illustribus. Check out the "history" and see how many other editors or administrators have edited my article. I think it is two or three (if I am not mistaken), one being recently whom happens to have also looked over this Jerome article with no objections. Petrarch's also is a list of 36 biographies, that all happen to have Wikipedia biographies on. So basically I am just following a pattern that has been done before with absolutely no objections. Also keep in mind, these above articles that make reference to these individual chapter biographies of Jeromes. This was just on a quick scan in just a few minutes. I'm sure I could find several more. Did you find that example of "dumping" from any of my biographies? Do you see how I am following the Wikipedia policy: worked to fix them appropriately—adding links (in both directions), formatting, and editing for a neutral point of view and encyclopedic style. I also have another similar one on Boccaccio, with no objections. --Doug ^talk 21:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Just be aware that using individual chapters of a primary source text as the basis will eventually come under more criticism, so it is at the risk of losing a great deal of you hard work that you continue to expand this series. Just trying to save you some trouble.Brian0324 20:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance on this. I have been getting opinions on this as I have been going along from Chapter 2 as you can see. I have asked over a dozen editors that specialize in this area for their objections and opinions – so far there has not been any objections. You can see how few edits there has been to my Petrarch's De Viris Illustribus, minor ones at that. I have had no edits or objections to the one with Boccaccio. I believe I write quality articles (of course, I am biased). They are all listed on my User Page, so you can click the link to view each one. Many have never been edited, while most have few edits (I believe because of the quality in the first place). I have also made a large list (all linked) with my article Factory tours and there has been no objections her either. If you will notice, the biographies are not copies of Jerome's biographies, however they have been "worked" and amplified off the original Latin that Jerome wrote in. I have added many links to each and most have at least one picture (demonstrating the main concept in the article) to enhance it. --Doug ^talk 21:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion: Hi! To begin with, I have no knowledge of the topic and yet it's clear to see that a lot of hard work has gone into creating each of the articles. If the articles are notable enough and a number of editors have reached a consensus regarding the content (I'm assuming that it's encyclopediac otherwise it wouldn't have been ok-ed with loads of people)... well I'm not precisely sure what the problem is here.

Seraphim Whipp 00:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your nice comments on my article and the extrensive work I have done on Jerome's biographies. It should be noted at this point that the following articles I have found on a short search reference to these individual biographies that reference to that particular chapter and notable person of Jerome's biography: Justin Martyr; Lucian of Antioch; Apollonius of Ephesus; Hippolytus of Rome; Amphilochius of Iconium; Ambrose of Alexandria; Pontius of Carthage; Rhodo: Symmachus the Ebionite; Origen; Firmilian; Tertullian;Saint Optatus;Pope Damasus I;Simon the Zealot;Prosper of Aquitaine;John the Presbyter;Methodius of Olympus; Juvencus;Gospel of the Hebrews (Matthew);Second Epistle of Peter;Symmachus the Ebionite;Pamphilus of Caesarea;Gregory Thaumaturgus;Hilary of Poitiers. I'm sure that when I have finished all 134 of these biographies (only half way now) then there will be dozens of additional references and links to these Jerome biographies and the main article I wrote of Jerome's De Viris Illustribus. --Doug ^talk 00:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Merging Jerome's indiviual Chaper biographies

Tried that already and that is the way I had it originally; however that makes the main article HUGE and the kilobytes will exceed 100 KB = a size that will be difficult to navigate for many people (especially dial-up). When linked to individual biographies, then the size of the main article is within range that everyone can navigate. So, bottomline, the only reason I am really doing it this way is because of "navigation" and the size of the main article becoming too large (would be over 200 KB). Any other suggestions on how to have all of Jerome's 134 "Christian author" biographies into one article? There happens to be dozens of Wikipedia articles that reference individual Chapters (i.e. Chapter 2, Chapter 61, etc) of Jerome's De Viris Illustribus.--Doug ^talk 19:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion

It's good that someone took the time to create seperate pages for each chapter, and this is acceptable, but remember that articles should have some sort of prose, which this article lacks. Please condense and rewrite this article to make it more readable. bibliomaniac15 00:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. As the original author, I certainly will do that and it should be done in the next few days. --Doug ^talk 00:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Defense of the sub-articles makes no sense

Adding wikilinks and pictures (which is all Doug has claimed to have done) is not enough to turn a cut-and-pasted primary source into an encyclopedia article. The minimum first step for all the chapter articles is to delete the biography itself (anyone who wants to read it can use the external link. The problem is, once you remove the biographies, you realize you have no encyclopedic content left. Mostly just a rubric that gets repeated across all the chapter "articles." Clearly, anything that there is to be said about this book (as opposed to dumping the translation) can be said right here at this main article. I'm afraid that I just don't buy the claim that there are some mysterious administrators, authorities, etc., who have deemed this to make any sense. I anticipate taking the whole series to AfD within a day or two. Wareh 03:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not a "cut and paste", nor just "dumping" of text, but a translation from the Latin that Jerome wrote of these biographies. Many other articles, noted above, make reference back to these individual biographies.A similiar article I did (that has been around for months with no objections) is Petrarch's De Viris Illustribus. --Doug ^talk 08:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

That article is not similar because it does not consist of huge amounts of text. I'm struggling to understand what you mean by the denial of "cut and paste" and "dumping." It seems very clear that it has all been cut and pasted and dumped into the articles from http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2708.htm. "A translation from the Latin" is a description we can agree on – it is "a translation from the Latin" that you have cut and pasted and dumped into the articles in lieu of encyclopedic content. To clarify: if Petrarch's De Viris Illustribus consisted of "a translation from the Latin" (but it doesn't in fact), it would be a no brainer to delete the "translation from the Latin" from Wikipedia. The external link to the translation is sufficient. If you really want the translation brought over into Wiki-world, what you want is Wikisource, not Wikipedia, which is devoted to articles about topics. Wareh 17:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources it says: Copying public domain encyclopedias (such as 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica) and using those articles as a basis for a Wikipedia article on the subject is perfectly OK. You should not just dump the text unedited, but rather should work to fix them appropriately—adding links (in both directions), formatting, and editing for a neutral point of view and encyclopedic style. All of Jerome's biographies I have done so far has followed this policy. I have worked to fix them appropriately and added links (in both directions), formatting, and editing for a neutral point of view and encyclopedic style. I even added at least one picture to most of these biographies to show the main concept per that article to give the encyclopedic style. None of the biographies are verbatim nor a direct "dump" or even a "cut and paste". They all have been worked accordingly.--Doug ^talk 23:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're missing the point of that policy, which envisions the adaptation of content from public-domain sources that contain encyclopedic content. For example, turning a 1911 Encycl. Britannica article into a Wikipedia article. But you're not bringing in encyclopedic content, but rather a book by Jerome. This is not a starting-point for an encyclopedia article; any encyclopedia article needs to begin by deleting the text by Jerome, introducing quotes only insofar as they specifically serve the article qua article. No changes you make to Jerome's text will magically convert it into an encyclopedia article; in fact, since the original translator presumably understands Latin better than you, any significant changes to the translation would presumably hurt it as a translation. I'm having trouble finding any evidence that you're using these new article pages to present any encyclopedic coverage. On your talk page, you've said "I do want to keep the original meaning of what Jerome intended for the reader." This is unfortunately not what Wikipedia is for—as I say, the website for storing vast amounts of Jerome's texts and their literal meanings is Wikisource not Wikipedia. The individual chapter articles are not articles about anything. The content of the biographies needs to go. Once it is gone, the justification for keeping separate articles for each chapter disappears (if you write enough viable encyclopedic content about this book to overflow a single article, then we can worry about sub-articles, which should probably be by topic not chapter). Finally, I have to say I'm disturbed that articles are being introduced under a rationale such as, "Keep in mind, each biography has a very special meaning (if you study it very close)." Original research theories about "very special meanings," and the public-domain sources you want to offer the public in support of your original theories, should be offered on your own website, not in the Wikipedia article space. Wareh

You were asking if there is a similiar article that was doing something along these lines of having a list of names, then linking them to a biography; an example would be that of Giovanni Boccaccio of his 106 biographies On Famous Women. Check out these biographies and you will notice that approximately 70% are simple "stubs" of a few lines. Most of those do not even have any references where the information came from or its sources of this information. They are just lines that someone submitted and made an article out of. Where it came from is anybody's guess. What they mean is anybody's guess. Most of those articles have been around for about 5 years and to this day the articles are not even tagged that they have no sources or references. There are here then about 30 – 40 such article stubs on "famous women" that apparently someone some 5 years ago decided to put into Wikipedia and nothing has been done to them (i.e. tagged, found souces or references for the information, deleted, tagged for deletion, even a discussion along any of these points on the article itself). These articles don't even look like encyclopedic articles, do not have an encyclopedic style, no picture, nothing, except perhaps that someone made up these stories about these particular "famous women" and decided to put on Wikipedia. In fact the main article itself On Famous Women does not give it sources for this list of "famous women" or for any of its information. The list of "famous women" looks good to me, however where it came from and if this list is accurate is anybody's guess. This article has been around for years on Wikipedia; however to this day there isn't even a discussion about where the information came from. I am not intending to do original research, however intending to show what was meant in the original biography; similar when someone quotes a biography verbatim; they want to show what the orignal author meant to say about that biography. Be sure to check out these articles that these 106 biographies On Famous Women link to and tell me what you think as to why these do not have references or sources where the information even came from. At least my articles have source information and look like an encyclopedic article (even with a picture). Is there room for improvement? Yes, there is always room for improvement! I will gladly edit these further in the future, just like I have already done on the dozens of other articles I have already started. Will others edit these biographies in the future? I suspect they will, just like any other article. Will others link to these biographies and the main article. They definitely will, since they have already. In fact, as an example is the main article here of Jerome's De Viris Illustribus. I took the advice from others and made those improvements. The article looks much better now than it did, say a few months ago. The idea is to edit new articles and make improvements. Of the several people that submitted their "Third Opinion", apparently you are the only one that is objecting to my articles. The others (except perhaps for one, maybe) all thought it was an excellent idea to have individual biographies. In fact they thought these biographies showed quality and in fact liked them. So the Concenses of the Community is that they thought this was proper, a good idea, and showed quality articles. That's a far cry from the articles On Famous Women.--Doug ^talk 12:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The essential difference at On Famous Women is that the names of women are linked to articles on those women. That would be fine at this article; for example, link the chapter heading for Polycarp to Polycarp. What there is no parallel for is an article like your Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 17, which is not an article about a chapter of Jerome's book, or an article about Polycarp, or an article about anything else: it is the chapter of Jerome's book itself. Wareh 13:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. On the question of consensus, I've yet to see evidence that your individual chapter articles have received careful review and approval from anyone. Wareh 13:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Above in the Section on "Third Opinion" this editor seems to think it is a good idea and "is acceptable". Of all the editors and administrators that had the opportunity for a third opinion request to them to put in their objection, none did. If it was wrong or objectionable I'm sure they would have said something. In all the articles that you have written up, have you actually got other editors to "approve" them in a Third Opinion. However, contrary to this if it was objectionable or wrong, they would have said something. To actually get someone to make the effort to say something good and actually say "I approve" is almost impossible; however if they disapprove, they will say something immediately. You seem to be the only one objecting, to most anything I am writing. Let's concentrate on Wikipedia: any comments on these stub articles that have no references On Famous Women that don't even look like an encyclopedic article? --Doug ^talk 14:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete the sub articles

I came to this through going through the WP:ADF log. Wikipedia is not the right place for reproducing texts in print or appearing on other websites. The texts are non-encyclopaedic. A commentary on them or description of them might be. That is done in the first few paragraphs. The rest, together with the subarticles reproducing each chapter should be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peterkingiron (talk • contribs) 23:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

Wikisource

What is the objection to transferring this material into Wikisource? I'm not advocating a total deletion of the information, but when there is a "...chapter 17" of this book under the Category:Bible translators – it only makes for confusion and makes Wikipedia a much less useful resource in general. I agree that the sub articles should be merged/or deleted.Brian0324 13:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC) The categories certainly can be changed and modified to represent these biographies better. Perhaps "Category:Bible" is not appropriate, but that can be edited accordingly. Maybe better for the biographies is just the "Category:Jerome", which is an easy edit for an improvement.

I'm all for locating it on Wikisource, with two provisos:

• Wikisource should get the text directly as presented on newadvent.org, not as it may have been modified by Doug Coldwell.
• The public domain status of the text should be verified; I haven't been able to do this.

Wareh 17:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Simon Peter

Got this information from the Wikipedia article on Simon Peter:

The ancient Christian Churches, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Anglican Communion, consider Simon Peter a saint and associate him with the foundation of the Church in Rome, even if they differ on the significance of this for the position of the see of Rome and of the Pope in present-day Christianity.

• --Doug ^talk 15:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Also here is another Wikipedia source of Primacy of Simon Peter where I obtained this information that says the following:

Simon Peter, also known as Saint Peter or Cephas, was an apostle of Jesus of Nazareth. A number of traditions, most notably Roman Catholic, hold that he was the first Bishop of Rome

• --Doug ^talk 16:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Also Saint Peter is reference this way in the Wikipedia article of Vicar of Christ.

• --Doug ^talk 16:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It sounds as if these articles should be merged. Peterkingiron 21:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion withdrawn: Cephas and Simon Peter are in fact redirected to Saint Peter. Primacy of Simon Peter and Vicar of Christ are valid topics entitled to remain distinct from Saint Peter, but I express no view on whether both articles are necessary. Peterkingiron 22:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

List of biographies

Have reverted these back to just a list of biographies (however with no links whatsoever); very similar to my article De Viris Illustribus (Petrarch) which has had no objections from the beginning. Now it is a very high quality article since it is almost identical to De Viris Illustribus (Petrarch), which is considered a high quality article (by many other editors).

FYI – the "life of Paul the Monk" is taken directly from the text; but if you want just "Life of Paul", that is fine by me, even though that is not what it says in Jerome's De Viris Illustribus Chapter 135 which I was using as the reference source data to come up with this information. You can change it to your viewpoint if you like. The source just happens to say "the Monk". I wasn't there, so I would not know for sure, perhaps you do. I don't even know what the definition of a "Monk" is, so you have one on me here. I was just going on Chapter 135, which I suppose could be wrong. I'll go with your wording on this and say he was not a Monk. Is that a bad thing to be? Sounds like something I would like to be; the life of a Monk sounds real good – its pretty much what I am now (I think, but not to sure on the definition. Is it "carefree"?). Perhaps you can help me out on a definition here........

• --Doug ^talk 19:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

A couple of points about the lists as they now stand. First, the listed names can and should be wikilinked to the articles on those people. Doug, maybe you can bring in those links, since I think you've tracked down the encyclopedia articles that exist in Wikipedia on these persons. Second, I'm a little confused about the "Liber I" vs. "Liber II" distinction as presented in the article currently. Is it really the case that Book I of De viris illustribus consists of 134 biographies, whereas Book II consists entirely of Jerome's listing of his other works? Is it, then, a work in two books, so divided? That seems very odd, and I'd like to understand this better. Wareh 16:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me clarify on my second point, about the structure of De viris illustribus. The online Latin text here shows a work consisting of a Prologue + 135 chapters. Chapters 1–134 are the biographies of other authors; Chapter 135 is the (auto)biography of Jerome himself. It includes a list of his own works just as his biographies of others contains lists of their works. What is your basis, if any, for a different view of the structure than this (no "books," Prologue + 135 chapters)? Wareh 16:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll be glad to work on those links in the future. --Doug ^talk 16:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You are not addressing my question, "What is your basis, if any, for a different view of the structure than this (no "books," Prologue + 135 chapters)?" If there is any objective basis for dividing the presentation into "List I" and "List II," please state it here. My sense is that there is no reason for the disproportionate space given to the contents of Chapter 135. The extensive quotation of Jerome's work does nothing helpful towards presenting the topic (De viris illustribus as a whole), and if it belongs anywhere on Wikipedia, it's at the article Jerome, where of course a survey of what he wrote over his career would be appropriate. Wareh 18:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Do not remove the merge tag, as you did before, without some attempt at explanation and consensus on this talk page. Wareh 19:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Text

One of the external links provides what appears to be the full text. I have therefore separated that one out (with a subheading). This provides a much more satisfactory measn of accessing it than reproducing the text in Wikipedia. Peterkingiron 21:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Continued this idea and expanded "Text" to "Text of various languages" and provided also the Greek text link. --Doug ^talk 22:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Well done. I made text a subheading for ease of editing, and then found no more was needed. I wonder whether a similar change needs to be made in relation to other commentaries and patristic literature. I do not claim any expertise in this area. Peterkingiron 22:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Text in various languages

User:UBX/confused You are absolutely correct that it is not modern Greek. My mistake, however keep in mind I am entering these items in good faith; but made a slight mistake here. It all looks Greek to me! Turns out it is actually Russian, that is of the Cyrillic alphabet; which happens to be based heavily on the Greek alphabet. Sorry, I was a little confused there for a minute.
Question: If Latin is O.K. and ancient Greek is O.K., why isn't a Russian translation (based on Greek words) proper here then also? --Doug ^talk 14:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The Latin text is the original version; of course it is of some interest to anyone reading this article. The Greek version seems to date to Jerome's own lifetime, which is why it is of some historic value. The English translation is useful because this is English Wikipedia, and we don't assume the readers know Greek and Latin. The Russian translation is not of interest because it's just another modern translation, made so that Russian speakers can read Jerome's little book. It would be very appropriate to link it from Russian Wikipedia, but it lacks any historical value or any value for the intended readership of English Wikipedia. (There may be a free online Russian version of Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, but it wouldn't make sense to link it from English Wikipedia.)

I have re-added "There was a Greek version of the book made, possibly by the same Sophronius who is the subject of Chapter 134." You say it's unclear where this came from, but when I first added it, I included the external link footnote to the Greek version. This includes, in Latin, an introduction that describes how and why the Greek version is often thought to be by that Sophronius (who by the way is of no relation to Sophronius). Sometimes good information like this is easily available online, but not in English. If you can't read the language of the linked reference, please don't assume that it does not support the statement! I wasn't the one who took away my external-link footnote, but I don't think it needs to be restored, since anyone interested in the Greek version will examine it via the external link, and they will then have the source for this statement in front of them. Wareh 18:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Problems in the lead

I have tried to improve the lead (diff). Among what I removed was the following: Chapters 1–134 described as "134 biographies of ancient heroes and authors of Greek and Roman antiquity (much like that in Christian church history)" and Chapter 135 desribed as "a couple of dozen books of epistles and chronicles related to moral biographies (much like what can be found in the bible)." To take Chapter 135 first, it is obviously a short chapter, not a couple of dozen books. It lists a couple of dozen books written by the subject to which it is devoted (Jerome himself), but this is unremarkable, since that is generally speaking what a great number of the other 134 chapters do! The description of Chapters 1–134 also perplexed me. While it would be accurate to say that Jerome himself, and by extension all the figures whose lives he treats, are from Classical antiquity or Late antiquity, the description of "authors of Greek and Roman antiquity" was highly misleading, as one would then expect biographies of Cicero, Thucydides, Callimachus, etc. Since I have not studied all these lives carefully, one question I'd like to answer is just how many of the 135 are (A) Christian, (B) authors. I have a feeling the numbers are high but not necessarily = 135. Finally, how are the contents of this book "like" Church history or the Bible? The latter, especially, sounds like an odd POV for which we'd need some basis. Wareh 19:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I actually like those improvements you made. Excellent job! How did you like how I put the very long list of biographies into 4 columns for easier navigation? --Doug ^talk 20:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad I didn't do anything disagreeable! I like your four-column format; it's a definite improvement. Wareh 21:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge of "Jerome's account of his own literary career" to article Jerome

My vote is to have this Section stay here since it is always described as the last part of De Viris Illustribus in all related texts as Chapter 135. The article of Jerome is already a very large article and I believe this additional information would only make it more confusing. There is plenty of room in this article (where it is known as associated material) to just leave it here. --Doug ^talk 11:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The point is that there is nothing explaining or justifying the relevance of this list to an article on Jerome's De viris illustribus. Yes, the list is in Jerome's book. But, as the deletion discussion for your Chapter 1 article should be making clear to you, the mere contents of a famous book are not per se appropriate content for an encyclopedia article about the book. The most obviously appropriate thing to do with this section is to delete it altogether and replace it with one sentence, e.g. "In the final chapter, Jerome gives an account of his own literary career, mentioning his translation work and listing his treatises on X, commentaries on Y, and books in Z genre." Anyone interested in the whole list would naturally click on the external link and read Chapter 135 for himself or herself! Again, this goes back to the basic misunderstanding that led you to pour Jerome's book into all those articles. It was this section, no doubt, that motivated someone to nominate this article for deletion, since it is obviously inappropriate. Reason prevailed and saved this article, because editors realized that, whereas the whole list may be inappropriate, the book De viris illustribus itself is notable, and there is no reason not to have an article about it, even if that article needed to be trimmed from the over-full form in which it existed. Now, I am always in favor of as diplomatic an approach as possible. My "merge" tag was a way of saying, "Doug, apparently this content is important to you. It is not relevant to this article, but perhaps a survey of Jerome's work is relevant to Jerome. With enough work, you could carefully work in a mention of anything in this list into the various appropriate parts of the Jerome article, so as to save your work. Of course, this would involve dividing them along the generic lines drawn in that article—translations, historical writings, letters, theological writings—and finding the right place to insert any new information. But it's doable." If that project doesn't appeal to you, I hope you'll try to understand that exactly the same rationale leading to the deletion of your 62 articles containing the text of Chapters 1–62 will necessarily lead to the deletion of this section, which (just like those articles everyone agrees should be deleted) largely consists of nothing but a point-by-point summary of the contents of Chapter 135. Wareh 00:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Contents

In the beginning of this Section it states: The 135 persons treated in De viris illustribus are as follows; however comparing that Wikipedia link to the biography Jerome wrote of this person they appear to be entirely different. The Wikipedia link is information that came from several Wikipedians of the 21st century, which is not the way Jerome wrote it. So to link them to Wikipedia articles and say this is the way it is actually treated in De viris illustribus I believe is incorrect. It is not as Jerome "treated" this biography. My Randon House dictionary says "treated" is: to consider or regard in a specific way; to deal with in a specific way; to handle in a specific way. The Wikipedia link is how this person is handled by several editors in a general way, not specifically the way Jerome handled it or worded it. The Wikipedia link isn't even a close translation. My original way that I was doing it and linking it comes a lot closer and is much closer to the way Jerome "treated" this biography on Simon Peter in his De Viris Illustribus. Your thoughts on this........--Doug ^talk 18:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding the very concept of a wikilink. A wikilink simply indicates that more information—in the form of a modern encyclopedia article written by 20th–21st century authors—is available at Wikipedia on a subject. View the article Jane Austen. You will find that when you click on the link Pride and Prejudice you get information about the novel Pride and Prejudice (not the novel itself). Now that I see this misunderstanding about how wikilinks work, I understand for the first time what probably moved you to create the chapter articles. Is it clearer now? When I write that Jerome dealt specifically with 135 persons in De viris illustribus, and that they are listed as follows, the list consists simply of names; a Wikipedia article stands on its own, with the wikilinks giving the reader the ability to branch off and deepen knowledge about things that may have come up only incidentally. To quote Wikipedia:Basic navigation, a wikilink "means there is a link to some relevant article or Wikipedia page with further information elsewhere if you need it"; it does not imply the incorporation of a second article's text into the content of what the first article is saying. Wareh 00:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. As a corollary: Since readers of Wikipedia know that it is against Wikipedia practices to have articles consisting of primary texts, readers will therefore know that all wikilinks lead to secondary, modern, encyclopedic treatment of topics. On the other hand, if you're looking for the original texts, they can always be found under "External links" (or a "Texts" section like we've created here), if they have been found online by a Wikipedian. Wareh 00:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

P.P.S. It would be really nice to have all the names wikilinked. You do have to be careful not to make links unless you're sure it's the same person, though. (For example, the Sophronius of Ch. 134 is not notable enough for an encyclopedia article; Sophronius is a totally different person.) I thought, Doug, that you might be the natural person to get this started, since you took the trouble, in your (apparently soon to be deleted) articles containing Chapters 1–62, of finding the Wikipedia articles on these various persons. Wareh 00:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of "parameters" here to met to make sure the correct ones are linked and not any of the improper ones; so you go right ahead and wikilink to correct ones in the correct fashion. I probably would get many wrong anyway, since I am not familiar with these Christian people. My mother often told me that if I wanted to make sure that the job got done right, to just go right ahead and do it myself. Sounds like good advice, so you go right ahead and do it the proper way to make sure it is done right. --Doug ^talk 15:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, in any case the articles Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 1 etc., are no longer around (as they still were when I wrote that yesterday), so it's no longer possible to use the wikilinks (to the articles about the persons) you came up with for those articles even as a rough basis for this job. So it'll have to wait for someone to have the time to do the necessary research anew. Wareh

Chapter numbers

I am trying to understand the difference in what I said and what you said. Can you explain the difference. Looks the same to me, so I am a little confused right now. I am comparing to the Jerome's De Viris Illustribus: English translation and it looks like what I said. Is it not Chapter 66 Cornelius? There must be a difference here which right now I am missing it. Please point that out, I would appreciate it. Thanking you in advance for your explanation on this misunderstanding of "Chapter numbers" and "numbered chapters". --Doug ^talk 18:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
My wording was: Each biography is normally designated as a "Chapter number" which normally precedes the name (i.e. "Chapter 66 Cornelius" or just as # "66. Cornelius").
Your wording is: no, the chapters are not normally referred to in that fashion; article below makes abundantly clear the fact that the editions divide the work into numbered chapters.
Here is a wedsite I found that has it exactly as I said "Chapter 66 Cornelius" – please point out the difference in what I said and what you said and what is on these English translations.

Your wording was misleading. It implies that someone making reference to Jerome's De viris illustribus (say, someone writing an article about one of these people) would normally write, "In Chapter 66 Cornelius, Jerome states that..." or "In 66. Cornelius..." However, this is not the case. To the extent that what you wrote was true, it was obvious, since it would apply to every book ever written with named chapters. "The English translation at istrianet.org labels the chapters in the following format: Chapter 66 Cornelius" would be true, but it is not pertinent information about Jerome's book, so it wouldn't belong in this article. The article states clearly the only pertinent facts: the book has so many chapters, numbered, and this is what they are. That's all that can be said. (Note that with works as old as this, we usually have to be careful about assuming whether things like chapter labels are in any way original and authorial, as these have often been added by later copyists and editors in order to clarify a work's structure. In this case, at least it is obvious that they represent very naturally Jerome's authorial plan.) Finally, in addition to these points, it was a nonstandard use of quotation marks around "Chapter number," and sloppy wording to suggest that "biographies are designated as numbers." Reference is made to the contents of the various chapters by chapter numbers, but this is simply to say what is true of every book with numbered chapters. Wareh 00:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I say "patato", you say "potato"..... patato, potato...... --Doug ^talk 14:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The summary dismissal of the point above fails to account for the fact that, as is, there is no clear evidence in the content to whether Jerome numbered the chapters himself or not. If he did not, and it is reasonable to assume that he himself might not have given the prevailing customs of his time, then referring to any chapter by number, rather than name of the subject, could be misleading, particularly if someone else finds an edition without chapter numbers. On that basis, I think it makes a great deal more sense to not refer to chapter numbers, until and unless one can indicate that Jerome himself used them in the original text. John Carter 17:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

First Apostle

Would like to know what is wrong with the below wording that you removed:
These are the biographies of Jerome's 135 subjects starting with Peter, considered to be the first apostle by Church of Rome.
This below wording I used awhile back originally was:
These are the biographies of Jerome's 134 subjects starting with Peter, considered to be the first person by Church of Rome.
Not being a religious person, I didn't know there was a difference between a "person" and an "apostle", but apparently there is -> so I went along with this other editor's change to the word "Apostle". It then was agreeable, until you removed it today. Do you want it back to a "person" or do you have another word for "Apostle" (i.e. "bishop")?
Is this wording from a NPOV and would this wording be agreeable with you:
These are the biographies of Jerome's 135 subjects starting with Peter, considered to be the first bishop by Church of Rome. See "Simon Peter" above for further explanation on this.

Once again, thanking you in advance for explaining why this sentence (that was agreeable by everyone) you then removed today. --Doug ^talk 19:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you can explain for me what the relevance was of giving this information about Peter. The article doesn't give a factoid about any of the following 130 persons, so why give a blurb identifying Simon Peter? Notice that in the same edit, I made the wikilink to the Saint Peter article. This is the normal way in Wikipedia (see above on the wikilink misunderstanding): the link by itself says, "And if you want to know more about who this guy Peter in Chapter 1 was, click here!" The only reason such a statement would be relevant to this article is if what Peter was considered to be by the Church of Rome holds some special significance to the plan of Jerome's book. If so, we could have a section of this article explicating this, possibly together with other structural considerations, all based of course on verifiable citations from reliable sources. The other editor you mention, if your quotations are accurate, was simply making a minor fix to get rid of an egregious error (Saint Peter has not been considered the "first person" simpliciter by anyone ever). I was working on a slightly higher level: trying to improve the article by nudging it towards presenting relevant information clearly and encyclopedically. I really wish it weren't just you and me here paying close attention to this article's contents; it would be better to have many editors. But, as long as it is just you and me, let's be honest about that and not invoke the "agreement of everyone" to sentences that have not been critically evaluated by anyone else. Wareh 00:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Besides the references above in the section "Simon Peter" referencing him as to a divine person; in Chapter 1 of Jerome's De Viris Illustribus it says: himself chief of the apostles, after having been bishop of the church of Antioch. In the Wikipedia article it even says in reference to the various churches, that they associate him with the foundation of the Church in Rome. Based on this reference information I have corrected your lead sentence to sometime more appropriate and less misleading. --Doug ^talk 15:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

While I'm hopeful you will give more consideration to my explanation of why the information is simply irrelevant (again, I'd be glad to see it together with any explanation of how "what Peter was considered to be by the Church of Rome holds some special significance to the plan of Jerome's book"), the way it is written now ("the first divine person") is not supported by any material on this talk page, the article Divinity, or any other source I can conceive. Since I am pretty certain that it is a falsehood to suggest that Jerome believed St. Peter to be a "divine person," I'm removing this.

I also need to remove the reference to "the numbered chapters Jerome designated for each subject." You have not heeded my caution above, which is that we can't simply assume that ancient authors numbered their chapters simply because our modern editions do. For example, all modern editions (and editions stretching back to antiquity) divide the Iliad and Odyssey into 24 books each; but there is no evidence that the author(s) of those poems made any such divisions, and in fact scholars are virtually unanimous that the divisions are not authorial. Anyway, lacking an autograph (copy written by Jerome with numeration), this is an overstatement. I'm still not understanding what information you feel this adds over and above the article's clear repeated statements of how many chapters/biographies the work contains. Is this part of the "very special" secret coded meanings you seem to have expressed belief in? Wareh 16:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I am just following your lead from above when you said: In this case, at least it is obvious that they represent very naturally Jerome's authorial plan. So is this not then what you meant? Was it "Jerome's authorial plan" or not? Its your statement. Above I pointed out where Jerome says himself chief of the apostles. Is this not the same thing? I am not that familiar with Christian terms, but it looked as the same thing to me. The root of the word "divinity" is "Godlike", so it looked the same to me. It is not? I am using as references the articles I pointed out above in the Section "Simon Peter". How is this then not correct, of "divine"? --Doug ^talk 16:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

On the "Godlike" or "divine" point, please be more specific about your source for Jerome applying these words or concepts to St. Peter. By the way, I tried really hard to put in a reference to "chapter numbers" in a way that would be all right with you. I may have confused you by addressing two points in the same comment just above. I am consistently maintaining the following rule: Something belongs in an encyclopedia article about a book if it can uncontroversially be shown to be part of the author's fundamental plan in constructing that book. But note I'm applying the principle to two issues. Issue A = the division into chapters. While, again, we have to be careful not to make facile assumptions about who divided and numbered the work, it is clear that Jerome's book contains a certain number of lives, and it is easy to divide them. Thus, the presentation of 135 separable lives is a notable feature of this book, which is why it is made abundantly clear in the article, and appropriately so. Issue B = some special status or explanation for Chapter 1 as opposed to all the other chapters. How is what you want to write about Chapter 1 (even in some correct form, i.e. avoiding epithets like "Godlike") relevant to understanding the book? I'm not asking that it be deleted; I'm asking that it either be removed, or else that a verifiable & reliable statement be added of what the importance or relevance of this fact is. See further what I've already written about this above.

The basic point is that "Jerome says himself chief of the apostles" is not a criterion for adding something to the encyclopedia article. It's by following the logic that everything Jerome says belongs in Wikipedia, simply because Jerome said it, that led you to create the articles Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 1 through Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 62, which had to be deleted for precisely that reason. Any statements Jerome makes should be repeated or quoted only together with some explanation (which ultimately has to pass tests like WP:V and WP:RS) of what importance the statement has for understanding De viris illustribus. That's what's still missing here. In some cases, it's quite obvious what's interesting and important about a factoid, but not to me here, and I don't think I'm just being dense. Wareh 16:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The word "divine" in regular usage is reserved exclusively for creatures which are considered Gods, not individuals who are counted as being like them. On this basis, inclusion of the word to describe Peter would be at best misleading. It is the regular usage of the word, not the root meaning, which is of paramount importance. Calling him the first person is no better, as the phrasing as stated above would refer to the first person known to exist, which Jerome would have thought of as Adam. Also, there is no particular reason to include description of any of the 135, as they are all (hopefully) described in their own articles. Wikipedia policy is to not repeat content contained elsewhere, so in this case simple listing of the names would be sufficient if they have their own extant articles or sections. If they don't, it probably would be best to create a page containing the content on the person, rather than adding it to this article, as the person is probably one who would be referenced elsewhere as well. John Carter 17:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

John?

Should the link for "John" in this article be to John the Apostle, John the Evangelist, or John of Patmos? John Carter 17:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I've inserted links to the subjects of chapters I could be absolutely sure of, which isn't many. John Carter 17:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Jerome believed all three of the Johns you mention to be the same person. Perhaps Names of John would be the most appropriate place to link? Wareh 18:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't read your suggestion before linking it to John#Biblical references. I have a weak preference for the link I added. Names of John seems to have a POV problem at present; as I read it, it assumes the identity of these three Johns and the disciple whom Jesus loved, and even the title "names of John" seems to be based on this assumption. EALacey 18:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I saw you hadn't seen my comment here, but I also saw that you'd found a more neutral place to point the link. Let's leave it there. Wareh 20:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Why list the chapters at all?

I don't understand the value of the list of 135 chapters/saints. When I read an article about a book, I want to read about the book—its influences, its style, what impact it had on later literature. For this article, one I would be interested in is this work's relationship to the tradition of Greco-Roman biography. For instance, is Jerome's work similar to Plutarch's? If I'm truly interested in knowing exactly which persons appear in this work, I'll simply follow the external link to the translation. And now that I have, I notice that the "biographies" in this work are very short—most are a sentence or two long. This is the sort of thing that the article should tell me—the text in the lead of the article led me to expect that the book was more extensive. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the chapter listing is a bit beyond the norm; I don't have a preference here and will go with the sense of other editors. The detailed accounting of the list of Jerome's work from Ch. 135, on the other hand, seems farther still from the norm & is something I've registered a deeper skepticism about.

You raise a good point about how the lead is misleading. In fact, these little "author blurbs" seem very far from the tradition of Plutarch or (as stated in the lead) Suetonius. I just reread the introduction to my Stuttgart Vulgate, which is cited as the source for the Suetonius comparison. There's nothing there about Suetonius, and it's hard to imagine that there would be anywhere else in an edition of the Vulgate, so I'm removing the comparison and footnote. If anyone has a specific reference to this, we can evaluate whether it's reliable. Wareh 18:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I say cut the chapter list, it bogs down the article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, cut the chapters ... but isn't there an english translation of this in public domain?? (I think so, most of the stuff on New Advent was taken from public domain). How about finding an online copy that we can be source is PD, and put it into WikiSource, then link from this article to there? – Pastordavid 02:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, does anyone find it a little odd that this article takes 399 words to explain chapter 135 – which is 303 words long itself? In all seriousness, how about we just do a block quote and drop the whole chapter in, rather than trying to say everything that Jerome does. – Pastordavid 03:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Presumably the translation at newadvent.org is public domain, but they don't seem to give enough bibliographic information to be certain. If it is, then, yes, of course it would be a good deed to get it into Wikisource.

Yes, the disproprortionate information on Chapter 135 is very odd. There is background to this: originally, the entirety of this book was getting copied into Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 1), so there is a slippery slope issue here. In my opinion, then, there is no justification for cutting and pasting the whole chapter (or, as you say, an even longer summary of it) into the article. I've tried unsuccessfully above to get an explanation as to why it is needed. I think it can be reduced to a one-sentence summary. Again, as you say, the entire chapter is freely available and linked for anyone interested. Wareh 14:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal

support – It is highly undesirable to have parallel articles on the same subject. I am no expert on Jerome, but the article on him looks a good one. This one should contain a brief statememt of Jerome's life and (substantial) literary achievement. This should then be linked to the article on the subject using the {{main}} template. Peterkingiron 09:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

support as proposer – With the proviso that the very verbose material on Jerome's literary output should not just be carelessly dumped into Jerome, but rather the titles added carefully in the appropriate sections of that article. The relevant brief statement in this article would, in my opinion, not so much be that Jerome had a great literary career, but that he summarizes it in such-and-such terms in the final chapter of his De viris illustribus. Wareh 14:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

support. And please convert the section into prose; right now it's a list. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I would support a main article link in the section, and then drop the PD text of Chap 135 into the section in place of what is there now. – Pastordavid 16:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and boldly made the change described ... please feel free to revert if it seems to have been premature. I left the merge tag there for now. (With the full text of Chap 135 included, the section is still 50 words shorter than the previous description of of the content of 135). – Pastordavid 16:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Public Domain

FYI, to all involved: the CCEL translation (from the Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers series) is definitely PD; and the website describes it as such (as long as you don't use their xml mark-up). I'm going to see if I can figure out how to get it into wikisource this evening. – Pastordavid 17:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Ancient Olympic Games

According to the article Ancient Olympic Games it says the games ended in 393 AD. Also if you add 14 to 379 it equals 393. Emperor Theodosius reigned from 379 AD. Since this information is significant and "notable" I am entering back this line. It shows the date he wrote this that is otherwise unknown. If the date of 392 AD is correct, then perhaps the article on the Ancient Olympic Games should be corrected. The mathematics also seems to be correct to lead a person to believe 393 AD is correct. Before removing this line, check with a "Third Opinion" if this information is correct or not. If it turns out to be 392 AD and you have information and other references to that, then change it to 392 AD after you give those references. Since I am going along with putting in the public domain wording for Chapter 135, that would be the least you can do. Thanking you ahead of time for this courtesy and not just deleting. I am using as a reference the article on the Ancient Olympic Games for that date and also Theodosius I. Please research this first.--Doug ^talk 19:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Since you want to dispute this, I will simply explain what is correct in this comment, and leave it to someone else to revert your change. First of all, ancient writers reckon spans of years inclusively. This is why "Jesus rose on the third day" means "on day 3, counting the day of crucifixion as day 1," not "on the third day after." Thus the math is very straightforward: "14th year" = 379 + 13 = 392. But you don't have to take my word for it; in my edit summary, somehow knowing that you would need proof before allowing me to correct an error, I quoted the introduction to the Latin version of De viris illustribus which said, "No one doubts that this year [the 14th regnal year] is 392 A.D." That's one published expert statement (it's by the editor of some public-domain Latin edition), so unless you have a published book backing up your different view, there's nothing to discuss.

I don't even begin to understand why you want to make a reference to the Olympic games. Jerome does not; why on earth is it relevant? What is the connection? There seems to be no reason to regard the coincidence as significant, but I am glad to give you a chance to produce a source for the significance here. Wareh 19:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

So what you are saying then (if I am understanding you correctly) is that the articles on Ancient Olympic Games and Theodosius I (under the Section "Proscription of Paganism") are incorrect? They show the date as 393 AD as does this date link also. Good idea to get a "Third Opinion" on this dating. To me it looks like 393 AD. As far as the part about the Christian religious viewpoint: I must admit I have no idea what you just said, so that means nothing to me. I just go by reference articles. However your statement of: That's one published expert statement (it's by the editor of some public-domain Latin edition) sounds like hearsay to me and not actually a reference source. Who is this actual person you are talking about and where is this actual source? I told you where I am getting my 3 sources. Again I must point out I do not understand "religious" viewpoints. --Doug ^talk 20:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, because wikipedia articles can be edited by anyone, including those wishing to help establish an interpretation of events, wikipedia guidelines are explicit in that wikipedia articles are not in and of themselves to be considered as sufficient sources for other articles, which seems to be what you are trying to do here. John Carter 20:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree that wikipedia articles are subject to errors since they can be edited by anyone. However in this case (which again they all could be in error) I as using as a basis for this date information. Being such an important date I would imagine someone by now would have corrected these 3 sources. To this time, they show it as 393 AD and have always shown that date on these articles from 2004. Do you have an actual source that says the Ancient Olympic Games ended in 392 AD, instead of just saying someone said so? Which source is that? Thanks for getting that reference information for me, appreciate it. --Doug ^talk 20:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't see where anyone's suggested that the Olympic Games ended in 392. What Wareh has stated is that the 14th year of the reign of Theodosius would, by Jerome's reckoning, have been 392. The Olympic games are irrelevant to this point. EALacey 20:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the introduction by Ernest Cushing Richardson to his 19th century translation of the Lives dates the work's composition to 492. EALacey 20:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Doug, you are misunderstanding me several ways. First of all, I have not done or said anything from a Christian viewpoint, and I'm quite confused about why you think I have—because I used an example from the New Testament to illustrate ancient time idioms? My expertise is in pagan antiquity, but I wanted to use an example I thought might be more familiar than, say, Thucydides or Livy. Second, no one is disputing the 393 date for the end of the Olympics. But how do you get from there to the "14th year" Jerome mentions? I've looked at Theodosius I and I did not any statement that the last Olympics were in the "14th year" of Theodosius' reign. If you need a source for the general notion that "14th year" means "start year + 13" (inclusively) rather than "start year + 14," the Columbia Encyclopedia gives the example, "Jan. 10 was the fourth day before the Ides of January [= Jan. 13], because the Romans counted inclusively." Finally, I am not using hearsay, I'm quoting from the Latin introduction here. Is it honestly your suggestion that this scholarly introduction, written in Latin, is the work of some internet rumor-monger rather than a big fat pre-1928 published book that someone has copied? Fine, I'll stipulate that and give you two more references for the widely accepted fact that De viris illustribus was written in 392:

• "The year of the publication of De viris illustribus, A.D. 392, is one of the few fixed dates in the life of Jerome." C.H. Moehlmann, "Grützmacher's Life of Jerome" (review), American Journal of Theology 13 (1909), p. 299.
• "This work [De viris illustribus], as he reveals at its start and finish, was completed in the fourteenth year of Theodosius, that is, between 19 January 392 and 18th January 393." A.D. Booth, "The Chronology of Jerome's Early Years," Phoenix 35 (1981), p.241.

I am just trying to clean up this article in good faith. I have taken great pains to explain the reasons for my interventions on this talk page, and I am very open to any relevant and correct additions from good sources. When you "have no idea what [I] just said," I would invite you to ask specific questions so that I may clarify or explain to you in terms you will understand. Or, maybe it would help to just go back and re-read carefully. Wareh 20:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I have reworded this sentence that should then be satisfactory to you stating it could be 392 or 393 depending on how you count it. Also then this agrees with your dating of between 19 January 392 and 18th January 393. Will that work for you?--Doug ^talk 21:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The text as you have written it is false, at least to the extent that it says "depending on how you count the years," which implies there is more than one right way to count them. There isn't. Wareh 23:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Picky, picky, picky. Relax! Take a deep breath, everything is O.K. The world is not coming to an end tomorrow and if it is I don't think there is anything we can do about it. Keep in mind, I am editing in good faith. Now take a close look and you will see I am trying real hard to come as close to your side as possible; but I think you are really gun shy. The dates provided are between 19 January 392 and 18th January 393. So to be from a NPOV I used both 392 and 393 = neutral, covers both sides. How about if I use the words "depending on how you look at these years". What is it that you are so afraid of? If it is that bad, then just don't even look at it. Take a vacation. That way then you can keep your blood pressure down. --Doug ^talk 23:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Doug, I am sure that you're editing in good faith, but you're expending a remarkable amount of effort on things that most of us consider unnecessary. Your attempt to calculate the date of Jerome's work is original research; Wareh has been nice enough to explain why your calculations are incorrect, but as he's also pointed out, this is the kind of information we need to draw from reliable sources rather than our own opinions. Secondary sources either say that the work was written in 392, or give the date 392/3 to cover the half-month discrepancy between the 4th century calendar and our own. So we can do the same.

Note, however, that the date of De Viris Illustribus is given in the first paragraph of the article. It doesn't need to be repeated later, especially not with the rather idiosyncratic commentary that you supplied. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Akhilleus and Wareh raise valid points. Majoreditor 03:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to make any changes, since it most certainly will upset a few people, however let me then just point out what I feel is a discrepency. If you want to change it, fine; if you want to leave it that way, fine by me also. Either way will work for me. While the date is given in the first paragraph, let me point out that it was not Jerome that said this. The only thing he says of this is the fourteenth year of the Emperor Theodosius. Emperor Theodosius's appointment by the Emperor Gratian was on 19 January, 379 as co-Augustus in the east, along with Valentinian II, to replace Valens, his former colleague, who had been killed the previous August at the Battle of Adrianople. The fourteenth year of his reign, by this calculation, was therefore from January 392 to January 393. This also happens to match the reference above of A.D. Booth; which probably would be a much better reference than the existing one on this dating, don't you think. At the very least I would imagine that someone would be interested in correcting the statement that Jerome himself said this, when in fact he did not give any dates or location. The dates are derived by modern people based on the above counting information and the location is from modern people. A better statement would perhaps be something that represents that the date was derived from that and not from Jerome. So bottomline, I wasn't that far off on my statement and it points out that Jerome does not give this date. It has to be calculated or in other words "counted" from the date when Emperor Theodosius started his reign. My statement here then is pretty close: The year this would probably have been written then is 392 AD or 393 AD depending on how the years are counted. The ultimate answer then is January 392 to January 393: basically what I said, especially when you bring in the differences of calenders. So bottomline this date is in fact calculated and "counted". At best I am months off and Jerome never says this date or location.--Doug ^talk 14:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy with the date of 392, which is what most secondary sources give; I wouldn't object to saying 392/3, since a few secondary sources give that, and that allows us to cover the possibility that Jerome wrote this work in the first 18 days of January 393. (As Wareh said, that information could be contained in a footnote.) It seems true that Jerome doesn't say where he wrote De Viris Illustribus--this information comes from a webpage cited in a footnote. So the sentence that Doug's complaining about should be reworded, but the information seems proper. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The web page cited as a reference for the date lists 392 or 393, so I changed the article to say that. Other references could be added to support one date or the other. Calculations other than trivial ones would be WP:OR. Buddhipriya 17:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I was not going to change the part that Jerome himself did not furnish the date and am glad to see that there are others that see this is a calculated ("counted") date and time period for the fourteenth year of the Emperor Theodosius being 392 and 393. Thanks for making that change to reflect this. The place of Bethlehem is correct even though Jerome does not say this in De Viris Illustribus. I am happy to leave this the way it is now and it looks real good; especially the Notes as to the reference of Jan 392 to Jan 393. That is an excellent reference. --Doug ^talk 18:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this article being edited to serve an agenda?

Doug's proposed rewording (see immediately above) would still be false; the year in question does not "depend on how you look at it." Could we accurately say, "written in 392, or possibly the first eighteen days of 393"? Yes, but this would be a bit bizarre. Normal usage for very scholarly purposes usually doesn't trouble over something like this, not to mention an encyclopedia article. But I'd be glad to see the extra information about the eighteen days (stated with a bit more care for accuracy) in a footnote—if I could only reassure myself that it was for any defensible reason. Which brings me to my real question, which I'll go ahead and pose to Doug and any other interested persons here.

Why are all of these numerical details so important to Doug? I'm having trouble believing he wants an accurate, scholarly consensus article here. He is on the record as believing that Jerome's book contains "a very special meaning (if you study it very close)"; his other recent edits seem to be pushing some kind of numerology. There is always room for compromise between editors who can understand each other's good faith in shooting for a neutral, clear, and accurate presentation. But I'm very concerned (though sans any hypertension—Doug is confusing a ready flood of words for agitation) that, if Doug's numerological theories predispose him to the importance of a certain fact, he will want it in the encyclopedia whether it belongs or not. These edits have every appearance of deforming the normal texture of articles, in order to make sure that their details support Doug's Petrarch Code theories. (If anyone else doesn't know about Doug's Petrarch Code & other unorthodox beliefs but wishes to consider whether they have any bearing on this, see further here, and here for specific application to Jerome.)

I hope my specific request is clear: First of all, Doug should state here, honestly and publicly, whether the edits he's making to this article are motivated in any part by your original and unverifiable theories about what this book means. (I've frankly never dealt with a situation like this before; normally, as I putter around Wikipedia with my Classics Ph.D. and try to make it a little better, any disagreements that come up are easily handled with reason and compromise. If anyone has any advice about how to proceed in regard to an apparent editing campaign like Doug's, I'd welcome it here or at my talk page. I'm a believer in AGF, but that's hard here.) Wareh 00:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Doug is welcome to any ideas and theories he likes, no matter how adventuresome they may be; but WP articles must be firmly based on reliable, secondary sources. All that's needed here is a firm adherence to Wikipedia's core content policies, laid out nicely in Wikipedia:Attribution and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

That's correct in that I can have any ideas and theories I would like as long as I follow the Wikipedia core content policies. Now to see if I have actually done this just look at the articles I actually started. I have started several. Do any of them violate Wikipedia's core content policies. Let's take for example factory tours. Now there is a scary article if I ever saw one. Better look close for there might be a secret agenda there. Now if you didn't find anything there then look at self-guided tour, surely there is something there for a secret agenda. Then we come to Aemilia Tertia (wife of Scipio Africanus). There must be something there. Now I'll tell you one you should look at very very close – Mason County Historical Society. There must be a secret agenda there and perhaps it violates Wikipedia's core policy. I would pull that article if I were you since there (must be) all kinds of secret agendas there. Now here is the irony of the whole thing. This all started because I had seperate biographies for each of the subjects of Jerome's biographies that some claimed I "cut and pasted' the text and just "dumped" the text into these articles. That apparently was not allowed; however ultimately what you are doing for Chapter 135 is just a "cut and paste" of the English translation for this biography. Now since a Pastor did this, then apparently it is agreeable to everyone; however when I did it it was deleted and not allowed. Now keep in mind if there is a special message in any of these biographies (i.e. Chapter 135) well you just put it right there for everyone to see. The English translations were in fact public domain, which is what I said in the beginning. Now when I put in this text it was not allowed, however when a Christian paster puts it in then it is allowed. Interesting! That's all I wanted to do in the first place was use this public domain text for the biographies. Ultimately after all this jumping through all these loops, you are going to use this very same English public domain text that I was not allowed to use in the first place. --Doug ^talk 10:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Doug, I wholeheartedly agree that you are allowed to hold whatever personal opinions or theories that you choose, and that it is irrelevant to your editing as long as all facts, ideas, and datum are reliably attributed. However, I don't agree that what I did was exactly what you were doing. You were entering the entire text of De Viris into the wikipedia encyclopedia. I entered one section; the rest I am formatting to put into wikisource. The section I entered is one section to add to the content of the article – not to be the entirity of the content of the article. Personally, I am glad you started this article – De Viris was not a work that I knew, and I am enjoying reading it as I proof it for wikisource. Also, please note that I use Pastor in my username so that my POV and conflicts of interest are readily apparent to all other editors – it makes me a little more honest in my edits, forcing me to be more intentionally NPOV. I do not use the username for any sort of appeal to authority (nor have I ever received any special consideration because of my title). When I added the content of chap 135, it was based on the discussions here on the talk page, and if anyone objects I encourage them to remove it and improve the section. – Pastordavid 11:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Great! I believe the article is then approximately where everyone can be in agreement. I personally think you are doing a great job on the project you are now working on. Likewise I personally liked to see that you entered Chapter 135 into the main article. When you finish proofreading and entering the other 134 biographies into wikisource I also would be interesting in reading the end result. I have already read most of it as it stands today in most of the English translations that are out there. I have enjoyed it very much. If you every want to talk about any of them in particular, just drop me a note on my talk page. And perhaps if you want to talk over "religious" items like the Holy Spirit, perhaps we can talk it over on your Talk page. That I believe is common sense. What do you think? --Doug ^talk 12:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Please note that according to Wikipedia:User page guidelines "Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia". That is, your user page and associated user talk pages are not a personal web site or social networking tool. General discussions of religious topics are inappropriate on Wikipedia. If you wish to pursue personal views, you may want to try one of the social networking sites. Buddhipriya 17:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

392–393

Isn't there some simpler way of saying when it was written? Right now, the article gives the impression that Jerome may have written this book in as little as two weeks. Wouldn't it be possible to say that it seems to have been primarily composed in the year 392, and perhaps published or distributed (whatever) at some later time? Also, I personally question the likelihood of such a profoundly religious person as Jerome was doing substantive work of this kind over what was basically the Christmas season, as that seems really unlikely to me. Also, most books do have a bit of revision during final editing before publication/distribution, and probably did even then. Wouldn't it be a bit clearer to say that it seems to have been composed in 392, with some final editing before publication (probably in 393)? John Carter 18:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree with you, there should be a simplier way to say this. Simpliest I would think using common sense is something with fewest words like: "written in 392 to 393" or maybe "written in 392 and 393". This last one using the word "and" I would think would cover everything since there is already a reference below with the exact probable dates. Why clutter it up with extra unnecessary wording. In fact the edit or two before said exactly that using the word "and"; which looked good to me. How about if we put it back to the word "and". Another idea might be "written in 392 – 393" = ultimate simplicity! Then let the reference notes give the exact dates. I wouldn't dare change it myself, however if anyone feels this is a good idea – BE BOLD. --Doug ^talk 18:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You need to find a WP:RS for the date and cite that. Anything that is not sourced should not be used. Speculations on when it may have been written are inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. The present citation to a scholarly source seems quite clear to me, I don't understand what the concern about number formatting is all about. Buddhipriya 20:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree. The reference to the 14th year of the emperor does not in and of itself "trump" the other references to 392. The fact that the year of the emperor includes the year 393 does not mean that the other references to the year 392 are not to be relied upon; it might simply be referring to what we would call the year 392, although in a slightly different calendar. I would need to see a specific source specifically indicating that the book was written (at least in part) in the year 393 to justify inclusion of that year in the body of the text. John Carter 19:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiSource

A link to the WikiSource version of De Viris has been provided in the references section. – Pastordavid 19:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you. --Kevinkor2 09:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Coming along well

I first came to this page when there were deletion issues relating to it, or rather to the inclusion of large chunks of the text of the book. I now consider thatthe article is coming along well. Peterkingiron 17:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

32. Modestus

The link is currently to Modestus (Apostle of Carantania) (8th-century). Obviously not the right person. Liadmalone (talk) 12:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)