Talk:Mithraism/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Yamauchi quote removed

I have removed the following item:

Edwin M. Yamauchi, states that Renan's work was "published nearly 150 years ago, [and] has no value as a source. He [Renan] knew very little about Mithraism..."<reff>Edwin M. Yamauchi cited in Lee Strobel, The Case for the Real Jesus, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007, p.175</reff>

The statement made is true, but Yamauchi is not a professional Mithras scholar. Worse, it is attracting POV alterations. So I have preferred to replace it with a similar statement from a modern scholarly work. Roger Pearse (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Opinion by Meyer on Mithras and Jesus

I've looked over the changes since the last set of substantive changes. With some reluctance I have reverted them.

I think the deletion of the passage from Justin, on which Renan's opinion was based, was not really a good idea, because it removed the reason why Renan -- who otherwise knew nothing about Mithras -- made his claim.

I felt that the introduction of the opinions of Martin Meyer -- who is, of course, a very eminent scholar in his own field -- was also not a good idea because he is not a Mithras specialist. Perhaps if I explain my thinking on this a little?

The curse of writing an article on Mithras is the sheer number of people -- many of them scholars, some of them of great eminence -- who simply are not specialists, yet whose views are striking or circulate widely. It is quite impossible even to survey this vast array of articles and books. Worse, many of these scholars, not being specialists, repeat hearsay, derived from older scholarship or worse. They do it in good faith, but since their books are not about Mithras, they don't research the subject. So it makes no sense for us to quote them as authorities. If we need to reference the view (and if it is older scholarship which is still being read, we should), then I suggest that we should prefer to use their source scholarship directly, not them. This way we keep the amount of modern opinion within reasonable researchable bounds, while at the same time reflecting the best scholarly standards. I don't honestly see what else we can do. There has to be a line somewhere, because of the sheer bulk that could be quoted.

For instance, quoting Meyer on the supposed "Mithras liturgy" would be quite appropriate, since he edited it. But he is not a Mithras specialist. So if we keep his claim about Mithras and Jesus, then we have as an authority a non-specialist making a highly controversial claim which is explicitly contradicted by a specialist. That didn't seem like a good idea to me. (Obviously we could include all sorts of claims; but in this article it is what we *exclude* that decides the quality of the article).

I was tempted to retain the edit which put Esquerrez' name into the main body of the article, but didn't. Thoughts?

I hope that editors follow my logic on this. I'm not wedded to any of these. But if we are to keep a quality article, we do need to stick close to what the specialists say, and avoid the siren temptation for striking phrases from people with no special knowledge. It's the only way to avoid filling the article with controversial stuff by people who don't know what they are talking about. If we stick to specialists, we at least know whose opinion it is. Roger Pearse (talk) 16:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The idea of a relationship between early Christianity and Mithraism is based on a remark by the 2nd century Christian writer Justin Martyr, who accused the Mithraists of diabolically imitating the Christian communion rite.[112] Based upon this, Ernest Renan in 1882 set forth a vivid depiction of two rival religions: "if the growth of Christianity had been arrested by some mortal malady, the world would have been Mithraic,"[113] But in fact the two groups did not have similar aims, and there was never any chance of this occuring.[114]

This is what we have got now. In this, the first sentence, and the third sentence are both WP:OR. They are nowhere to be seen in the sources being used. At least not on the page we reference. I had already indicated in my edit summaries about this. The first sentence also has the added problem of being based on an ancient primary source, even if we do not consider the problem of our sentence being not in this source. I don't know about the middle sentence, so leave it. We can't keep OR. Can we?

I know Meyer is not a Mithras specialist. Did I say he is? He is not talking about Mithraism only. He is talking about both Mitraism and Christianity. And he is a specialist on Christianity. So, his expertise is established. When discussing a point related to both Mithraism and Christianity, comments from specialists of Christianity, as well as Mithraism, are justified. If you do not like the comment, you could try to balance it per NPOV. But there is no reason to suppress a multiplicity of view and to keep only the view which we consider to be "fact". That there is a multiplicity of views is evidence enough that it is not a "fact". Per NPOV, we have to note the difference of opinions among the RS. Presently, we have a one sided POV only. Thanks.-Civilizededucation^talk 17:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree it is proper to have something about Justin Martyr on Mithraism. However, we should reference it to a secondary source only. I will try to do it myself too.-Civilizededucation^talk 18:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

If I may be permitted to butt in, I think the problem is with the Renan comment, and its refutation by Esquerrez; neither to my mind add anthing to the article. In general, I don't now think we need a section here on 'Mithraism and Christianity' , since there is a link to just such an article. In this article such a section tends to become a peg on which editors hang their particular hobby-horses on 'Similarities between Mithraism and Christianity' But similarities are not facts. However, I do suggest the article would benefit from a section on "Early Christian attitudes to Mithraism" - with particular reference to Justin Martyr (as previously included) and Tertullian (on the Military Crown). It could also include reference to the particular virulence with which mithraea appear to have been destroyed in the late 4th century. This would be primary, not secondary material. In this section, Meyer's views could well feature, although I am not myself convinced (leaving aside the issue of his specialist expertise) that he is actually being quoted as saying anything interesting or substantial. But the more interesting point (to me at least) is not the degree to which modern commentators find parallels between Mithraism and Christianity; but rather the particular features of Mithaism which contemporary Christian apologists felt compelled to respond to. TomHennell (talk) 00:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we have to have the Renan comment, simply because it is notorious. But we do need to indicate that nobody with a right to an opinion believes it. Originally there was a quote which said (correctly) that Renan didn't actually know much about Mithras. The Esquerrez quote was the best I could find to deal with it by someone with a right to be heard.Roger Pearse (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

If we have to source something from ancient sources, I tend to think that it is probably not notable enough. But, there is also the possibility that we have not been looking hard enough for secondary sources. I think scholars look to find parallels between mithraism and christianity in order to get a closer understanding of the development of these religions. Why is it that only the features (of Mithraism), which ancient apologists commented on, should be interesting? Features in both, which show parallels, should be interesting to my mind. And what Meyer says is interesting and substantial because he also goes on to show numerous parallels in his book. The parallels may tell something. Why assume a priori that they can't?-Civilizededucation^talk 02:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Some scholars of christianity have studied Mithraism and found that it may be that christianity influenced Mithraism. So, a discussion of this point from various angles is relevant here.-Civilizededucation^talk 02:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that evidence of influence exists in either direction, tho. Clauss, I think, denies this explicitly, if I recall correctly. There is evidence of influence by Christianity on the cult of Cybele in late antiquity, yes; but the cult of Mithras had ceased to exist by that date. But Mithras being influenced by Christianity? What ancient source reflects that? What specialist scholar says it? (It's possible, but I don't know of evidence for it) Incidentally I don't share your view on primary sources. They are ultimately the data on which all else rests. But again the risk is original research, which we don't want to do. Also I don't see that only aspects of Mithras commented on by the early apologists are of interest, tho -- not sure where that comes from? On the contrary, the whole data base is of interest, surely? Roger Pearse (talk) 21:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

It is in the nature of parallels that they do not intersect; but it is the points of intersection that generate historical events that are the matters of substantial interest. One point of intersection is found in the views of Justin Martyr about Mithraic cultic meals; another is found in the viwes of Tertullian on the ethical refusal of Mithraists in the army to wear honorary crowns. And as you say, there appear other points of intersection in the fourth century, when Mithraists appear to be taking note of Christian practices (though this point is tricky, we do not have Mithraic apologists). But simply saying that there are 'parallels' between two religious cults tells us nothing, unless we have clear evidence of contact. And for that we need either archeological findings (e.g. people who are recorded as devotees of both cults), or sources (people associated with one cult commenting on the other, or materials from one cult being borrowed by another). TomHennell (talk) 01:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand that Justin Martyr ascribes the parallels to a diabolical conspiracy by saying that the devil had foreknowledge of christian practices and made the mithraists adopt the same practices before the christianity came into being. That is what Justin argues. So, we have one guy commenting on the other cult. Only sourcing it remains. Please give me some time. I should be able to find a proper source. And the stuff about christianity influencing mithraism too. I have a very strong source for this. I intend to put in both together.-Civilizededucation^talk 02:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Going back a bit, I don't think my point has been engaged with, tho, you know? Hey, this is an article about Mithras. Meyer is not a Mithras scholar, and it doesn't sound as if that is in dispute. So he has to go. This article is not about Christianity; it is about Mithras! It's not even about "Christianity and Mithras" (my attempts at a "Mithras and other gods" section got moved to another article).

We get a lot of headbangers on this article, determined to shove in stuff which is not scholarly and dress it up with whatever references they can find. I've a feeling you've been reading some of this stuff. Why not have a look at people like Manfred Clauss?

Query: I didn't understand what the problem was with the comment about Justin? -- It's there because of the next sentence, explaining why Renan said what he said. Have you read Renan's comments? The last sentence -- didn't follow your comment. When I wrote it, I merely paraphrased what the reference says.

I'm not getting any impression that you're a Mithras, buff, Civilizededucation, you know? Your interest seems to be more to put some kind of stuff in here about Mithras=Jesus? That is not the view of specialists, and not true as far as I know. So I don't see how it is adding value to an article about Mithras. If you can find a specialist who endorses your view, let's have him. But I don't think they exist, you know. Roger Pearse (talk) 20:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Please do not try to paint the picture as if I am trying to source material from some internet blog or something. I don't see how you got the idea. If I had wanted to say "Mithras=Jesus", you would have found me doing that in the article. Jesus is not even in the discussion. It is about "christianity" and "mithraism". Now, my impression of you is that you have an immovable, fixated idea that christianity did not borrow anything from mithraism and that there are no similarities between the two. Is my impression correct? And don't worry, I will try to address all you points, but not all at the same time, so as to maintain some focus on the points which we are discussing. As for my being no mithras buff, it should not be a problem as long as my edits and sources are of an acceptable quality. Do I need to get a PhD to edit this article?-Civilizededucation^talk 03:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)As for Renan, I have already said that I don't know about the book, please provide the relevant extract, in english, if you can.-Civilizededucation^talk 03:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)You have repeated reinserted OR without any explanation. Doesn't WP:OR apply to this article?-Civilizededucation^talk 03:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Meyer's comments, word-for-word

I thought it might be helpful to have Meyer's own words (p.79). If we were going to use them, we ought to quote him in the reference, I think (because it reduces the chances of corruption as people edit the page, in my experience).

As a Mithraic text, the Mithras Liturgy is of value for the study of early Christianity, which in general resembles Mithraism in a number of respects—enough to make Christian apologists scramble to invent creative theological explanations to account for the similarities. Devotees of Mithras typically enter sanctuaries of Mithras, called Mithraea and designed as caves, and participate in various purifications, initiatory rites, and sacred meals. According to Tertullian (On the Crown 15; On Baptism 5; Prescription against Heretics 40), Mithraic initiates experience ordeals and tests of valor, are washed or baptized with water, and are sealed on their foreheads. According to Justin Martyr (First Apology 66.4), Mithraic initiates join in a sacred meal in which they take bread and a cup of water (or a mixed cup of wine and water; the bread and the cup apparently are symbolic of the body and blood of a sacrificed bull) and utter appropriate formulas. Justin adds that through this sacred meal the Mithraic initiates are simply imitating the Christian Eucharist, and the devil, that diabolical counterfeiter, along with his demons, is making them do it. Justin seemingly can find no other way that is theologically acceptable to him to explain the clear similarities between Mithraism and early Christianity.

Meyer doesn't give any footnotes, which is annoying. Some of the claims seem unusual: e.g. "mixed cup of wine and water"? "the bread and the cup apparently are symbolic of the body and blood of a sacrificed bull"? I don't know of any source that would support those claims, but if there is one, I'd want to include it in the article.

But in truth the introduction suggests that this isn't really a very scholarly work, but rather a work intended for students. It seems to be an anthology of religious texts in English translation. Meyer has just dashed off some kind of preface to his existing translation of the so-called Mithras Liturgy, and added in some anti-Christian jeers, from the look of it (is there some kind of US religious thing going here that I don't know about?). But given the lack of footnotes, this may well be the wrong book to reference for his claims anyway. Roger Pearse (talk) 00:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE: Meyer's original work was in 1976, The "Mithras Liturgy". SBL Texts and Translations 10. Missoula, MT: Scholars. There's a new edition of the Mithras Liturgy from 2006, with text, translation and commentary, by Hans-Dieter Betz. I suspect we need the 1976 book for Meyer's *scholarly* view. Roger Pearse (talk) 00:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

If we look at the publisher of the book which I quoted, we find that it is published by PUP, which is an academic publisher. That should settle the sourcing, and the issue of Meyer's expertise. If academic publishers find him to be reliable enough to write on this issue, he is an RS on whatever topic he is writing about. And, AFAIK, sourcing issues are controlled by policies like WP:V,WP:RS, not by idiosyncratic ed opinions alone. I think these policies are capable of doing the job, as such, you may consider whether the specified rules on top of the talk page need modification/removal.-Civilizededucation^talk 03:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)I am not sure if it is proper to quote such large amounts of text. It may become a copyvio. I am also becoming concerned about some large amounts of texts from some other sources in the refs.-Civilizededucation^talk 03:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Regarding footnotes and all, his academic publisher sees no problem. Are we more qualified than academic publishers. It is not necessary that we agree with the results of his study. We can have ten different RS's saying ten different things. It is not necessary that any of it be true. As long as they are reliable sources, and we take care that our material does not go beyond what the sources say, we should note all ten sources.-Civilizededucation^talk 11:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I just discovered that Meyer was already being used as a source in this article.-Civilizededucation^talk 15:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Roger Pearse an RS?

Hi Roger Pearse. I find your name twice in the references. I am a bit confused. Generally, eds are not supposed to put their name in article space, and are not RS. Could you please explain the circumstances to me.-Civilizededucation^talk 17:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Roger is probably too modest to reply, but he is a well respected figure in the field of early patristic textual scholarship. I would agree with you that editors should not commonly reference their own web-pages for statements in the text; but in this case, Roger is not, as I read it, stating his own opinion, but rather allowing a link to some specfic texts that have been cited on the internet (wrongly) as supporting ungrounded speculations. There is a lot of this material about, erecting candyfloss theories on the chance remarks of long-dead scholars, so it is useful to have the actual texts accessible to check TomHennell 17:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I would allow for the possibility that Roger may be trying to be helpful, however, why should we try to refute kooky internet claims? Not including them here should be enough?-Civilizededucation^talk 04:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Because otherwise they continually get re- inserted into the article by editors with a bee in their bonnet and a prediliction for wish-fulfilment over evidence. The fantasy of Mithraism somehow suriving in a remote Alpine valley, is a particular favourite. TomHennell (talk) 14:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I am far from convinced that we should take it upon ourselves to refute crazy internet claims. If we get some nerds claiming that mithraism survies in some remote corner of the planet, we can simply ask them to get an RS. I still don't see the need for flouting policies. If we start refuting internet claims, we would hardly have time to do anything else. I think Roger may have added his name, link to his website, to the article because he may have been unfamiliar with the policies on this issue. If he is sourcing some material from his own website, it may be OR. Whether he is an RS or not is not an issue because generally even RS authors are not expected to reference their own work. It is for others to do so. Regardless of whether he is and RS or not, the link and material sourced from his website should be deleted at least until roger himself would say something on this. And if you are listening roger, no need to out yourself even if you are an RS. IMO it does not matter due to some other policy related reasons.-Civilizededucation^talk 14:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

If we ask for an RS; then they respond with the para from the Engilsh translation of Cumont which circulates very widely on the internet. But as Roger has demonstrated, the loosely worded text of the Cumont in English is not substatiated by the evidence cited by him in the original French. Many of the wilder speculations of Mithras nerds can be substanted somewhere in published sources; and a lot of those are regurgitating with free additions Cumont's early hypotheses, most of which he later heavily qualified. But alas it's the book he published in his early 30s that everyone can get at easily. In the case of this particular article, standard Wiki rules on RS don't do the business well enough; and I, for one, am very grateful to Roger for cutting it down to statements that can be substantiated in the evidence (i.e. archeology and contemporary literary sources).

In case they get the RS, it should still be possible to let them get in the material and then to refute the thing with some other RS having more weight. If their claims can't be refuted by any RS, maybe they have a valid point. Without having an RS to refute their RS claims, how do we know that their claims are wrong, from gut feeling? Even if we have an RS to contradict their claims, we should note both claims. Or doesn't NPOV work well here? I don't think it is proper for an article to take a single line of thought as true and refuse to note all other opinions. I note that too many points were being asserted as factual even when there were differing opinions available. Looks like eds were inclined to assert their own line of thinking as factual, and to neglect to note all other opinions?-Civilizededucation^talk 00:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course, everything should have an RS; and nothing should be added that is not substantiated by by a recognised academic source. But in this particular field there is a vast morass of published stuff - which might appear to fulfill the criteria for being RS - that is totally unfounded on either literary or archeological evidence or current scholarship in the field. In so far as it can be traced back to the more speculative theories advanced by Cumont and his colleagues; it might come under the heading of 'superceded scholarship'. This issue is far from unique to Mithraism, but is probably more acute here than in most places, in so far as the accumulation of recent evidence; and the current scholarly consensus in interpretation of that evidence (as for instance in Gordon, Beck, Clauss or Boyce) now indicates that the basic theories of Mithraism of 100 years ago are wholly untenable, and hence should not feature in the article other than as historic background. But you still find these theories repeated in reputable works of general reference. Paradoxically, given that Cumont was scandalously blocked in his academic career by Church interference, Christian commentators are often amongst the worst offenders. There is certainly a neccessity for the full range of current academic opinion to be included in the article, but not views that are incompatible with the current state of the archeological or literary evidence, and based wholly on sources that precede the emerging of the current academic consensus (i.e. anything older than 1971)TomHennell (talk) 02:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to explain things to me. But you still find these theories repeated in reputable works of general reference. Are these reputable reference works antiquated or current? And since my edit in this article is also contested, which is not antiquated and which is not from a non RS, I think some things have simply been assumed to be "fact" and everything else to be "loony", even if it comes from an academic RS. And it seems that an undue effort is being made to assert the "fact", even to the extent of flouting policies. I think it should be understood that we are not trying to note "truth", we are only (mostly) trying to inform the reader about the mainstream thinking, with the differences of opinions included. I would agree that theories can become antiquated and be unworthy of inclusion, however, if the current reference sources do not neglect what we consider to be antiquated/obsolete, why should we? I mean, why should we consider ourselves to be experts and decide what is true and what is not, as a consideration for inclusion. The biggest point is, even if some theories are being noted by a few RSs, it should be easy to give more weight to the more prevalent theory by citing three or four refs to support it? Anyway, I think I will remove the ed names, links to ed websites in the article, unless it be found that it is in keeping with policy. If the problem is that there are too many RSs on this topic, why should we need to resort to turning eds into RSs?-Civilizededucation^talk 15:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC) Reviewing the refs again, I find that some particular sources are being used for too many points. I think, generally it is better not have have articles revolve around a few sources only. And if there is a problem of too many sources, why should we even need to do so?-Civilizededucation^talk 15:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Origin of the name "Mithras"

Where does the name "Mithras" come from? It's a simple question, and surely one of the first issues a WP article like this ought to address.

And yet, the reader finds nothing at all, until he or she gets all the way down to "Origin theories: Cumont's hypothesis", where we read that "apart from the name of the god himself... Mithraism seems to have developed largely" etc etc. And then we have to go further down still, to "Origin theories: modern theories", there is the statement: "Ware asserted that the Romans who founded the religion borrowed the name "Mithras" from Avestan Mithra."

Unless Ware is wrong (and we're not told of anyone who disagrees with Ware on this point) "Mithras" is a slightly latinized form of the sacred name "Mithra" found in Zoroastrian scripture. Why shouldn't readers be told that, clearly and simply, at the outset?Kalidasa 777 (talk) 02:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Because we don't know for certain whether the name Mithras is borrowed from Iranian Mithra; the borrowing could just as easily have come via Commagene or even Buddhist Bactria. Ancient Mesopotamian sources have also been suggested. All of this is too complex, nuanced and inchoate to put in the lead para. TomHennell 16:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

All the theories you've mentioned would seem to agree on one or two basic points:

1. The Romans who practised the mysteries of Mithras did not come up with the god's name by themselves (whatever else they may have come up with), they received it via an east-west transfer.

2. The Avestan sacred name "Mithra" is an older relative of the Latin "Mithras".

Are either of these points in dispute, Mr Hennell? If so, would you like to tell me which, and who disputes it? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 08:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The name 'Mithra' was not freshly minted in the Avesta, any more than 'Mithras' was in Rome. Undoubtedly Roman Mithraists thought of their god as 'Persian' with a Persian name, but it is an entirely unfounded speculation that they took that name from one or another particular divine figure in Iranian religious tradition; even if we had a comprehensive understanding of variant Iranian traditions of the period (which we don't). Complicating the issue is the undoubted existence at this time of an extensive literature of zoroastrian pseudepigrapha - mainly in Greek. Cumont - the arch-orientalist - labels this as 'oriental', indeed it is the prime exhibit in his theory of Orientalism. But that was a century ago, and few modern scholars would take that line now; most would regard the entire literature as essentially a Graeco-Roman construct. Talking of an 'east-west transfer' is begging the question. TomHennell (talk) 11:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, Tom, at least you seem to agree with James Ware that the name "Mithras" wasn't freshly minted in Rome. The point that the name "Mithra", for that matter, wasn't freshly minted in the Avesta -- very interesting historical topic, but somewhat removed from the questions I raised. Whether Romans received the name from the Avesta, or through later hellenistic works, or some other way, it is evident that the name itself has a history, and that its history involves a spread to Rome from regions to the east of that city. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Kalidasa, it's a very good question. But no-one actually knows the origin of the name -- hey, we don't really know how the cult came into being, even. The article mainly gives information which can be solidly referenced. I wonder if there is some scholarship on this subject? If so, the opinions of specialists could perhaps be referenced, I think. Roger Pearse (talk) 21:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Is the name in the Avesta actually "Mithra"? Or "Mihr"? Roger Pearse (talk) 21:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought the difference between Mihr and Mithra was between old and middle Persian, like Ahura Mazda and Ormazd. Course, Mihr/Mithra appears in Armenian mythology as well. The Armenian Mihr was derived from the Persian one. It'd be OR for me to put it in the article, but the possibility that the Roman Mithras could have been derived from the Armenian Mihr does stop me from outright saying "the Latin Mithras could only come from the Persian Mithra." Ian.thomson (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, myself. We do have to avoid OR, I agree, or expressing any opinion of our own -- just work out who the authorities are, and state what they say on all sides of the question. In fact, as you know, I have taken the view that simply quoting the Mithras specialists (on all sides), giving their names in the article, is the best we can do. But the question of the name is interesting, and there ought to be research on it. I might search the main modern sources and see if I can write a proper section on the subject from them. Why not have a look in Clauss, Merkelbach, Beck, etc? and also see if Cumont has anything to say as well -- outdated he may be, but often interesting. The only risk would be that we would duplicate what we already have on theories about the origins of the cult. Once the current round of POV-pushing goes away, I might give it a try. Roger Pearse (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the relation between forms "Mithra" and "Mihr", there is referenced information on the WP page Mithra. As explained there, the Avestan form is "Mithra". The Mythraic mysteries page already has one view about origin of the name from an academic source (James R. Ware). If views from other sources can be added, fine. I think a section on the name question is a excellent idea. (Not sure what is meant by "the current round of POV-pushing.) Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It could possibly mean that folks who could not defend their edits, and inclined to flout policies, resort to allegation mongering.-Civilizededucation^talk 04:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I entirely agree that there should be a section on the possible origin of the name. My point was that we should not state that the origin of the name was known to be a borrowing from Avestan sources in the lead para, when we know no such thing. But we should remeber Mary Boyce's point - in relation to finding the name 'Zoroaster' in Greaco-Roman religious texts - that this in no way indicates that those texts drew to any dgree on Persian sources, but simply that, in the Roman world "exotic names conferred the desired authority of a remote and revelational wisdom". TomHennell (talk) 02:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting quotation! and I can tell you that gnomological texts use the name of Zoroaster in this sort of way. Query: do you have a proper source for your quote? I found it in this PDF, but attributed to Roger Beck (p.18 - I would quote it but the PDF is not copyable. Beck, 1991, p.493 -- which proves to be the article: "Thus spake not Zarathustra..." in a collection edited by Boyce). I'm fairly sure I have that article, but I'm blessed if I can find it! Roger Pearse (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Update: here's a link to a preview of the start of it, on p.491. The bit we're interested in is:

"While the existence of a Magusaean wisdom cannot be denied, one may be sceptical of its extent and pervasiveness, particularly of the extent to which it underlies the main works of the Zoroastrian pseudepigrapha known to us. There is, as we shall see, relatively little in these works that evokes an indubitable Iranian or Babylonian provenance and with which the Magusaeans might be credited. If they did compose this literature, they have so wrapped themselves in the guise of Hellenistic learning as to be indistinguishable from other Greeks writing in that tradition. This excursus will accordingly proceed on the alternative hypothesis that the major works of the Zoroastrian pseudepigrapha are essentially the products of Hellenistic learning and that their authors used the names of Zoroaster and the magi not because they were themselves magi or drew primarily on magian sources, but because those exotic names conferred the desired authority of a remote and revelational wisdom." Roger Pearse (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Article is making bunkum claim

The article seems to make out that Mithraism started only in the last quarter of the 1^st century. This is a bunkum claim. Mithraism is well known to have existed much earlier.-Civilizededucation^talk 04:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

"Bunkum" is a strong word. However, I have to agree with you that there are problems with the way the article is currently worded. Especially in the introduction, there is a one-sided -- almost dogmatic -- emphasis on the supposed newness of the Mythraic initiations of 1st century AD.

Further down in the article, and tucked away in the footnotes, there is already quite a lot of pertinent information suggesting a different historical picture.

• For instance, the Plutarch quote about Cicilian pirates practising secret rites of Mithras... The reader has to go to the footnotes to find out that Plutarch is writing about 68 BC.
• For instance, Roger Beck's statement that the kingdom of Commagene in the first century BC had a synchretic Graeco-Iranian form of worship, where Mithras was identified with Helios. And in footnote 38 we find the statement that "Mithras, identified with a Phrygian cap and the nimbus about his head, is depicted in colossal statuary erected by King Antiochus I of Commagene, 69-34 B.C.". That is an elephant in the room if ever there was one!

These points do not contradict the view that there were new elements in what Romans were doing in the name of Mithras in the first century AD. They do, however, at least show the importance of Merkelbach's point (already to be found in the article under "Modern theories"), that when new mysteries were created in Rome, they were created by someone with a knowledge of an earlier, Persian mythology. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 08:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kalidasa. What would you suggest for us to do? The mithras statue found in 69-34 B.C. should clearly show that the statement in the introduction is untenable. That there were some new elements in mithraism does not mean that there was no old mithraism.-Civilizededucation^talk 01:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The statement that the Roman cult of Mithras started in the last quarter of the first century is the current scholarly consensus - and has been since 1971. On this see Gordon, Beck, Boyce, Clauss, and all the references in the article. The speculation that this might actually continue an earlier Mithraism is just that - speculation. It has almost no material evidence to support it (there survive four earlier terracotta bull-slayer plaques from Kerch that might depict Mithras or might depict Attis). Of course, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; but the material remains of Mithraism (stone altars, carved reliefs, underground temples) are such as to survivive very well in the archeological record; so it is not unreasonable to presume that, were there to have been mithraea and Mithraic carvings earlier, at least some would have survived. One thing we know for certain about the Roman cult of Mithras is that you had to be inside a mithreaum to do it. Of course many cultures in the ancient world venerated a divine figure they called 'Mitra' (or something like it) - of whom Iranian Zoroastrians are the best known, but Bactria, Commagene and Cilicia also plausibly figure - but since they did not depict their god as killing a bull and did not construct mithraea, their cults are not to be confused with Mithraism.

The contrary view is widely circulated, and (as noted in my discussion with Civilizededucation above), comes under the heading of 'superced scholarship'. Most originates in a popularised version of the early views of Franz Cumont, which were incoporated (I believe) into the 11th edition of the Encylcopedia Britannica; and thence to a host of standard works of reference including some quite recent. But Cumont's early speculations were not supported by the accumulated archeological and literary evidence that emerged during the course of the 20th century (much of it from Cumont himself), and is now wholly untenable in the view of all specialist Mithraic scholars. But because the material is still very commonly circulated and quoted, it is of vital importance that the article states the current consensus clearly. The older views are of historic interest only. Of course alternative views to the current consensus should be given due attention, so long as they are sourced to published archeological and/or literary findings. TomHennell (talk) 10:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I find this hard to get. If current reference works note something, we should do it too. It clearly means that the material is current. I don't see why we should add the criteria of archeological and/or literary findings. If current reference works note a point, the point is current. It is not historical already. It would be historical when reference works stop noting it or say that it is historical. Otherwise, the point is "disputed" at best.-Civilizededucation^talk 11:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The subject of the article is the 'Mythraic mysteries'. The article shouold reflect the full range of current published scholarship on that subject; and, though I am sure it could be greatly improved, that is chiefly what it now does. General works of reference - general ecyclopedias, dictionaries of religion, introductions to the classical world - are often good sources to quote in Wikipedia articles, but only if they can be relied on to be based on recent specialist scholarlship and currently accumulated evidence. The specific problem here is that statements in many general reference works take no account of, and indeed are incompatible with, the whole of the last 100 years of accumulated evidence. This is partly a function of the radical 'paradigm shift' in specialist Mithraic scholarship around 1971, which many reference works simply have not caught up with; but also reflects a common problem, in that speculations that are highly congenial to persons with particular mindsets - in this case, traditonalist Christians and 'History of Religions' nerds - tend to acquire a life of their own, irreformable by subsequent evidence. For example, general reference works sometimes speculate that Mithraists 'sacrificed bulls to Mithras'; but we should not include that speculation in the article, when the archeological record clearly shows the contrary. Of coures some speculations may be appropriate to the article; as in theories of the astrological significance of the mithaea; or indeed speculations as to how the Roman mysteries acquired its 'Persian' features; but again it is the views of specialist scholars in the field that we shouold record, not the 'old speculations presented as facts' that characterise much material on Mithraism in general and popularised books. TomHennell (talk) 11:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thining it might clarify matters to cite some specific examples, I had a look round a couple of local bookshops. In a Christian bookshop I found John Drane 'The World of the Bible' (20090; and in the mythology section of a general bookshop I found Arthur Cotterell ed. 'Encyclopedia of World Mythology'(1999) and Blackwell & Blackwell 'Mythology for Dummies' (2002). In neither bookshop could I find a book of current Mithraic scholarship. Drane is highly respected, and clearly RS (his biblical introductions are 'A' level set texts). But his section on mystery religions in general and Mithraism in particular are full of unfounded speculations - that Mithraists sacrificed bulls, that Mithraism was a fertility cult, that the civic religions of the Roman world were intellectually and spriritualy moribund, that the mystery religions were exotic imports from the east. I grant that the 'Dummies' series is not RS, (although it is much cited by Wikipedia editors), but its summary of Mithraism states - that Mithraists worshipped Mithras as the 'One and Only God', that Mithraism was introduced to Italy by Cilician pirates, and that it influenced early Christianity. Cotterell appears ubiquitous in the field of popular mythology, but he does have academic qualifications - and his list of contributors is impressive. Yet he states; that Roman Mithraism derives directly from Persian sources and that Mithraists celebrated 25th December as a feast of the Sun; and he accepts as fact Cummont's speculative equivalences between Mithraic iconography and Zoroastrian traditions. None of these books are stupid or cultish; but their summaries of Mithraism might have been reasonable speculations on the state of scholarship in 1910; but in terms of current evidence are wholly untenable. TomHennell (talk) 14:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

As you might have expected me to say, I see little meaning in how a book may be named. So, the "dummy" books, or even "bird brain" books would be good enough for me as long as they can be shown to be having a good academic publisher or a good academic author.

Now, how does one identify "speculations" when they appear in scholarly works and also in current reference works? And (not that I have found anything against these scholars) how exactly does one know that Roger Beck, Clauss, Gordon.... are specialists while others are not? I have the impression that the criteria is that they should have a particular set of conclusions. And anyone having conclusions like Drane is a non specialist even when you yourself say that he is highly respected. Now, I would request you to rethink what you are saying and reflect on whether this is the NPOV way of doing things. I have no problem that one should regard only one set of opinions as being correct. I too have my preferences. But as a WP editor, I see no need to neglect current academic opinion as long as it is not extreme or WP:QS due to some other reason. You seem to be saying that even the opinions of well regarded (by you own admission) authors like drane is speculative, and thus may be unworthy of inclusion. I might do the same with extreme sources. But not with well regarded sources. I am not asking that your personal opinions should, in any way, be changed by what drane may say. What I am saying is that you should consider the possibility that a well regarded source like drane may have some valid point even when you fail to see it. As such, he should merit inclusion on the basis of his academic standing alone, not on whether we find him agreeable with our own views.

There are numerous well regarded sources who look cretinous to me. Still I go about without criticizing them on WP and prefer only to balance what they say by adding some more material. I do not remove/resist material sourced from them. Sometimes I even drop a word or two of adulation about them because otherwise eds who admire them might not gel with me. I see no harm, they have the academic standing, whether I like it or not. I am not giving them what they don't deserve. However, I feel less of a compunction in taking down sources with low academic standing. The point I am trying to make is that whether I find some authors agreeable or cretinous, as long as they have a good academic standing, I don't judge for WP the value of what they say. Do you think I am doing it wrong?-Civilizededucation^talk 15:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we don't need popular books, and did drane actually write about mithraism? Taking a cursory look at his books, I did not get that impression.

It isn't difficult to tell the Mithraic specialists from the rest - whether popularisers or specialists from other disciplines who are just visiting. The Mithraic specialists source their statements to the archeology. It really is that simple, since (with one dubious exception) there are no Mithraic texts that are not also archeological; i,e. grafitti or inscriptions. So, the discipline of Mithraic studies properly consists of matching archeological findings of the activities of Mithraists, with literary sources from contemporary non-Mithraists. That is how Cumont worked a hundred years ago, and that is how Beck, Gordon, Clauss et al. work now. The problems arise when non-Mithraic specialists ingnore the archeology (or only take account that reported by Cumont before 1896). Then speulation runs free, and you end up with the sort of mish-mash I found in Drane and Cotterell. TomHennell (talk) 17:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

If you like to think about the value of what these authors say, could you explain how Roger Beck and all managed to dispose of Justin even though he proves that Mithraism existed much before the start of the christian era?-Civilizededucation^talk 15:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you may have over-interpreted Justin here. He claims that the Mithraic 'cave' is a diabolic mockery of prophesies in Isaiah and Daniel. He does not claim that Mithraism is contemporary with Isaiah or Daniel. And in any case, how would he know? All the Justin references establish is that in the mid 2nd century, Mithraism was sufficiently well established that Justin's antagonists remark on the similarities between Mithraic practices and some of those of the Christian communities of that time. But similarities are not evidence, on their own, they prove nothing. Dating from literary sources is always tricky; obviously if Plutarch, writing in 100 CE, refers to the mysteries of Mithras, we are right to take it as proof that these mysteries existed at that time, but if he then goes on to say that these current mysteries derived from Cilician pirates 160 years before, can we take that as an established date? How would Plutarch have been able to distinguish mysteries that had a Cilician origin, from mysteries that had another origin? He is speculating, just as we are. On the other hand, Josephus, writing around 90 CE, refers to the existence of Christian communities as existing in Rome at that time, but also to Christians in Jerusalem in 62 CE. There, surely we can take Josephus's earlier dating as proof, as we know he personally was in Jerusalem at the same time. Fortunately, in the case of Mithraism, we don't need to concern ourselves too much with literary dates, as we have archeology; and dating is something archeology is very good at - so long as the activity involved is one that can be relied on to generate enduring physical evidence. In 79 CE Pomepeii and Herculaneum were destroyed by an eruption, and we can state with certainty that neither city contained a Mithaeum - and hence that the mysteries of Mithras were not practiced at that time in either place (even though other mysteries certainly were, and have left plentiful evidence). Mystery cults were place-specific, you had to be in the place to perform the cult. If the distinctive places of the cult are absent, it is impossible for the cult to have been practiced. We can be certain that, had Vesuvius erupted in 179, archeology would have found dozen mithraea or more. TomHennell (talk) 17:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

He does not claim that Mithraism is contemporary with Isaiah or Daniel. I understand that justin does make out that mithraism was performing the same rituals as christianity, from a time before the existence of christianity. That is why he claims that the devil had foreknowledge of the rites of christianity, and made the mithraists perform them from before the birth of christianity. The devil did this as a way of confounding the christians who would appear later. The point to note here is that justin does not claim that mithraism did not exist before christianity. He only offers a foolish looking explanation, which also confirms that mithraism existed prior to christianity.-Civilizededucation^talk 17:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Justin says Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn. There is no suggestion here that the devils may have had foreknowledge of Christian rituals, only that Justin and his antagonists considered them to be similar Justin sees very close parallels not merely between the two ritual meals but even between the linguistic formulations that accompanied the consecrated nourishment (Clauss p 108). Clauss further points out the Tertullian had seen the Mithraic meal as a semblance of the resurrection. Clearly the two meals had a lot in common. But as Clauss also says In the case of these analogies, there can be no question of imitation in either direction. The offering of bread and wine is known in virtually all ancient cultures, and the meal as a means of binding the faithful together and uniting them to the deity was a feature common to many religions (Clauss p 109). Kane in Hinnels ed. Mithraic Studies goes into the many parallels in considerable detail. But we really do need a more extensive section in the article discussing Justin's and Tertullian's responses to Mithraism. TomHennell (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that many authors do not mention the "devilish invention" thing while interpreting Justin. But there are also numerous authors who do. Even Ezquerra seems to have interpreted it in the way I have described Justin on Mithraism [1]. But I don't have access to the next page, so I don't know what ezquerra says next. However, he clearly recognizes that mithraism was there before christianity. Now, that should show that ezquerra and justin regard mithraism to have existed before christianity? I can also show numerous other authors who interpret justin in the same way.-Civilizededucation^talk 01:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)In his comment above, Kalidasa has fished out an elephant in the room, I wonder how our specialists managed to miss that and claim that mithraism came into being in the last quarter of the 1^st century. I am beginning to wonder if any specialists actually make the claim, or are we the only ones to do that? Maybe we are misrepresenting the sources on this point too. I am beginning to become more and more skeptical about the neutrality of this article. It looks like sources have been misrepresented in order to give this article a hoppingly christian POV characteristic. It seems that Meyer has also been misrepresented. I have tagged it in the article. I think this article need a more thorough check for misrepresentation etc. I will put up some tags.-Civilizededucation^talk 05:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Please also see what Ulansey says here [2] Our earliest evidence for the Mithraic mysteries places their appearance in the middle of the first century B.C.: the historian Plutarch says that in 67 B.C. a large band of pirates based in Cilicia (a province on the southeastern coast of Asia Minor) were practicing "secret rites" of Mithras. This is from a summary of his book published in 1991. Publisher:OUP. -Civilizededucation^talk 16:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:DUE and WP:UNDUE, we should state that most common material says "older than this," but that current scholarly consensus is "younger than that." Ian.thomson (talk) 16:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I might have agreed to that gladly, however, I don't see what could be the intended difference between "most common material" and "scholarly consensus".-Civilizededucation^talk 16:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, "common material" says older, "current specialists in Mithraist and Zoroastrian history" say younger? Ian.thomson (talk) 16:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

That seems to be better, however, I still do not see a way of defining "common material" and "current specialists in Mithraist and Zoroastrian history". I understand from the talk that the ones who are saying "older" are also current and well regarded. As such, would it not be better to use the general convention of identifying sources by their individual names?-Civilizededucation^talk 17:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

A suggestion...

Thanks to Civilizededucation for inviting me to suggest what to do. One initial suggestion I would make is to expand the section "Cumont's hypothesis", which at present contains only a couple of sentences about what his hypothesis actually consists of, and doesn't even tell readers the title of the two-volume work in which Cumont published his findings. The number of times Cumont has been mentioned on this discussion page -- including by Tom Hennell -- goes to show how notable Cumont is in this field. Is there any reason we can't outline Franz Cumont's interpretation of Mithraism in a bit more detail, and in as neutral a way as possible, before talking about all the criticisms made of Cumont made at the Mithraic Studies conference in 1971 and views expressed since? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 11:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

By all means, go ahead and do it. Cumont is the giant figure of the field in the early 20th century, and his assembling and evaluation of the literary evidence is still of great value. Moreover, he undertook the key excavations at Dura Europos in the 1920s; whose findings it turned out, substantially undermined much of his earlier theorising (as he himself acknowledged). Not surprisingly a century on, none of his major efforts at a theoretical synthesis of the religions of Antiquity still commands a scholarly consensus amongst experts in each of the various fields he contributed to. So you will need to sort out the many elements of his work of continuing value, from the grand speculative theories, which have now been entirely abandoned by current academics. TomHennell (talk) 16:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

At least one of his theories appears to be making a comeback.[3]-Civilizededucation^talk 16:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad there seems to be agreement that it would be worthwhile expanding what is said about Cumont. I will try to make a start on it... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Tom. If you can do something useful with Cumont, by all means go ahead. I think you will find it quite a challenge, tho, for the reasons that Tom has outlined. One other thought: be wary of stuff in English. The English translation of Cumont is not very good. We ought to look at the French text for footnotes omitted by the translator which substantially modifies it. Roger Pearse (talk) 01:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Roger, you wrote the above at 1:25. A few minutes later, at 1:28, my expansion of the Cumont paragraph was reverted by you, along with other edits, with no explanation other an accusation by you of vandalism. This is the paragraph as I expanded it:

Scholarship on Mithras begins with Franz Cumont, who published a two volume collection of source texts and images of monuments in French in 1894–1900, Textes et monuments figurés relatifs aux mystères de Mithra [french: "Texts and Illustrated Monuments Relating to the Mysteries of Mithra"]. An English translation of part of this work was published in 1903, with the title The Mysteries of Mithra. Cumont's hypothesis, as the author summarizes it in the first 32 pages of his book, was that the Roman religion was "the Roman form of Mazdaism", the Persian state religion, disseminated from the East. According to Cumont, the god Mithra came to Rome "accompanied by a large representation of the Mazdean Pantheon". Cumont considers that while the tradition "underwent some modification in the Occident... the alterations that it suffered were largely superficial".

You've written on my user page asking for respect for the months of work you've done on this article. OK. Please just consider that Franz Cumont did many years, not months, of work, on this subject, including travelling, digging, translating... What about respect for his work? By all means let's tell readers about the criticisms other scholars have made of him, and new paradigms that have been put forward... But how can readers understand the criticisms if they don't first understand the position being criticised? How can they understand the new paradigm, if they haven't been introduced to the old one? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 02:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Review of recent edits

I've looked over the changes made since the last edit before CivilizedEducation, since these seem to be the contentious issues (calculated by simply measuring the stuff on the talk page). Perhaps I can give my thoughts on these, and we can try to reach consensus. I've taken it back to that version, and perhaps we can add in the changes as and when we reach consensus.

• The last three consist of formatting edits to improve appearance -- these I would accept, as they benefit everyone.
• A tag with a claim of POV has been made, but not substantiated. I don't agree.
• A tag with a claim that the references are bogus has been made, but no examples given. But I have added quotations to all the references, and links to external sources, where necessary, precisely so that we would NOT have bogus references. So this one is the opposite of the truth as far as I can see.
• "became popular among the military" was added to the summary for no apparent reason. Yes, Mithras was popular among soldiers. Is it a key issue to list in the summary, tho?
• The reference on "The 4th century commentary on Vergil by Servius says that Pompey settled some of these pirates in Calabria," which linked to the text and a translation of it on my blog has been removed and then -- rather amusingly -- someone has added a demand for a reference! Removing the link to the source referenced damages the article, because it makes it difficult for people to check the claim made. How does it benefit anyone, to make it hard to see the source?
• The footnote on Cumont's claim that the cult existed in the 5th century has been edited to remove a link to Cumont's actual French text, which contradicts the claim made by the English translation. Again this damages the article by making it difficult for people to check what is said. Does Wikipedia benefit from retailing a false claim? And why remove the link from the article anyway?
• Someone has added a request for a quote to the reference to the Mithras liturgy ("No Mithraic scripture or first-hand account of its highly secret rituals survives, with the possible exception of a liturgy recorded in a 4th century papyrus, which may not be Mithraic at all.(ref)Meyer, Marvin W. (1976) The "Mithras Liturgy"."). I agree with this -- we should add what Meyer actually says here, if he does say that. I don't think that reference is a very good one -- H. D. Betz would be better --, but Meyer is certainly a specialist on the Mithras liturgy.
• A reference quoting Justin has been removed: "The idea of a relationship between early Christianity and Mithraism is based on a remark by the 2nd century Christian writer Justin Martyr, who accused the Mithraists of diabolically imitating the Christian communion rite.(ref)Justin Martyr, First Apology, ch. 66: "For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body; "and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood; "and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn."(/ref) Based upon this,...". I don't greatly like the first version, but quoting Justin seems correct, if we reference his comments. However I don't think the change, to just name Renan, is an improvement because it doesn't indicate WHY Renan held that view. A discussion would seem appropriate. Renan is online, of course, and reading what he says would seem a necessary precursor to expresssing an opinion.
• The change to give Ezquerra's official titles in the article seems pointless. Makes it sound like a job ad!
• The quotation of Marvin Meyer's opinion about Mithraism I have discussed before -- Meyer's article is not scholarly, has no footnotes, and he is not an expert on the subject of Mithraism. His opinion adds no value. But perhaps we should vote on it.
• Two categories for Iranian religion have been added. The Roman cult of Mithras is not part of Iranian religion, so these should go.

Let's discuss these. I think we should make no changes without consensus, given the disagreement. Do people agree?

The article currently just quotes people who are experts on Mithras (and thereby the only reliable sources, whatever arguments others might make). If the experts disagree, it quotes them both. It does not put any view of its own. Let's keep our own opinons out of there, and especially stuff mainly derived from "Mithras and Jesus" webpages. Roger Pearse (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

One thought on Renan. Really we ought to quote what he says, with English translation, so as to make his ideas accessible to those who want to follow them up. But if people are deleting material of exactly that kind on the pretext that it is WP:OR -- even though the "research" consists merely of following references, and is all off-site, I can't. What do people think? Do we want Renan in English, or not? Roger Pearse (talk) 20:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Request for protection

I have requested full protection of the article pending consensus. CivilizedEducation, you seem to want to reshape the whole article, mainly in regard of "Mithras and Jesus". You don't have consensus for any of these changes. Please can we try to reach consensus, rather than simply reediting the article to tell a different narrative. Roger Pearse (talk) 20:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Roger, you've reverted 2 weeks of edits, about 20 in all, and made an attack on CivilizedEducation's motives. I suggest YOU should have sought a consensus before doing that. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 21:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Meyer, I agree with CivilizedEduction and with Ian Thompson (who on 8 Feb 2001 reverted an earlier attempt to remove Meyer's comment). Whether or not you or I like what Meyer says, he is a relevant academic source. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Friend -- and you look like a sockpuppet to me so this applies to "both of you" --, I don't think you're adding value to this article, and you don't seem to have anything to offer here. Please just go away, and stop harassing those of us who wrote this article. It's inconsiderate, to say the least. Roger Pearse (talk) 01:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism by "CivilizedEducation"/"Kalidasa 777"

I wrote a list of all the changes, so that they could be discussed. This has been ignored, in favour of insult, and my change is just reverted. This is not constructive. Too many of these changes are being made to this article by people who seem to have no interest in improving it, and display no knowledge of Mithras; merely in rewriting the material contributed by others to tell a different story. This is what we mean by POV changes, and we don't need them.

Such changes all tend to damage the article -- none have been agreed, and the only discussion has consisted of attempts to argue down opposition. I have removed this vandalism. It is disappointing that my request to protect the article has been ignored -- this was clearly necessary to avoid an edit war, which I suspect will now take place.

In view of the failure to seek consensus, I would ask all readers to revert changes by by CivilizedEducation/Kalidasa 777 (who seem to be the same person), until they are willing to discuss sensibly how to improve the article, rather than merely change it to reflect some ideological Jesus/Mithras issue.

Note that three extra changes were made since my last edit -- these are all minor, and seem fine to me, unless anyone wants to object? Roger Pearse (talk) 01:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you from loony town. Before making sockpuppetry allegations would you care to get a checkuser report or something? I think you could request an admin to make the check. Look at the threads above, I have provided ample opportunity to you to discuss the issues, only Tom and Kalidasa have taken the opportunity, and you think others are neglecting to discuss things?-Civilizededucation^talk 01:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Friend, I am glad to contribute factual, referenced content about Mithras to this article. You arrive and start fights. You have yet to contribute anything. Please ... just go away. You're not doing anything here except wasting everyone's time. You just ignore attempts to reason with you. All your comments consist of frivolous criticism, of material you could not edit. You don't try for consensus. And you know, and I know, that you know nothing about Mithras; that you know only what you read online; and that you are editing solely in order to push a POV. Leave it alone, hmm? Roger Pearse (talk) 01:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, you had better go and restore my comment from top which you just removed. It is against talk page guidelines to modify/remove other user's comments. You respect any policy? Secondly, you look like an unabashed WP:OWN candidate to me. You know what it means? Asking other to go away. huh.-Civilizededucation^talk 01:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Not to forget, you have still to substantiate your birdbrained allegation of sockpuppetry with a checkuser report.-Civilizededucation^talk 01:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

My view of your contribution is simple. You see, I can't see any sign that you care about Mithras, or the article. (You're not actually showing any sign of knowledge on the subject, you know?) This is the Mithras article. Anyone who chooses -- including you -- can do some reading, get their heads around the scholarly literature on the subject and contribute. But if you don't want to do that ... if all you want is to fight ... would you please just go and do it somewhere else? Your changes will get reverted eventually anyway, because POV changes always do (not by me, I should add -- I have other things to do). Yours attracted edits almost instantly, you know.

Both I and Tom have attempted to reason with you, as you tried to claim that people who are not experts are reliable sources. WP:RS was introduced to raise the quality of articles; you have tried to use it to degrade the quality of sources used, in order to introduce material which no specialist agrees with. Now this is bad -- surely articles should be as good, as scholarly, and as useful as they can be? You even edited out links to sources in the footnotes, making it hard for people to check whether claims were correct or not, and disguised what you had done by listing them in the history as "moved". You complained about verbatim quotes of sources, which likewise are there to allow people to check the article's claims. And you edited, in this long, long article, first the "Mithras and Jesus", and then the "Mithras was before Jesus" stuff. You ignored my list of the edits, compiled so we could discuss it. So ... how can I not see you as a vandal? You look like a troll. I keep asking what precisely IS your contribution to informing the world about Mithras here? If you hadn't started in, I'd probably have written a section on the name of Mithras by now. Instead I'm writing this. So everyone is poorer.

I don't see that you're doing the right thing here. People come to Wikipedia for reliable content. This article, as near as I can make it, makes no claims of its own, and simply reports what the experts in the field say. It references everything, quotes everyone, gives links to whatever can be linked, and is a liberal education on the narrow subject concerned. Could you have written this? When you don't even know the literature? If not, why do you want to damage it? Why do you want to waste my time on defending it? Why do you want to introduce changes which will mislead those reading it, when you know, and I know, that you don't know the subject?

If you want to discuss the edits which I reverted, I compiled a list for the purpose above. But surely it would be better to use your time more constructively? Roger Pearse (talk) 02:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Roger Pearse, you have no respect for WP:Civil or for any other WP policies. If you want your work to be unquestioned and to not to be edited by others, YOU stay away from WP.-Civilizededucation^talk 03:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal

I've asked the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal to help in resolving the disputes over this article. I didn't list Tom as a party to the dispute; Tom, you might want to add yourself at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-02-12/Mithraic mysteries and/or participate there or here. (I think the mediator comes to the article talk page, normally, so it may not matter much.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Sock puppet?

Have been contributing to WP for several years. This is the first time I've been called a sock-puppet... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 03:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Roger Pearse, you owe an unqualified apology to both of us.-Civilizededucation^talk 03:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Roger Pearse reverting my comment

Roger Pearse, it is against WP:Civil to remove/modify other users' comment. You have any respect for any WP policy? There is nothing wrong with my comment and your comments above it should be deleted. They are wrong. You don't get to make the rules here. And you owe me another unqualified apology for deleting my comment.-Civilizededucation^talk 03:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Civilizededucation, perhaps you would agree at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-02-12/Mithraic mysteries to take part in the mediation process? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Principles of editing the Mithras article

I thought that it might aid new readers to understand the basis on which the article has been edited for the last few years, and why changes that might be innocuous on some articles don't work here.

My aim in editing has been to ensure the quality of the article -- which is not perfect -- goes up, rather than down.

The Mithras article is not quite like some of the uncontroversial articles. People do feel an itch to push stuff into it. One of the problems with Mithras and the internet is that a vast quantity of hearsay information circulates. Much of this information is factually wrong, and much of it substantialy false but with a component that is true. Some material is based on now outdated scholarly theories, notably those of the great Franz Cumont. In addition similar myths circulate in the general population and even among scholars who do not specialise in Mithras studies. Finally there is material which is simply invented (as far as I can see) for reasons of religious malice, mostly by people such as Acharya S.

When I came to the article, I found an article that was a mixture of good material and very bad material. At that date I was already familiar with all the ancient literary sources on Mithras, plus the key inscriptions, reliefs and archaeology. It was easy to spot much of the bad material immediately, as it was unreferenced. Some of it was referenced, and the references looked suspicious.

What I did, then, was remove material that was certainly factually wrong and unreferenced. Material that was referenced I checked. I found, for instance, hearsay given references to "Encyclopedia Britannica". But on inspecting the EB, I found the reference was fake, and that the EB did not in fact say this. Of course most people would find it very hard to check such "references". I therefore began to add to each reference, as I checked it, two or three sentences -- no more, for fear of copyright issues -- which contained the statement which validated the claim made in the article. This was a rather lumpy business -- more than a few of these "references" turned out to be false. Other statements were true, but the reference was to some article which was not really of adequate standard.

A further problem with some of the hearsay in the article was that it had references which were accurate, and to apparently scholarly works, but was still factually untrue. One common myth is that Mithras was born on 25 Dec. You can find this online, and in popular books, and even in books written by people with PhD's, in scholarly books with footnotes even. Yet it is quite untrue -- no ancient source records any such thing. I grew interested in this legend (before I knew that it was a legend), and sought for sources. I wrote to solar scholar Steven Hijmans, who advised me that it was a myth. I found a reference in Mithras scholar Roger Beck that it was "the hoariest of myths". So the specialists all knew that this was bunk, yet good scholarly books not specially on Mithras contained this bunk. The reason, of course, is that the books were not about Mithras, and that no writer can be an expert in everything. Casual remarks might therefore be made which did not reflect up-to-date scholarship.

What this meant was that, unless we wanted to have factually inaccurate hearsay in the article, backed up by 'references' to scholarly books where the author had simply repeated hearsay, that we needed to take more than usual care about what sources we treated as reliable. The only method that I could see, to address this, was to use specialists only. Anything else led straight to rubbish in the article.

Another source of contamination was outdated scholarship. This also appeared in scholarly sources, and usually derived from Cumont. I took the view that, on the whole, if it was a Cumont view we should say so, and reference Cumont, and not the derivative non-specialist source. The volume of people writing about Mithras is very great, so some such approach is necessary to reduce the volume of spurious material, and allow the reader of the article to go to a source which is accurate, referenced, and will give them up-to-date information.

Of course not all sections of the article are equally good. But I have taken the view that I should express no opinion in my edits, and that each statement should be referenced to the best possible source, and the reader equipped to make their own decisions about more controversial issues, rather than told how to think.

Let me say something about why I felt that the edits of the new poster, CivilizedEducation (hereafter CE), were a bad thing.

Because the policy has been to use only specialists, for the reasons given above, CE has tried to argue that sources which are not specialist are still 'reliable sources', and that less specialist authors are just as acceptable. But of course the experiences above tell us otherwise. Just possessing a PhD does not enable a man to avoid the torrent of hearsay, unless that PhD is from specialising in the subject. Quoting WP:RS at this is not helpful. WP:RS was brought in to improve quality, not as an excuse to drop standards. CE's arguments, therefore, seemed to be special pleading to allow him to put material in the article which would damage the quality.

In the particular case of his edit, giving Marvin Meyer's comment that Christianity was very like Mithraism, I saw many problems.

• Meyer is not a Mithras specialist. I don't know that he has ever published a research article on Mithras. (He IS a specialist on the so-called Mithras liturgy, and was already cited on that subject in the Mithras article for that reason, although not by me as I hadn't read the article in those days).
• CE showed no indication of having read the article; rather he wrote as if he picked up a quote from somewhere. This can be a very risky way to get material.
• When I went to look at the article, to verify the quote, it had not a single footnote. Scholarly articles ALWAYS have lots of footnotes, so this was not a research publication by Dr Meyer, even though it was published by an academic press.
• I knew that specialists did not agree with this, and one was quoted.
• The claim by Meyer is, in fact, a stock piece of hearsay. Meyer did not discuss it; it was just a throwaway line. If this had been an academic article, he would have had to reference the claim and probably nuance it. Nuance was not something that I saw in that article, which appeared to have been compiled for teaching purposes.
• As a statement of fact, Meyer's phrase is in my opinion mostly factually false, but with a component that is true.
• The statement is also highly controversial, because of the religious element, and this article is about Mithras, not Mithras-and-Christianity. Indeed after the edit was made it promptly attracted POV edits in turn; never a good sign. Keeping the religious wars out of the article is a strain sometimes!

For these reasons, I felt that including this edit damaged the Wikipedia Mithras article, and I said so above. I did not feel that CE's replies were serious, or anything but excuses to get what he wanted.

Another objection made by CE was to the verbatim quotation of the sources in the reference. The reason for these, however, is that, unless a source is quoted, it is terribly easy to misrepresent a source. It is ironic, therefore, that CE later complained that sources -- none of which he had read -- were being misrepresented, and that quoting like this was potentially a copyright violation. No such violation exists -- every scholarly work quoyes briefly in this way -- and removing them would involve damage.

Another objection -- it was frustrating that there were so many, from this poster who was not bringing any new data to the table -- was that I myself was mentioned in the footnotes for a couple of items. This was because of a lack of any better source. For instance the argument (which is probably false, but is held by David Ulansey so must be referenced) that Mithras comes from Cilicia, relies on Plutarch and on Servius. To evaluate this argument, any reader needs to see the handful of words from each writer. Plutarch, therefore, gets quoted in a footnote from some translation. But Servius has never been translated into English. Even accessing his text is hard. Nor do I know of a scholarly source to quote, since I don't have permanent access to Ulansey's book. What I did, therefore, for lack of better alternatives, was obtain a copy of Servius and translate the relevant portion myself. This, I suppose, might be considered original research. I placed this on my blog, which is devoted to such things, and then I linked to the article containing the data from the reference. In this way anyone looking at those statements could click through to see on what they were based.

Of course I am not a "reliable source". It would be infinitely better to have one. But I don't know of one. So what do we do? The alternative before us is either to pretend my source -- which is just a translation -- does not exist, leave the reader in the dark, and ignore it; or to do as I did, and hope something better comes along. CE's approach was to make two edits; the first to remove my footnote, thereby preventing the reader from accessing Servius -- he wrote in the comment that he was "moving" the link, but in fact deleted it; the second to add a 'cite' tag, demanding someone else find him a reference. This damaged the article.

Another footnote refers to the English translation of Cumont, which is in error. Since most people do not know French, I translated the relevant passage, put it on my blog, and discussed the error in the translation there. I then linked from the footnote to that research discussion. This gave the reader, seeking information, the chance to check the article statement. Again we would prefer a scholarly source; but since I did that research myself, I don't know of one. By removing it, CE misled the reader about Cumont's opinion, and made it harder for a reader to check the facts. This, in other words damaged the article.

A further objection by CE was to my suggestion at the top of this page that people who don't know anything about Mithras other than hearsay should follow some guidelines designed to raise the quality of the article. He added a note encouraging such editing. This was certain to produce damage. Who, after all, will edit an article on a subject about which they know nothing, except for reasons of politics or religion?

Yet another objection was to the statement that no evidence exists for Mithras before the third quarter of the 1st century. This is a fact, and referenced and discussed in the article. But CE felt that the claim of Plutarch, writing ca. 100 AD, that Mithras was worshipped in 68BC was enough to debunk this. Yet the article reflects here the statement of Prof. Manfred Clauss that this is not so, because of the archaeology. But the statement in Plutarch (whom CE would otherwise consider not a "reliable source") is important, so we mention it, and include Plutarch and Servius. CE, again, was going to damage the article.

In short, nearly all of CE's edits damaged the article, and impeded the reader, and gave promise to damage it yet more.

Finally his edits were mainly in two areas. The first, adding Meyer, was about "Mithraism and Christianity". That's not an uncontroversial matter, and features heavily in the hearsay. The second was to show that Mithras predated Christ. That also is a favourite among the headbangers. Aside from that, he seemed to have no real interest in the article. Wikipedia articles need to be defended from that kind of change. Ignorance is fine, but determination to POV push is another matter.

I hope that helps! All of this is up for discussion, and is pragmatic. If anyone has a better idea, let's hear it. Roger Pearse (talk) 04:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

If you have any meaningful argument, you would have been able to make it without indulging in allegation mongering and using intolerable invective like "poster", etc. You and your kin is a poster. Refrain from invective and allegation mongering, and we may have a meaningful discussion. If you continue with allegation mongering and name calling, you are only going to get it back with interest, and you are only going to make it more and more clearer that you have no meaningful argument and must resort to deplorable tactics only.-Civilizededucation^talk 07:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)All the material which you have reinstated is indefensible. It is either OR / misrepresentation, definitely not in the sources. Besides, your name and link to your site is also indefensible. And all the material which you deleted is valid and has been explained on this talk page already. These facts become clear even on a cursory investigation. There is no real need for further explanation.-Civilizededucation^talk 08:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

That's the best "reply" you can manage to a calm response which doesn't attack you personally? To shriek insults and lies?

We need hardly ask why a troll hides behind a pseudonym. Nor why someone who knows nothing about Mithras goes for abuse instead of contributions. Roger Pearse (talk) 08:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Mediation talk page

Just to let everyone know that I was invited by the mediator to write a statement of less than a thousand words on a mediation talk page at Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-02-12/Mithraic mysteries Which I have just done. I understand that other people who have been involved in these discussions are also invited to write something there. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 08:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Roger Pearse has been misbehaving consistently. I may write something after he would issue an apology. Otherwise, I think you are doing a fine job of explaining the issues.-Civilizededucation^talk 08:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I understand how you feel about Roger's behavior. Glad that what I wrote makes sense to someone. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 11:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Note that this user has been reported as a sock-puppet for "CivilizedEducation".

If other readers would contribute, that would help. This is an attempt by a troll to rape the article. Please help. Roger Pearse (talk) 08:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The above user is an unabashed liar or deluded. There is no such report, nor can there be. Somebody please ask him to show the report if there is any.-Civilizededucation^talk 10:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I have agreed to mediate the case. I ask that all involved parties agree to some preliminary terms, in the spirit of cooling down and discussing the dispute on the mediation page and not in warring edit summaries. I ask firstly, that all parties agree not to edit the page after the protection expires until the mediation ends (except for instances of clear vandalism); secondly, I ask that all discussion take place on the mediation page to centralize debate. Is this agreeable for all? Lord Roem (talk) 17:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea -- thank you. I won't edit the article or talk page, then. Roger Pearse (talk) 19:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

As for agreeing not to edit the page, I do have one reservation. Concerns have been raised about the neutrality of this page, and I think WP readers should be made aware that when they visit it. The template about neutrality issues was put there for substantial reasons, and it should not have been removed until the issue was resolved. Given that the template was removed, I think it ought to go back up until neutrality issues have been fully addressed. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that is perfectly reasonable. There is a mediation case about content, so clearly neutrality is disputed ;-) Beyond that one change, I ask editors to keep off the 'save page' button for the duration of the case. Lord Roem (talk) 23:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Roger Pearse had put up a different response on the mediation cabal talk page. I had already read it. He cannot take it down now. It must be restored back. Besides, the article is now at a version on which Roger Pearse had reverted it.

1. I had put up TWO tags. The other one was that the refs need to be checked. That the refs need to be checked is obvious enough as already explained elsewhere on this talk page. I had put up an inline tag on some material sourced from Marvin Meyer. Our material appears to be a misrepresentation of what Marvin Meyer says. Besides, in the last section, Roger has been restoring material attributed to Justin Martyr and also to Gordon and Ezquerra. This material is also unsupported by the refs provided.
2. Roger Pearse has taken down some material which I had sourced from Marvin Meyer and also material from gordon and ezquerra which was representing properly what they said.

We don't want false or misleading info on WP. As such, the version preceding Roger Pearse starting the revert war should be restored for the duration of the mediation. Who knows how long the discussion could drag on? Besides, Roger is still continuing with incivility on the mediation cabal talk page. He has claimed that myself and Kalidasa are acting in concert. Well, Tom and Roger have similar views too, but I have no problem AGFfing with that. I have no problem with AGFfing on Tom in particular. We have been involved in an earlier dispute on another article. If Roger continues with the incivility, I am not going to eat it, I am likely to pay it back to him, with some interest too. Would that be the proper way to have a mediation?-Civilizededucation^talk 00:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:WRONGVERSION. We will keep the article as it is pending the closure of mediation. Otherwise, editors would be acting in an attempt to continue an edit war. If that were to happen, I would personally request protection.

Secondly, you do not have to respond with incivility at incivility. Treat others as you wish to be treated. Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 01:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I know that locked pages usually are not reverted to reflect any particular version. But this is not a usual situation. As I have already explained, the present version has false or misleading info. Please see the top of my user page to see what Jimbo has to say on false or misleading info. The mediation may continue indefinitely, it is not proper to keep pages unedited indefinitely, and with info already known to be false or misleading. Regarding "Treat others as you wish to be treated", would you care to tell this to Roger? I have already been telling something similar to him, but he still continues with the incivility, he started it, and he shows no signs of stopping. It is unreasonable to expect me to take insults and keep mum. Besides, what about restoring Rogers' initial comments on the mediation cabal talk page?-Civilizededucation^talk 01:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I read all comments posted, edited out or otherwise. I would ask that you bring discussion to the mediation talk page, so we can focus discussion. Even if you are absolutely correct that the info is misleading and false (which is still in dispute), you risk new edit warring with such changes. Lord Roem (talk) 01:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no dispute about the material being false and misleading. Roger has already accepted that the material attributed to Meyer which I had tagged is misrepresenting Meyer. Besides, he has offered no explanation for how the material attributed to Justin and the material attributed to gordon and ezquerra is not OR. It is clearly not in the sources. It takes just five minutes of investigation to see that, please go ahead and do the investigation. Perhaps then you may have a better idea of what I am talking about. It's all in the article now. If it would take an edit war to take down false or misleading info, them so be it, Jimbo says false and misleading info should be taken down, "aggressively" if needed. I see no problem there.-Civilizededucation^talk 01:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Since it may be confusing for you to identify the material I am talking about, I am posting it here.

This is the material from Meyer.No Mithraic scripture or first-hand account of its highly secret rituals survives, with the possible exception of a liturgy recorded in a 4th century papyrus, which may not be Mithraic at all.^[72

This is from Justin-The idea of a relationship between early Christianity and Mithraism is based on a remark by the 2nd century Christian writer Justin Martyr, who accused the Mithraists of diabolically imitating the Christian communion rite. And this is from gordon and ezquerra But in fact the two groups did not have similar aims, and there was never any chance of this occuring.[114]

None of this is supported by sources.-Civilizededucation^talk 02:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

You may also note that all the disputed points were already under discussion when Roger started the edit war, allegation mongering, incivility etc. He is now misrepresenting me on several issues and is trying to make out that I am not discussing the issues. He has even called me a vandal for that. Actually, he is the one who has avoided discussion for the most part. Only Tom and Kalidasa and myself have discussed the issues substantially. Since his revert, Roger has been indulging in incivility and allegation mongering, and did not discuss the issues in a substantial manner before that.-Civilizededucation^talk 02:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Allegations of no sources, incorrect material, are all disputed. This is the whole point of the mediation process, to reach a consensus on it. I invite you to make a statement on the mediation case talk page to explain your position, so we can get underway. I assure you, I am not one to make this an indefinite process - my approach is solution-focused. Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 02:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to explain that my first response is still here, on this very talk page, here. The response to my explanation of how I was editing is also there. When responses were invited on the mediation page, I initially copied it over there, with minor changes for context. Then Lord Roem indicated that the response should be < 1000 words and in a particular format, so I wrote a new one to those standards. In the spirit of the mediation process, I will refrain from commenting more on the apparently endless allegations about me personally, my motives, my edits, and so forth, than to say that they are all inaccurate or untrue, and I take great exception to them. Roger Pearse (talk) 10:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to make the chronology plain, I too must drop in a word or two. The mass of misrepresentations, allegations, incivilities, etc. against me which start here, and also get noticed by another admin there, and continue all through this talk page and several other talk pages are untrue. The edit war starts here. The first thread on the talk page after the start of the edit war is here. I would only say that the great mass of incivilities, misrepresentations, allegations started against me are untrue, I did not start them, I did not break the 3RR, I did not remove other user’s comments. And I take universal exception to violations of WP:Civil, countless other WP policies. Thanks.-Civilizededucation^talk 16:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)