Talk:Mithraism/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Back to work here?

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

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

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

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

BCE or BC?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copied refs

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

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

Does it really say this?

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

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

Where to put material re iconography?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vermaseren citation - what does he actually mean?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments

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

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

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

Is "seized control" a fair comment?

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

Commagene images

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

POV template

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

Vandalism or parody? Either way, this is not the place...

In the last few days there have been a couple of attempts, from IP number accounts (namely 95.147.141.10 and 77.86.27.161), to replace recent versions of the article with a version containing a lot less bytes, a lot less information, and a number of deliberately absurd statements. Some of the latter are actually quite funny - for instance, the comment that some scholars doubt whether the Mithras Liturgy was actually written by Mithras himself! Parody does have its place on the internet — there are some great sites out there entirely devoted to parody articles. Why don't you seek them out, and write your funny stuff there? At a site like that it will be welcomed, not reverted. But this is Wikipedia, and it is supposed to be about providing information. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 04:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

It is absolutely obvious that both these IP number accounts are socks of Roger Pearse. He is unabashedly persisting with sockpuppetry despite being confirmed as one.-Civilizededucation^talk 05:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back, Civ!

I'm not saying you're wrong about who is behind the recent exercises in vandalism or parody. However, the experts in sock-puppet investigations haven't made any finding against any of the numbered IP accounts involved here. They did however establish that User:Bookman2011, who made great big deletions from the Mithras Liturgy article, is a sock-puppet of Roger P.

In a way it doesn't matter who is behind the numbered accounts. If they keep deleting relevant sourced information, we can and should revert the deletions on sight. Another option, if it keeps happening, is that we could probably ask the administrators to semi-protect the article so that only registered users can edit. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 12:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Change to archiver

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another false claim from RP, what's new? Although I agree with Wwoods apparant concern that the talk page was getting long, I would very much like it if the archiver is set for archiving at a longer period. I am also agreeable to restoring all the threads which have been archived and let's set the archiver back to 90 days. We could even increase the period further if there is consensus for such a change. Any takers?-Civilizededucation^talk 17:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see it as crucially important either way. Archived discussion can still be accessed after all — you just have to click on the archive box near the top of this page — it is immediately to the right of the contents box. It isn't usual to add further comments to an archived thread, but if there is topic you want to say more about, you can put your comment on the current talk page, and if necessary tell people how to get to the archive to look at the earlier discussion. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Although, on second thoughts... It is not every day that RP and Civ agree on something, but both have expressed serious concerns about the archiver changes... Accordingly, I have just reversed the changes that were made by Wwoods. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

intro

I've reorganized the intro into what I view as a more logical order. My principle is "describe first, interpret later." Cynwolfe (talk) 13:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that your new order is more logical. Agree with your principle "describe first, interpret later." I did make one amendment — where you abridged a direct quote (in the footnote), I put in a "…" to let readers know. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The name Mithras

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

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

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

Hello Roger.

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

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

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

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

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

IMO the section should be restored. It was a particularly valuable and informative section and every word in it was referenced and verifiable. I see it as particularly necessary for this article. I see no good reason to remove it from this article. However, we could let the newly created article to stay. It could be developed further and I too intend to try my hand at it.-Civilizededucation^talk 17:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm inclined to agree that some of that material should go back in. Keeping the new page on the name is probably a good idea also. On the other hand, I think we do need to remember that there is also a page with the title Mitra which presents an overview of Mitra/Mithra/Mithras including in Vedic, Zoroastrian as well as Roman cultures. Not to mention the pages Mithra and Mitra (Vedic). Because those pages exist, I think this one should retain a focus on Roman Mithraism (and the new page on the name needs to focus on the Graeco-Roman form). In saying this, I am certainly not saying that there should be a sort of taboo on mentioning Iranian Mithra or Vedic Mitra here, as seems to have happened in certain past edits of this page. They are part of the historical context of Roman Mithraism, and recognized as such by plenty of academic writers.

I actually felt a bit silly digging out the quote from Ulansey that the word Mithras is the Greek/Latin form of Mithra, because to me it seemed so obvious that that final "s" means nothing. Because I'm aware that names like Isis, Confucius, even (dare I mention it!) the name Jesus, did not have a final "s" in their original languages either. Unfortunately, saying that on the page would be OR, unless we could find a recognized expert who said it. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a pity that info about the added "s" cannot be put up in the article, even when we know about it. I did not know this, and if I discussed this topic with someone, I would certainly be missing a point if I did not know it through the talk page. I agree that this article should focus on the roman form of mithraism. It was not my intention to turn this article into a discussion of the indian mitra or the persian mithra. Although I had half a mind to mention that both these deities are part of current religious practices in Hinduism and Zoroastrianism respectively, I am reconsidering my opinion in view of what you have said. However, I think that the section should be restored in whole, even if we don't add more about the historical background of the name. It won't be a comprehensive article without saying that much at least? As you say, it is part of the historical context of mithraism and without making those points in the article, we would have ill informed readers?-Civilizededucation^talk 08:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you found my point about added "s" interesting. Another example is the great astronomer Copernicus, whose name in Polish was "Kopernik". I think I first learned of this phenomenon from the book Chinese Looking Glass by Dennis Bloodworth — he suggested that by analogy with "Confucius", the name of Mao Zedong might be Latinized as "Maocius"... The problem we have is that WP policies about WP:OR say that editors should not only refrain from put in new facts they have discovered, but also refrain from bringing stuff together to draw new conclusions. I doubt very much that my research is original here — it does not seem at all likely that I am the first to notice how the Greek and Latin languages like attaching a final "s" or "us" to names from other languages. However, a week or so ago, when I did start looking for an RS, I had trouble finding one... But I am sure with more effort an RS could be found... Probably there ought to be an article or section somewhere in WP about this Hellenization/Latinization of names, if there isn't already.

On restoring the section... I certainly agree that it needs to be longer than the couple of sentences there now. I also think it ought to link to all 3 of the other articles Mitra, Mitra (Vedic), and Mithra. But we do need to make an effort to cover all RS views on the key questions. E.g. If we put back the quote from John Hinnells, where he speaks of Mitra/Mithra/Mithras as a single god worshipped in 3 different religions, probably we should also include that Ulansey speaks of the deity of Mithraic Mysteries as a "new god"... I have a citation for this in front of me, and will try to do something with it today.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Y. With some effort, we should be able to find a proper ref for the "added s" thing. Not only is the point interesting, it is also informative.

Thanks for restoring parts of the section. And the new look is certainly much more savvy! However, was there some reason for leaving out some parts? I think they too were very valuable. I agree that we need to mention what Ulansy says about Mithras being a "new god". However, there are others like Bivar, Campbell and Widengren who argue for Iranian continuity. They should also get noted. It can be easily referenced from the Iranica article. What do you think?--Civilizededucation^talk 17:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

On the talk page a few weeks ago, Cynwolfe criticized the article (as it then was) because it launched into lots of details about academic debate re origins, before telling readers about what is known re iconography, temple design, rituals. (See her message dated 21 April 2011 in the thread "Change to Archiver.) A couple of days ago, she made a similar point in the thread "intro", where she said "describe first, interpret later". I think she is right... the established facts — the things that the experts agree about — ought to come first.

The name "Mithras" is one of the basic facts about the cult — I don't think there there has any debate at all among academics since the 19th century about the fact that "Mithras", "Mithra", "Mitra" etc are related words. The debate is about how much that means in terms of continuity/discontinuity. In keeping with the idea "describe first, interpret later", I think this continuity/discontinuity discussion should be covered mainly in the section "4.4 Modern debate about origins".

On the other hand, I thought there did need to be a little bit of interpretation in the name section. Somewhere back in the archived talk pages, there was a newbie innocently asking something like "aren't Mithras and Mithra the same guy?" I expect many readers will have a similar question in mind — it is not a dumb question, even if the newbie's head was almost bitten off for asking it...

That's why the name section looks like it does right now... What do you think of these points, Civ? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree with the "describe first, interpret later" principle. It makes good sense because if a reader gets to see the interpretations before s/he knows what the fuss is about, they are likely to be confused. I see that the article has been restructured around this principle and think that it is a clearer way to convey the same info and makes life easier for the new reader. I value her opinion and my impression is that she is not against including the rest of the info in the article. Including the rest of it in the same section after what is already noted may be in keeping with her principle. If not, then most of the rest of the info can be worked into other parts of the article. However, the point about the grammatical process of declension may look odd in other sections. I hope at least that much can be acceptable in the section about name.

I don't think folks who are continuously in an "elevated" state of mood could/should be allowed to mean much as far as article development is concerned. The archives, and my own experience tells me that such incidents with newbies are usual for this article and I don't think it should be allowed to stand in the way of making this article comprehensive and NPOV. There are a number of relevant points which this article lacks and "fun and excitement" is no reason to halt article development, it is just a distraction. Except because I am unsure about Cynwolfe's views on the placement of the material, I would have restored the rest of the material already.--Civilizededucation^talk 16:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I have restored most of the rest of the content. However, I am agreeable to moving this material to some other part of the article, if desired.--Civilizededucation^talk 17:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Happy with what you've restored. Though possibly the bit about Mithras Liturgy could go into the section that covers Statius, Plutarch, Porphyry. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 21:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Citations tag

If I remember correctly, the tag about "inappropriate or misinterpreted citations" went on the article back in Feb. after it was noticed that the footnotes mentioned a colossal statue of Mithras from 1st century BC Commagene, even though the body text at the time gave readers the strong impression that nothing associated with Mithras or Mithraism was older than 1st century AD... That point has since been addressed, and quite a lot of general checking and fixing has happened... Is the tag still necessary? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 02:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

One could hardly deny that a huge amount of checking and fixing has happened from that time and I must be grateful to you for taking the lead in this matter and making valuable contributions in this regard. I agree that tags should not be allowed to sit on articles for an extended period of time. Although a couple of issues remain, I think it may be better to take them up after about a few days or so. Nevertheless, it is OK to remove the tag.--Civilizededucation^talk 19:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Removing the tag of course doesn't rule out further efforts to improve the article. I'm grateful to you, Civ, for raising issues in the talk page even before I got there, and for everything you've done since then to discuss out the issues, to improve verifiability and to include more views from reliable sources. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 04:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Primary sources link

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is Bill Thayer's site an egragious copyvio of copyrighted scholarly works?--Civilizededucation^talk 09:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The WP page about LacusCurtius says that the site uses "editions that had entered public domain". In context of copyright law, "public domain" means that the copyright has expired... But what does this have to do with the Mithraic Mysteries page? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 12:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Please excuse my rather crude comment. I agree that I should have made more of an effort to make myself understood clearly. Although I am not very familiar with copyvio problems, I suspect that the link which you restored in this article may be against WP:COPYLINK. The link looks like it may contain a number of copyright violations. As such, you may reconsider your view about the link. My impression is that even Geden's 1925 work may not be in the public domain and the link contains several pages of that work alone.--Civilizededucation^talk 17:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC) In the U.S., any work published before January 1, 1923 anywhere in the world[1] is in the public domain. WP:PD. This is the reason for my doubts.--Civilizededucation^talk 17:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

That page WP:PD goes on to give more detail of US copyright law, which it says is the primary law relevant to WP. There is a table of the rules, which shows that copyright is considered expired in all works published before 1923, also in many works published since then... Perhaps you would like to follow this up further by looking at that table and at Geden's book? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I have looked at that page and the table. There is also a section below that called "Published Works". This too may be relevant. Reading that section, I get the impression that it may be hard to determine the copyright status of works published after 1923. I have reason to think that the gbooks gives a "full view" of works which are in the public domain. Where I am, I do not get a "full view" of this book. This may indicate that the book is not public domain. If gbooks was giving a "full view", I would have taken that as an indication that the book is indeed public domain. So, some other way of determining this may be needed. One may note that WP:CFAQ says-The absence of a copyright notice does not mean that a work may be freely used. If in doubt, assume you cannot use it.--Civilizededucation^talk 04:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

As Lewis Carol said: "Curiouser and curiouser"! Civ, I've followed the link you gave... And it is true that the Google Books system seems to be treating it as if it was NOT in the public domain... BUT... The named publisher, Kessinger Publishing, actually specializes in books which ARE public domain. And here I have found a page at Google Books Help, with the title Is Kessinger Publishing for real?, where a Google employee SofiaF says: "I see that Kessinger Publishing is being displayed as the publisher in many public domain books, and I had confirmed with our specialists that this is a metadata error. We have requested the correction." Kalidasa 777 (talk) 07:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Is there something in that link which would be crucial to this article, but cannot be sourced from academic sources?-Civilizededucation^talk 02:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

What does it matter whether it is "crucial"? Cynwolfe has argued that it contains "material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject", and therefore is covered by the WP:ELYES, point 3. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Ceremonial Helmet

there is a tracian/dacian helmet with a scene resembling a Mithraic tauroctony; has anyone any ideea about some references linking the helmet with Mithras? CristianChirita (talk · contribs) 12:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for finding this! I didn't know about this helmet, but I have just looked at its graphic file page, and followed a link to the article Helmet of Coţofeneşti. I noticed that the article describes the animal being slaughered as a ram, but does mention possible connection with taurochtony, and it gives a reference there to a book by Powell, Brown and Boardman. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

To the reader -- article violates WP:RS and WP:POV

Hello,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you noticed relevant sourced factual material that got deleted (no matter why or how), why didn't you just put it back? (I did so myself recently, when I noticed a deleted citation from Roger Beck about Commagene.) Actually though, the substantial changes since February consist of additions of sourced factual material e.g. from Vermaseren, from David Ulansey, from Statius, Plutarch and Porphyry. Do you think these additions are a bad thing? If so, why? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course I have no problem with "sourced factual material", Kal; please keep that strawman away. What I do take issue with is the way the outdated and far from factual parallelist position has been pushed, replacing and overshadowing the modern, peer-reviewed scholarship that has long since debunked it. Read Roger's post above if you want it explained further. And as to why I'm not bothering trying to fix this mess, well, Roger's example has made it perfectly clear that some people make it nothing but a Sisyphean task. 85.228.97.208 (talk) 17:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Roger Pearse is a liar, has been inserting a number of OR sentences in the article. He has also been deleting sourced factual info. The latest deletions by IPs are actually handiwork of RP. It is perhaps as well that you do not want to do what Roger has been doing. Acting in a fraudulant way on WP is indeed a Sisyphean task.-Civilizededucation^talk 05:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Civ, but I am perfectly capable of forming my own opinion from the article's archived history. I don't care about what Robert may or may not otherwise have done, much less about the pissing-contest between the two of you. The point of contention is the article itself, and the so called "sources" it is currently based upon. And those, I find absolutely deplorable. 85.228.97.208 (talk) 05:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

CivEd, please stop name-calling and stay focused on organizing and improving the content of the article. 85.228.97.208, please stop emoting about "deplorable, deplorable" and offer some actionable intelligence, as it were. Or at least be willing to stand up for your views by creating an identity under which you can edit and discuss; it's quite easy and quick to do. All the sources are worthless? Roger Beck, Richard Gordon, M.J. Vermaseren, Ugo Bianchi, Marvin Meyer, Walter Burkert? These are all recognizable names in the field of ancient religion, with abundant publication by scholarly journals and university/scholarly presses of the highest level. Whether you or I agree with any of them is beside the point; it is absolutely not in keeping with WP policy to exclude major contemporary scholars just because we think their thinking is outmoded or wrongheaded. What is it about this topic that makes you people behave so badly? More to the point, exactly what does each side think is wrong with the article? The article seems so entirely obsessed with "he said, she said" between scholars that it's hard to see how it couldn't represent a range of views fairly. The history of scholarship on a topic is appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia article. As a classicist, I know that ideas can become unfashionable for a while, and then re-emerge. Hovering around here for a while, I've started to think that this is a simple case of POV-pushing under a particularly scholarly guise — that the goal is to suppress certain kinds of discussion normally associated with this topic. That won't do. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

What is wrong with the article? Right now, in my opinion, there is far less wrong with the article than at times in the past — including the February version which Roger Pearse described as the "last reliable" one. The substantial difference between then and now, is not about the sources used, but how they are used. For instance, the Feb version said quite a bit about David Ulansey's views about Mithraism in relation to ancient astronomy, and that information is still there. The present version however, also refers to things said by the same David Ulansey about the name "Mithras", about Mithraism and the Cilicians, about Mithraism and Christianity. In my view, one reason the February version was not neutral is that editors had put in the stuff they liked from Ulansey, but not the stuff they didn't like. The current version comes closer to neutrality in that respect. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thank you, I see more clearly. Sorry for my tirade, but the squabbling was drowning out any discussion of content. The current section on Mithraism and Christianity is interesting to read, and I get more out of it than the February one. I agree with what you say about stuff liked and not liked. About those Cilician pirates: the web site that summarizes Ulansey is a bit confusing on that point. Servius may note that there was a community of the Cilicians settled in Calabria, but Pompey brought a crew to Rome in the 60s BC; they marched in his triumph. I'm unclear about the grounds for rejecting Plutarch's statement. The gap between the Cilicians in Italy and the appearance of the first physical evidence for Mithraism doesn't seem remarkable to me, partly because it would take time for the religion to take hold and spread, or perhaps the earlier cultic materials may have been less permanent than when they were "Romanized" into stone. Physical evidence for anything in the Republic is harder to come by than for the Empire. In this case, both the massive building program of Augustus and the Great Fire intervene. Cynwolfe (talk) 05:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you needed to say sorry — I think it's good that you reminded us what talk pages are supposed to be for! I'd agree that the page could say more on the topic of the Cilicians. In his book Origins of the Mythraic Mysteries, (page 94) Ulansey suggests a link between the astronomical symbolism in Mithraism, and the fact that ancient pirates "like all sailors, must have had a keen interest in the stars owing to their dependence on the heavens for navigation". Why are some moderns sceptical of Plutarch? Well, Maarten Vermaseren in his book Mithras: the Secret God (if I remember his point correctly) says that Plutarch was writing at a time when the Mysteries were popular, and it is possible that the ancient biographer, or his sources, may have projected that popularity back into the past. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Can we have some statement of the issues with the article -- not the personaalities? 95.147.145.85 (talk) 22:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd like that too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.68.2.181 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Plutarch, Cilicians, Richard Gordon

I can understand skepticism toward Plutarch, of course, but why did he pick the Cilicians to attach this belief to? I don't know. He was interested in esoteric religious traditions, as his strange little works Isis and Osiris and On the E at Delphi indicate. So I'm reluctant to say "he just didn't know what he was talking about." And I do feel that the skepticism of modern scholars about certain things has been overstated here. The article has Richard Gordon in 1975 saying " the theory of Persian origins was completely invalid and that the Mithraic mysteries in the West was an entirely new creation." I don't have access to Gordon's contribution to that volume, but those adverbs are awfully emphatic; Gordon is characteristically skeptical, but in A Companion to Roman Religion (2007) he recognizes that "some Mithraists at least claimed that their cult had been founded by the prophet Zoroaster". While he maintains his skepticism on the role of the Cilicians and holds to the theory of invention in the 1st century AD (though he points out Mithraic vocabulary is Greek, not Latin), what he seems to be rejecting is any notion of an "authentic" unbroken tradition — not that the originators themselves didn't press the claim. This is an important distinction that can be difficult to nuance in an article: It isn't about whether these origins are real; it's about claims to authority, and this is the basis on which the claims were made. In the 1975 Mithraic Studies collection, the editor Hinnells says in his own essay, "I am not seeking to prove that Roman Mithraism was derived from any one Indo-Iranian ritual but rather … to show that Mithraic iconography accords with Iranian practice in such a way that the development of the one from the other is plausible, provided one gives full weight to the considerable influence of Graeco-Roman belief and symbolism" (p. 305). This is far more nuanced that "Roman Mithraism is a completely new creation that has nothing to do with anything that came before". If this religion did have a self-conscious founder, it seems unlikely that he would've succeeded by pulling a name out of the hat of theonyms arbitrarily, and developing a completely unrelated theology out of ignorance; he must've had reasons for his choices, even if these are unrecoverable. But that's why I think the article is best when it's describing what's known, such as iconography, instead of the "he said, she said" conjectures and interpretations. A WP article is not the first chapter of a doctoral dissertation nor an annotated bibliography: it needs to state the case and its gaps and complexities as clearly and briefly as possible, and not get bogged down so much in the pet views of individual scholars. That's what footnotes are for (and not to serve as a parallel text). OK, done, apologies for my own lack of concision. This is pretty much all the contribution I have to make here, so good luck to you all, and play nice. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Cynwolfe. It is regrettable that you are no longer interested in this article. You looked like a knowledgeable and promising ed for this article. I agree with your views of scholarly opinions on plutarch. I too have the impression that Gordon is overly skeptical about how much can be said on this topic. IMO, Gordon may not be a particularly strong source for this article. He does not seem to have authored any published book. The one book which he seems to have authored has remained unpublished for decades now. And he seems to be dismissive of most other works and scholars. It appears that we have to use his views with care, even if he is an RS for this article.-Civilizededucation^talk 05:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Cynwolfe, yes, my view is the same as yours — the article at present probably does overstate skepticism of modern scholars about Persian and Anatolian origins of the Mysteries. This is opposite of the criticism of it offered by Roger P. at the top of this thread — that the current version is the work of agenda-pushers who set about "rewriting the article to say that Mithras predates Jesus". (Roger himself did make a number of edits since writing that statement, doing what he could to correct what he perceived to be the article's bias.) Regarding Gordon's statement at the 1975 conference, I think you'll find the citation is correct, but, yes, more recent statements by Gordon have been less skeptical. Perhaps he has mellowed a little with age... There is an interesting FAQ by Richard G. on the website of the Electronic Journal of Mithraic Studies, where he says "I do think there are some feature sof the Roman cult of Mithras: his association with light, might and fertility, for example, and the moral stringency, which have old-Iranian origins- at any rate, they are all found in the Avestan Hymn to Mithra, composed in the second half of the fifth century BC." Your point that the article is best when describing what is known... Yes, I agree... And "what is known" is not only iconography. Ancient texts are also hard facts, e.g. however skeptical one may be of Plutarch, at very least his work gives us knowledge about what one well-educated Roman citizen of the 1st century AD believed about the origins of Mithraic Mysteries. Another point in the "what is known" category is one you've mentioned — the name Mithras itself, attested in inscriptions and in texts such as Plutarch, a name with well-known antecedents in Iran and Asia Minor and the Vedas. Civ and I put together quite a bit of info about the name, which Roger has recently moved to the page The name "Mithras". (See thread below.) I understand that you want to get away, but perhaps at some latter stage you might like to take a look at the material on The name "Mithras" and let us know how much of it, if any, you think ought to go back here. In any case, I do appreciate your contribs to this talk page and to the intro, and I hope you won't forget us altogether. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 06:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I would just say that careful distinction must be made between what the ancient Romans and Greeks themselves thought, and what the physical evidence can indicate. I myself value Gordon quite highly, and always use him if he's available as a source for a topic I write on. Though I don't plan to do active research on the page, I wouldn't like to see the good work that Roger Pearse did here go to waste, despite his poor behavior. His work was sound, if not perhaps inclusive enough in presenting perspectives. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the point about physical evidence is why some modern historians are skeptical about what Plutarch says about the mysteries being celebrated by the Cilician pirates. And lack of corroborative evidence from texts by other ancient scholars.

Regarding Richard Gordon, I agree he is important. To those who have doubts, I would point about that both he and Roger Beck are in the team of editors at the Electronic Journal of Mithraic Studies. I would say, though, that Gordon does seem to express himself rather forcefully at times, and not only about Cumont — for instance in his signed FAQ page at EJMS, he describes Ulansey's work as "a fantastic tower of nonsense", and as an instance of "the fantasies of scholars" (which at least acknowledges Ulansey as a scholar!). I'd suggest that like Roger Beck and David Ulansey and Cumont and for that matter Plutarch, Gordon's views are to be treated seriously, but not treated as being beyond question where others in the field disagree.

As for Roger Pearse, I'd agree that there is a danger of over-reacting... I think he did what he has accused others of doing — he cherry-picked bits of information to push an agenda (or as he saw it, to combat another agenda) — but that does not mean the information itself is wrong. Recently on his user page he said something about having become a research assistant for trolls... and he is right — I mean, in the sense that the rest of us really have benefitted from info he found, even if we don't like the mindset which leads him to call us "trolls".

Anyway, Cynwolfe, even if you can't do active research on this page, I think it would be great if you have a look at it from time to time, and let the rest of us know whether you think that we are getting it right or not... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 05:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The issues with the page need to be resolved. Perhaps an independent third-party? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.147.174.8 (talk) 19:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you aware of the lengthy discussion that was conducted earlier this year, which was indeed led by an independent third party – Lord Roehm of the Mediation Cabal? You can see what happened at Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-02-12/Mithraic mysteries. Roger P. chose to walk out of that discussion. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 08:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we care about who did what when. What about addressing the concerns? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.147.145.85 (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

What do you see as the unaddressed concerns? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

A longish reply to Roger Pearse's long statement

Maybe you're right 95.147.145.85... Roger's long statement above includes arguments which ought to be addressed...

Roger makes some general points which I am sure everyone here would agree with, e.g. "I don't see how anyone benefits from getting the raw facts wrong; whatever their likes or dislikes."

He calls attention to differences between the 13 February revision of the page, and more recent revisions. He says that the difference is that the February version is reliable, whereas later ones are not.

Is this really the difference?

The February version of this page contains

• plenty of raw facts about archeological finds from 1st century AD onwards,
• hardly any raw facts at all about the history of the name "Mithras";
• very little attention to the raw facts about the monumental statues of Mithras from 1st century BC Anatolia.

Later versions have added information about these points not previously mentioned. They also retain the information from the February version. The added raw facts comes largely from sources already used on the page in other contexts: sources such as Vermasaren and David Ulansey.

Roger's statement mentions that the February version was largely his own work, and also mentions that he was motivated by concern about popular misconceptions about Mithraism, which are widespread on the internet.

Is dispelling misconceptions a good reason for making edits on Wikipedia?

Maybe... but there is such a thing as over-compensating: selecting and highlighting bits of information that seem to say the exact opposite of the popular misconception.

An example of over-compensating, from outside Wikipedia... A lawyer has to defend a client popularly regarded as a leading gang-land boss. The defence lawyer works long hours, carefully assembling written testimonies by impressive witnesses to give the exact opposite picture... butter wouldn't melt in the boss's mouth. The lawyer is equal careful to avoid presenting any information which might mess up the intended portrait of the client.

Isn't that the exactly the job of a defence lawyer?

Probably yes...

But is that the job of Wikipedia? I don't think it is...

The February version of this page presents one side in a historical debate: a side that sees Mithras as springing fully formed out of purely Roman rock. The later versions no longer do this.

I have no objection to Roger developing a debating position on his own blog. His polemics are part of the life of the internet, even if not everyone likes what he says...

But WP is not Roger Pearse's blog.

It is time you understood that, Roger. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

A statement from a project page that seems relevant

A statement from the project page Wikipedia:NPOV dispute... "ideologues, when presented with an article that has exemplary neutrality (as per our policy), will consider the article biased precisely because it does not reflect their own bias enough." Kalidasa 777 (talk) 03:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Anyone wishing to get an accurate assessment of Roger Pearse, his intellectual level, and most of all his character, should just look at this page of his. And be sure to read the comments on the main blog post.

Pearse anti-semitic blog post

I came to this page unsure what to think of his point. Now I have no doubts. Eluard (talk) 00:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello Eluard. The blog page you mentioned is certainly polemical... In the February version of this WP page – the "last reliable version", according to Roger's long statement above — that polemical blog page was actually cited as a source. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Beskow citation?

Beskow continues: "The plaques are typical Bosporan terracottas... At the same time it must be admitted that the plaques have some strange features which make it debateable if this is really Mithra(s). Most striking is the fact that his genitals are visible as they are in the iconography of Attis, which is accentuated by a high anaxyrides. Instead of the tunic and flowing cloak he wears a kind of jacket, buttoned over the breast with only one button, perhaps the attempt of a not so skillful artist to depict a cloak. The bull is small and has a hump and the tauroctone does not plunge his knife into the flank of the bull but holds it lifted. The nudity gives it the character of a fertility god and if we want to connect it directly with the Mithraic mysteries it is indeed embarrassing that the first one of these plaques was found in a woman's tomb." Roger Beck, Mithraism since Franz Cumont, Aufsteig und Niedergang der romischen Welt II 17.4 (1984), p. 2019: "Their iconography is significantly different from that of the standard tauroctony (e.g. in the Attis-like exposure of the god's genitals)." Clauss, p.156: "He is grasping one of the bull's horns with his left hand, and wrenching back its head; the right arm is raised to deliver the death-blow. So far, this god must be Mithras. But in sharp contrast with the usual representations, he is dressed in a jacket-like garment, fastened at the chest with a brooch, which leaves his genitals exposed - the iconography typical of Attis."

This is the content of the current citation #108 in the article. The content attributed to Beskow seems to be referenced to "Roger Beck, Mithraism since Franz Cumont, Aufsteig und Niedergang der romischen Welt II 17.4 (1984), p. 2019:". But I could not find the material in that book??-Civilizededucation^talk 14:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't have the texts by Beskow or Beck in front of me, but looking at note 108, I think Beck's book is only being cited for the one sentence: "Their iconography is significantly different from that of the standard tauroctony (e.g. in the Attis-like exposure of the god's genitals)." The Beskow citation begins with the words "Beskow continues..." I would think that means it is a continuation from note 106, which deals with same topic, and cites the book Beskow, Per, The routes of early Mithraism, in Études mithriaques Ed.Jacques Duchesne-Guillemin. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

You are right. Thanks for the pointer.-Civilizededucation^talk 08:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Uniqueness of leontocephaline

Although animal-headed figures are prevalent in contemporary Egyptian and Gnostic mythological representations, the Leontocephaline is entirely restricted to Mithraic art.[45]

Reading this line in the article, I first thought that it means that a man-lion deity is completely unique to roman mithraism. I assumed that "leontocephaline"=half man half lion. This sentence looked incorrect to me because there are other lion headed deities, eg. Narasimha. BTW, this deity also has a forehead mark, and emerged from a pillar, but of iron instead of rocks, has a multiheaded snake above, but not entwined around the body. Now, having done some more reading on this topic, I think "leontocephaline"=lion headed deity of roman mithraism. So, the italicized sentence should mean--"leontocephaline", which is defined as "the lion headed deity of roman mithraism" is unique to roman mithraism. Isn't this somewhat tautological, and, is it just me or is the sentence misleading? The italicized sentence is sourced from here. The source seems to be discussing several lion headed deities. Now, are we using this source to convey something which the source does not say? Does the sentence need some rewording?-Civilizededucation^talk 16:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the sentence should be reworded. The cited text, Hubert Von Gall, includes the words: "Exact parallels are missing..." which leaves open the possibility that there may be parallels which are not exact. (Apart from Narasimha, another that comes to mind is the Egyptian deity Sekhmet. Sekhmet was female though.) What I think Von Gall is saying is that Roman Mithraism involved a lion-headed youth with wings, keys and a sceptre, and that this combination of attributes is not found anywhere other than in Roman Mithraism. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 08:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

---

the Funerary Stela from the bottom picture is funerary ara — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.122.171 (talk) 07:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Modern literature

There is a scholarly treatment of Mithraic elements to be found in Michel Tournier's "Le roi des aule" or "The Ogre" of 1970. Is there interest in a section on mithraism in modern culture or such a link? Robert Shiplett G. Robert Shiplett 01:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Tournier's work, but I agree it would be good if WP could say something somewhere about direct references to Mithraism in recent culture. Not only in the 20th century, but in the last few centuries... E.g. Rudyard Kipling wrote a fairly well-known poem about Mithras. Going back a little further, Mithras is also mentioned in Thomas More's Utopia, as a deity worshipped in the fictional island republic... I am not sure whether it should a section here or another linked page... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 11:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Provocation or parody?

I have reverted a series of edits from an IP number, consisting of deletions of sourced information, and insertion of unsourced or inadequately sourced additions (authors or titled mentioned, but insufficient details for verification). The sourced material which the IP number wants to delete is about criticisms of Cumont. The unsourced and poorly sourced additions are half-baked allegations about Christianity imitating Mithraism. The net effect is to make the article less balanced and less informative. Is this another attempt at parody by someone who has issues about the article? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 04:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Archaemenid Architecture

Someone has added a large picture of some Archaemenid architecture to the iconography section. According to the caption, the god Mithra is there somewhere, although he isn't clearly visible. In any case, I think it is important to remember that there is another page, which this one already links to from its introduction, specifically about the Iranian Mithra. There is also a more general page with the title Mitra. (Not to mention Mitra (Vedic).) So I suggest that this Mithraic Mysteries page should logically keep its focus on Roman Mithraism. Though a further link to Mithra, from the iconography section, might perhaps be helpful to some readers. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 03:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The edits are good and should remain. 77.86.27.161 (talk) 07:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for expressing your opinion. How about some reasoned arguments to back it up? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 11:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for sneering at "my opinion". How about you explain why you reverted my edits without discussion? Not very civil of you. 209.68.2.181 (talk) 13:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I've explained in detail above why I think this article should keep its present focus on Roman Mithraism, while linking to articles about the related Iranian traditions. Anyone who has a good faith disagreement is welcome to explain why. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 04:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Nice accusation of sockpuppetry, you weasel. You really wanna own this page, don't you! And yeah, you're welcome to express your opinon. And I'll express mine. 209.68.2.181 (talk) 07:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

For the information of other editors and readers, 209.68.2.181 is referring to the sock puppetry case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Roger_Pearse. It is an open enquiry, which anyone can follow and contribute to.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the point about "owning", I would refer anyone interested to the WP:OAS which explains the difference between ownership and stewardship. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 19:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

wikilawyer .... wikilawyer ... stop blocking edits to the article.209.68.2.181 (talk) 18:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

209.68.2.181, the controversial tag which you put at the top of this talk page says: "Please discuss substantial changes here before making them". I agree that is good practice. It is what I did myself, back in February, when it occurred to me that the article might be improved by adding information about the historical background of the name Mithras – I didn't just find some info and add it in, I first explained on the talk page why I thought such a section would be a good idea... No such explanation was made by those who wanted to add the section about Iranian traditions... So please explain now. As Wikipedia: Talk page guidelines says: "If someone queries one of your edits, make sure you reply with a full, helpful rationale." That means you need to do more than just say: "The edits are good and should remain." Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Question

could be this scytian youth in fact a representation of Mitra?

No, this is a roman youth posing with the typical parthian dressing. Kermanii (talk) 14:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Archiver and controversial

Removed archiver -- too low comment volume. Added controversial tag. 209.68.2.181 (talk) 12:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

No argument with controversial tag. But I have reverted the archiver back to 90 days, because of the growing length of this talk page. The archiveheader (which tells the bot what to do) now matches the archive box (which tells the readers what is supposedly happening). Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

No need to critisize something 2 times in a row...

In the beginning it says: "The Romans themselves regarded the mysteries as having Persian or Zoroastrian sources, a view sometimes questioned by modern scholars."

Then it says:

"Since the early 1970s, however, the dominant scholarship has cast this origin in doubt, and regarded the mysteries of Mithras as a distinct product of the Roman Imperial religious world.""

No need to show the doubt of "Modern" scholars two times in two sentences...

I removed the part "... A view sometimes questioned by modern scholars" btw.

--Arsaces (talk) 16:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

As a related note, when reading the third cited source which was used to support the statement, "Since the early 1970s, however, the dominant scholarship has cast this origin in doubt, and regarded the mysteries of Mithras as a distinct product of the Roman Imperial religious world" I found that the source seemed to question the similarities between the western and eastern forms of Mithras. In one of the only spots I could find in the article where the author does reference an argument that the roman version was completely of its own origin, he incorrectly cites his source about it, then moves on from it because it was "not germane" to his discussion, possibly a jab at the german author of his source. It seems that the origin of the name was not in question as much as the content of the religion's origin, which since it was a roman cult, doesn't seem like that big of a controversy. So the romans took what was a persian deity, and remade it for their own needs. Basically I'm thinking that the statement should be amended to reflect the nature of academic discussion that concerns the similarities and divergences, not specifically the origin itself. Maybe adding a phrase like, despite its namesake, regarded the mysteries of Mithras as a distinct product of the Roman Imperial religious world. Or, despite the superficial similarities, regarded the mysteries of Mithras as a distinct product of the Roman Imperial religious world. Yogitoker (talk) 22:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the origin of the name Mithras is not in question, the historical debate is rather about practices and beliefs that were associated with the name. I've changed the wording of the sentence you quoted, so that it mentions identification of dissimilarities, rather than questioning the origin. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 06:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Title is erroneous and looks questionable....

I think it's a bloody mess that MITHRAISM is found in an article called "Mithraic mysteries". Generally, "mysteries" is not used to describe a religion. The religion has always been called by scholars "Mithraism" - what does this article know that the scholars of the world do not know? Djathinkimacowboy 16:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The term "mysteries" is often used by scholars to describe systems of religious initiation, especially those in and around ancient Greece and Rome. As explained on the WP page Greco-Roman mysteries, "the term derives from Latin mysterium, from Greek mysterion (usually as the plural mysteria μυστήρια), in this context meaning 'secret rite or doctrine.' " Kalidasa 777 (talk) 01:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Not only that...

Outside of the Roman Empire, worship of Mithras, as s subordinate Zoroastrian God continues until this very day in Iran and IndiaEricl (talk) 22:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but Zoroastrian worship of Mithra (or Mithras as the name became in Greek and Latin) is the topic of the WP page Mithra. Please have a look at that page, Eric, and improve it if you can. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 01:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Mithraism was about sun worship. Reading this article, I could not catch that sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.50.88 (talk) 22:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

If Mithraism was about sun worship, what do you make of the images which show Sol and Mithras as two different persons, sharing a banquet? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The banquet scene does show Sol and Mithras as two different persons. It may be about Sol having some sort of affinity with Mithras/ Sol bequething his solar deity status to Mithras/ maybe it shows that Sol and Mithras are two personifications of the same deity. Whatever. Without knowing the story associated with that scene, nobody can be sure. However, it does indicate that Mithras has some sort of association with the Sun. If Mithraism was not about sun worship, how come a scholar like Beck titles his book as "The Religion of the Mithras Cult in the Roman Empire;Mysteries of the Unconquered Sun" ? How would Mithras has titles like "Sol Invictus Mithras" ? I am not saying that there is anything wrong with the article. What I am trying to say is that the sun worship aspect should get some more emphasis in the article.117.198.51.24 (talk) 03:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're right. The affinity between Mithras and Sol is clearly very strong, even if the exact relationship is unknown. Maybe a new section with a title like "Association with the Sun"? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)