Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-02-12/Mithraic mysteries

Opening Statements

Kalidasa

As I see it, the basic problem that the article as it stands contains a large amount of relevant information, but it lacks neutrality and accessibility. Roger has reacted with anger to people who have (sometimes perhaps rather bluntly) drawn attention to the article's weaknesses, and who have attempted to do something about them.

Yes, it's something to do with whether Mithraism did or didn't predate Christianity. However, this question is one of interpretation, not of hard fact. As far as I know, all historians agree that Mithras did not become a popular god in Rome until some point in first century AD. The question is, how much or how little does that Roman Mithras have to do with the Mithra worshipped in earlier centuries in and around Iran, and in Asia Minor. Are Roman Mithras and Avestan Mithra the same god or two different ones? (How long is a piece of string?)

It is apparent from information already in the article that there are different views and interpretations about this, by people Roger himself considers reliable sources. But these differences are down-played. The article as it stands (especially its introduction and its top half dozen sub-sections) treats first century AD Roman Mithras almost as if he sprang full-formed from purely Roman rock.

It is only when a reader fights his or her way through all the footnotes to footnote 38, that he or she finds reference to "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". (Commagene being a small kingdom roughly half way between Rome and Iran, in what is now Turkey.)

I recently made a couple of proposals to bring a little more balance to the article, namely:

• to say more about the history of the name Mithras;
• to say more about the findings of the great early 20th century Mithras scholar Franz Cumont. There's a section about Cumont on the page now, but it presents criticisms of his views without first taking the trouble to explain in any detail what his views were. It doesn't even give readers the title of the book he wrote!

Several editors express agreement with these two proposals of mine. No-one seemed to disagree, at least in principle. Roger himself has expressed in principle agreement with both suggestions.

But now he has created a situation where improvements to the article cannot go ahead, by going on a reversion spree, breaking the rule about 3 reversions within 24 hours, accusing other editors of vandalism and sock-puppetry, and persuading an administrator to put a lock on the thing.

His reversions also removed a template saying that the neutrality of the article was in question, and another template saying that some of the article's content may not be consistent with its references, although (as I understand it) those templates are not to be removed until consensus is reached.

He seems to regard criticisms of the current non-neutrality of the article as a personal attack on himself as editor, and also (judging by some of his own comments, e.g. "it's all about Jesus") as an attack on the Christian religion.

These are what I see as the main issues, however other matters have been discussed. For example whether the English academic Marvin Meyer should be mentioned as a source in the section about Mithraism and Christianity. Meyer's field is ancient mystery religions and early Christianity, and he has translated and discussed the Mithras Liturgy, an enigmatic text from Roman-ruled Egypt. According to Roger, Marvin Meyer is not a reliable source. Three other editors (Civilizededucation. Ian Thompson, and myself) wanted to include Meyer. So Roger has removed Meyer anyway, on the grounds that there is no consensus.

Another issue that has been raised (not by myself) is Roger's links to his own webpages. WP editor Civilizededucation pointed out that this is against general WP practise. However, another editor, Tom Hennell, has defended the links. One link is to a page of ancient texts related to Mithraism, the other is to a blog of Roger's refuting alleged misconceptions. My own view, for what its worth, is that link to the ancient texts may be useful to readers, and there is a case for keeping it. But the blog link ought to go.

I do find it a little strange that Roger's concept of a reliable source is inclusive enough to include his own blog, but too strict to include an academic historian like Marvin Meyer.

Roger has put a note on my editor discussion page, taking me to task for wanting to impose a story of my own on the page to which he has devoted so much energy.

My reply is that, on the contrary, I would like to see the page present a range of stories -- a range of historical narratives and interpretations from well-qualified people, presented in a neutral and accessible way. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 07:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

TomHennell

On the assumption that others are able to state their opions on the mediation page - and as my own name has already been cited by user Kalidasa above:

I am firmly of the belief that all editors are entitled to be addressed with courtesy, and their edits acknowledged as having been made in good faith. Nor do I wish to go into the issue of specific posts. There is, however, a general point of principle here; the article is about the 'Mithraic Mysteries' (also the Mysteries of Mithras, and Mithraism). It is not (and should not be) a survey of the many divine figures in the ancient world - in many different traditions, who carried the name 'Mitra', or something like it. Nor is it (or should it be) a compendium of the many speculative theories that have been woven around 'Mitra' figures over the past century. (As it happens, if we go back a couple of years, that is what the article had become, and I - and a number of other editors - tried to do something to improve it; but were unable to marshal the relevent evidence in enough detail, until Roger Pearse undertook the task).

Ancient Mystery Cults were a highly specific feature of Graeco-Roman religion - their common charactersitics, and their differences are set out by Walter Burkert in his Harvard lectures of 1982, published as 'Ancient Mystery Cults'. The oldest of them - Eleusis, Dionysus/Bacchus - were indigenous to Greece and Italy; several later Greek and Roman mysteries - Magna Mater, Mithras, Isis - reused nomenclature, iconography and terminology from religions of Anatolia, Iran and Egypt respectively. But the source religions were emphatically not mysteries, but rather the respective civic religions of their particular land or kingdom. The key feature of a mystery was voluntary initiation; to participate fully in the mystery you had to choose to be initiated into it in a specific sort of place, and by a person with specific status. In the case of the Mysteries of Mithras, that place was an underground 'Mithraeum' and the intitiation was into a system of seven grades of membership. While there may have been many local variations, the Mithraeum, and the intitiation are absolutely distinctive, any cult that lacks both of these elements is not a mystery, is not Mithraism, and is not the subject of the article (though it may still be relevant to discuss in terms of history or context).

Because Mitharism is defined by the Mithraeum and the initiation, relevant evidence is of two types; archeological (in terms of the Mithraum), and literary (in terms of the intitation rite). Unfortunatley, almost nothing of Mithraic initiation literature surives - other than a 'bootleg' ritual incorporated into a magical compilation around 300. We mainly have to rely on the hostile accounts of Christian antagonists. In respect of Mithraea, the contrary is the case. Being constructed underground, and invariably incoporating a highly distinctive iconography of Mithas slaying a bull, and with many altars dedicated to the God, mithraea are difficult to miss, and have been found tin many areas of the Roman world (though much less in Greece and Egypt than in Italy, Danubia, Germany or North Africa).

An advantage of archeology is that it is commonly dateable within a fairly narrow time range; and it is easy to demonstrate that no discovered mithraea or Mithras inscription predates the last quarter of the 1st century CE. (When Pompeii was destroyed in 79 CE, it contained no mithraeum; though it did contain a villa with lavishly decorations dedicated to the mysteries of Dionysus). This happily coincides with the earliest literary references from non-Mithraic sources - around 90-100 CE. So defining the scope of the article by the state of current Mithraic archeological and literary evidence, necessarily leads to 1st century CE date for the emergence of the Mithraic mysteries; and as I understand it, this is at the core of User:Kalidasa's objections. The alternative; extending the article before the emergence of the mysteries to include cognate 'Mitra' divinities takes us back to Hittite treaty texts of around 1400 BCE - which predate the first references to 'Mithra' in the Avestan material by some 700 years; and indeed also predate Zoroaster on the most accepted chronological assumptions. TomHennell (talk) 10:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Modern Mithraic studies are therefore largely about Mithraic archeological findings - related to what is said in non-Mithraic literary sources. The first systematica attempt at this was undertaken by Franz Cumont in the late 19th century (in his early thirties), and on this he developed a series of specualtive theories; about Mithraism and its relation to Zoroastrianism; about Zoroastrianism and its varaints withing the Parthian empire, about mystery cults in general, and their relation to Roman civic religion; and about Zoroastrina pseudepigrapha, Greek texts that invoke the name of Zoroaster and other Persian divine figures. Cumont's assmembling of the evidence was a major achievement, but subsequent archeological findings called all his speculative theories into question. In the cae of Mithraism, the First International Congress of Mithriac Studies , in Manchester in 1971, revealed that Cumont's early speculations of an underlying identity between Mithaism and Zorioastrianism were no longer tenable, and that remains the firm consensus of Mithraic experts and specialists.

However, major academic paradigm-shifts take time to pervade the non-specialist world; and many standard general works of reference (encyclopedias, disctioaries of the classical world, introductions to world mythology) still repeat Cumont's early theories (I found three works published in the last ten years that do so). What these have in common, is that they are not sourced to recent archeological findings, but only to Cumont's original work in translation (which is out of copyright and easily found on the internet). I fully agree with Roger Pearse that editors should be encouraged to source their changes to the article firmly to the archeological evidence, or to the experts in the field who use that evidence. Renewed speculations derived from academic work which (however groundbreaking at the time) is now 100 years old, has no place in the article.

(On one point of detail, User:Kalidasa has unfortunately been misled by an erroneous edit to the article that I missed, and hence failed to revert. The Commagene statues are not incribed with the name "Mithras" (as the article currently has it, and as is stated in many general works of reference) but that of "Apollo-Mitra-Helios". The detail of the statue links it to the Mithra figure of the Avesta; and not to the Bull-slaying god of Roman Mithaism. A minor point maybe, but it illustrates well the extent to which allowing edits unsourced to the archeology, can degrade the reliability of the article. TomHennell (talk) 03:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Tom. Yes, the Commagene statues are Mitra rather than Mithras, which is why they don't belong here. Roger Pearse (talk) 08:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Roger Pearse

Summary of the conflict

A couple of weeks ago a user named Civilizededucation appeared on the article and started to make edits. He has no knowledge of Mithras studies, as he admits himself on the talk page:

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?

The article currently references only Mithras scholars, since there is so much hearsay on the web. CivilizedEducation wants to use lower-grade sources (i.e. the stuff he can find on the web) and has written endless attacks on this policy on the talk page.

He has two main edits in mind.

1. To add a statement by religion scholar Marvin Meyer:

Marvin Meyer argues that "early Christianity ... 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."[118]

118. Meyer, Marvin (2006). "The Mithras Liturgy". In A.J. Levine, Dale C. Allison, Jr., and John Dominic Crossan. The historical Jesus in context. New Jersey. pp. 179. ISBN 0-691-00991-0. Retrieved 2011-01-20.

Meyer is not a scholar of Mithras studies but of religion (he IS an scholar on the mis-called Mithras liturgy) and the article is not referenced itself, so isn't a reliable source. There is so much bad information about on Mithras that even non-specialist scholars, writing about something else but mentioning Mithras, can be taken in by stuff well known (to Mithras scholars) to be simply a myth.

I find today that he also added around the same time the same statement to the Mithras in comparison with other belief systems article and to the Mithras Liturgy articles, and for all I know to others. Note that the statement is online. He displays no knowledge of, or interest in, Mithras as such.

2. To change the article to make it say that Mithraism existed before the 1st century AD:

The article seems to make out that Mithraism started only in the last quarter of the 1st century. This is a bunkum claim. Mithraism is well known to have existed much earlier.

These two points are commonly-found hearsay on the web, and routinely used for anti-Christian polemic. The belief of these people is

• Mithras predates Jesus
• Christianity copied Mithraism

as well as more outlandish claims. Here they are in their natural form.

• "Hundreds of years before Jesus, according to the Mithraic religion, three Wise Men of Persia came to visit the baby savior-god Mithra, bring him gifts of gold, myrrh and frankincense...
• Christianity derived many of its essential elements from the ancient religion of Mithraism"

You will note that these are precisely the edits that CivilizedEducation wants to make. If you look at his edit history, you will find he is mainly editing articles about Christianity. Since he isn't interested in Mithras, and doesn't know any of the literature, and the professional Mithras scholars do not agree with this stuff, these are precisely the sort of edits that poison any article.

He isn't citing any reliable sources; instead he wants to argue that whatever he has is reliable, and that everyone else is biased.

In order to achieve his end he has tried to change the basis of the article to use non-specialists, to raise as many objections as he can to the way the article currently is, and to start fights and cause as much confusion as he can. Attempts to reason with him merely led to him making attacks on me, and spitefully deleting links to my own website. These links did not contain opinion by me, treated as an authority. They contained translations (with original text) into English of an inaccessible ancient source (Servius) and a bit of Cumont's book is is actually mistranslated by the English translation. My blog is original research, but my purpose was not to push an opinion but to help the reader find sources so he could easily check claims made in the article. Who benefits, I would ask, from making it harder to check sources? Only those whose have something else in mind.

I have not addressed his personal attacks on myself or how I have tried to deal with this. The latter was first by consensus, then by requesting the article protected so as to force contributors to reach consensus, then by returning to a baseline and listing the changes for discussion, and finally by raising this dispute. Let me know if I need to say more about this.

Another editor new to the article arrived shortly after the first began to get into trouble, [[1]]. He has acted in such a manner as to lead me to suppose that he was a sock-puppet for the first, or acting in concert with him. He has made no contribution at all, other than to revert my attempts to prevent damage.

Nothing has been contributed by this editor(s) to this article except to waste everyone's time. Dozens of objections and complaints have been made, all of them intended to wear out regular contributors. Indeed he has even removed material useful to readers, such as the links to Servius and Cumont, apparently out of spite. On a related article, Mithras and other belief systems, he removed referenced material which indicated influence of gnosticism on Mithraism. This backs up my feeling that POV-pushing is what this is all about. Not that I care what people's motives are, so long as they enhance the article; but when people insist on making bad edits, we may reasonably ask why.

My side/position on the conflict

I am well aware that all contributors are welcome in Wikipedia, and I keep hoping someone more interested in iconography and astronomical symbolism than me will come along and work over that section. I didn't write all this article (although I wrote most of the references and checked all I could, and removed the rubbish) But what every article needs to avoid is the POV-pusher who flies in, wrecks everything in order to push his religious/political angle, and flies off again. The article is very neutral. It expresses no opinion at all, as far as I know. Nor should it. It should represent all the scholarly positions on the issues, which it does as far as possible. It should reference all the important literature. It should, and does, give the history of scholarship which may be outdated but is important to know (e.g. Cumont). These seem to me to be good principles for any article. The point is to help the reader find the data, not to select the data to mislead him.

None of the proposed edits seem helpful to me, at best. None of them add information to the article. Thus I have resisted them.

I've tried to seek consensus. I hope that is why we are all here.

Potential areas of compromise

I'm having difficulty with this. Perhaps some of the other contributors can offer some suggestions?

Response/s from Civ. to Roger Pearse's comments

I see Roger Pearse's opening statements as a dreamy attempt to poison the well against me. I see these statements as being rich on "imagined facts", but bankrupt on "hard facts". Just as an example, I would invite users to investigate Rogers claim that I had put up the material from Meyer in an article called Mithras Liturgy. But if one investigates the history of that article, it would tell a completely different story. It is hard to see how I could have put in this material. And if you read the material, it is hard to miss the point that the material is quite different from what I had put up at Mithraic Mysteries article, even if the material is from the same area of the same book. This is just one of the numerous misrepresentations that Roger Pearse's above statement is making. I can comfortably take down all the points that Roger makes against me. With help from his numerous incompetent claims, my task has been made easier. However, for now, I will try to write up a list of specific issues to be discussed, as requested at the bottom of this page.-Civilizededucationtalk 03:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE: Moved section down at request of Civilizededucation. Roger Pearse (talk) 11:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Civilizededucation

Since Kalidasa 777 has already touched upon most of the issues which I may otherwise have wanted to take up, I will only concentrate on some issues and will take up the rest of them as the proceedings move along. I think there is an attempt to apply an unduly restrictive sourcing policy which is not supported by any WP policy. I have asked Roger Pearse on a number of occasions whether he respects any WP policy, and yet to get an answer. Articles must necessarily comply with policies like WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS. Besides this, Franz Cumont's scholarship is being taken as obsolete and rejected. This is a wrong impression. I will be providing evidence that his scholarship is still very much relevant, and is expected to remain relevant in future too. And the article should be written according to WP policies, not according to the policies assumed by an ed on his own whims. Lastly, it is my general impression that Roger Pearse has been exercising ownership on this article for quite some time, some years now. He should be made to give up that way of thinking. He should understand that all eds are entitled to edit articles, and articles are not supposed to be controlled by a few eds, and not supposed to be written from about 4/5 sources approved by these eds. This is intellectual tyranny at its worst. And articles should be neutral and comprehensive. As I already said, I want to avoid repeating things which have already been touched upon by Kalidasa 777 above, and wanting to keep this brief, will take up further issues later on as the discussion proceeds. Thanks.-Civilizededucation^talk 17:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Guidelines for Mediation

Below are my guidelines for mediation, in order for this to be a successful project.

1. All parties must assume that the other editors are acting in good faith to reach a compromise solution.
2. Everyone will avoid long walls of text, instead trying to focus in on specific arguments rather than going off on a tangent.
3. Editors will forget past warring and focus on a solution-driven path.
4. Editors will have this page on their watchlist to be updated with new items of discussion.

I would like all four parties to sign off on these guidelines before proceeding, with your sigs below... Lord Roem (talk) 23:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• .Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• .With the caveat that I may/ may not be agreeable to not editing the article for a very long time.ie. more that two-three weeks.-Civilizededucation^talk 04:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• .Roger Pearse (talk) 08:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• .TomHennell (talk) 10:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I will now look over the talk page to get a final grasp of the conflict before beginning the next step later this afternoon. I hope this first step shows that you are not always uncompromising people -- you were able to agree here. Lord Roem (talk) 12:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Going through the talk page, you may find that after starting the edit war, Roger Pearse had put up a summary of the issues, as he saw them. And within one hour or so of putting up this TRDR post, he was accusing me of being a vandal etc. because I had not replied to it already. So, he creates the impression that this was the reason for him calling names. However, if you look here,Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Changes which damage the Mithras article, he is already referring to me as a vandal before starting the edit war, and please also notice the earful that he gets from another user about owning the article, etc.-Civilizededucation^talk 16:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

There's more on his atrocious behaviour. If you look here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Civilizededucation, you find that this report shows that Roger's socking accusations are false. However, instead of considering an apology, he has now moved to claiming that I am acting in concert with Kalidasa777. And this is after agreeing to assume good faith. Do you think he is keeping his word?-Civilizededucation^talk 16:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a fresh start. I ask that you forget past issues - ignoring this process is simply not helpful. Lord Roem (talk) 16:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

First Steps to Compromise

I have 'devised' a method of mediation that focuses on solutions and long-term community for the editors involved. The first step here is agreeing on a gameplan, which we did above with the guidelines for the process. Now we move on to a more difficult part. Difficult not in its actual nature, but in the fact that we as human beings like to never give an inch of ground in disputes, especially over the internet.

So here is what I ask of all four parties: I want you to concede something. I want you to agree with a point of another party, opposite of your present views. Look at the others' statements, and see a good point they make.

This is an effort at good faith discussion that you feel your views are understood and being heard. Regardless of your previous troubles with others, I ask that you make this small sign of goodwill to air out the conflict in this mediation. So again, I ask that you agree with another's point, some argument that you can say "hey, that's agreeable" or "hey, I can understand where he's coming from."

Best regards, Lord Roem (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I would concede Kalidasa's point; that the citing a blog-page as a source is not good practice. I would hope that the key information contained in this citation (which is important to have accessible on the page) could be recasted to sit as a footnote without transgressing wikipedia policies against original reasearch. TomHennell (talk) 17:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It should represent all the scholarly positions on the issues....User Roger Pearse makes the point that the article should represent all the scholarly positions on the issues. I agree that this is how it should be.-Civilizededucation^talk 17:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with what I understand CivilisedEducation's point to be, that the article could usefully say more about the point of view that Mithras was worshipped in Cilicia in 68 BC. Roger Pearse (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I liked Tom Hennell's summary about Walter Burkert says about characteristics of Graeco-Roman mystery cults. Very helpful point indeed. Perhaps consideration should be given to mentioning what Burkert says in the article itself? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Issues to be discussed

I would now like each editor to bullet-point and explain (in less than 200 words please), the specific changes/issues they want to be resolved about the article. As the opening statements were lengthy, this will aid in allowing me to place some structure for discussion. Lord Roem (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Tom Hennell

• The scope of the article: just the Mithraic Mysteries; or wider Mithra worship in antiquity?
• Should editors continue to be instructed to source their contributions to recognised experts in the field of Mithraic studies – necessarily a fairly small band – or should published work of non-specialist academics be acceptable for citation?
• Do the early, more speculative theories of Franz Cumont (in particular, those published before 1914) count as reliable published sources?
• How should the article deal with the particular hypothesis that the Mysteries of Mithras may have influenced early Christianity – or vice versa ? This is not supported by any current Mithraic specialist, but nevertheless is widely speculated in published works of popular mythology.
• Should we provide a more detailed section examining ancient Christian antagonism against Mithaism – Justin, Tertullian, Jerome?
• Why the interest in a particular off-hand remark of Marvin Meyer, in which he says nothing that is not said more rigorously and accurately by Clauss or Beck? Meyer’s field is the Mithas Liturgy and I understand he has interesting opinions (albeit that few other specialists agree with them) on the degree to which that text indicates that magic may have figured in Mithaism and other mystery cults. Why not those? TomHennell (talk) 02:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Kalidasa

1. Questions about scope and structure of the article:

• Does the intro overdo what it says about abundance of archeological evidence, and extreme scarcity of textual evidence?
• Is the list of 1st century AD archeological sites (almost immediately after the intro) an appropriate way to begin the article?
• Should the article talk more and earlier about the name "Mithras"?
• To what extent (if at all) should the article contextualize the Mithras of Rome in relation to what Tom refers to as "cognate 'Mitra' divinities".
• To what extent (if at all) should it contextualize the Mithraic Mysteries in terms of their similarities and differences to other Graeco-Roman mystery cults?
• To what extent (if at all) should it contextualize Roman Mithraism in terms of its relation to early Christianity?

2. Questions about sources:

• Is enough said about Cumont and his views? Is he really as obsolete and superseded as Tom and Roger seem to think?
• Is there enough recognition in the article of diversity of views among recent Mithras specialists already cited in the article (including their views about Cumont, and about each other)?
• Is there a single set of four or so modern specialist writers (as now appears at the top of its talk page) applicable to all questions which the article deals with or should deal with? (E.g. where does that list of four leave Walter Burkert, whom Tom cited in his opening statement?) Kalidasa 777 (talk) 10:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Civ

1. Do four or five individuals constitute a field? Particularly in the situation when other scholars seem to ignore what they say.
2. How do we know that scholars who ignore others are actually unaware of other works.
3. Is it in keeping with policy to make it necessary that whatever is being said by scholars should be backed by archeological/textual evidence.
4. Is it proper for eds to check what is backed by archeological/textual evidence and decide if what the scholars say is in/valid.
5. Is it proper for eds to neglect to note what they think is not backed by archeological/textual evidence, or is a wrong interpretation of such evidence, even when scholarly sources are doing the interpretation.
6. Are we persuing WP:Truth
7. Is it proper to discuss the origins and annihilation of Mithraism in the article, and the intervening period between origin and its annihilation.
8. Is this article about Mithraism, or is it about roman Mithraism
9. Is Meyer’s field Mithras liturgy
10. If not, what exactly is his field.
11. Is sourcing requirement dependent on the article as a whole, or is the requirement different for different points within the same article
12. Is a book written for teaching purpose not an RS
13. If there is a shadow of paganism/Mithraism on Christianity, or vice versa, should the article note it
14. If a scholar says that apologists have been inventing creative theological explanations for similarities between Christianity and Mithraism, and also lists out the similarities, is there some policy based reason to ignore this criticism.
15. Is there a need to check the refs
16. Is neutrality and comprehensiveness important
17. Is ed OR better than scholarly OR
18. Do we respect any WP policy.-Civilizededucation^talk 11:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

19 Who are the scholars who are seen as constituting the current field.

20 Does scholarly stuff become rubbish by virtue of being available on the web.

There are about five more issues. I think it would be prudent to bring them up after about a couple of days or so. I would like bring them up then if there be no objection.-Civilizededucation^talk 14:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Roger Pearse

Tom asks the sort of questions I would ask (I haven't yet read the others - sorry), but here are my queries anyway.

• What is the definition of a "reliable source" for the Mithras article? Do we restrict it to scholars who have published academic research books and articles on Mithras, or do we include scholars whose research interests may touch on Mithras, or anyone who publishes scholarly research, or even broader than that?

• How far should an article about Mithras concern itself with "Christianity and Mithras" issues? Does the same apply to other ancient cults, or just Christianity?

• Should the article take a position on issues over which reliable sources disagree, or should it just report what reliable sources say? How do we deal, then, with the problem that none of us have read everything, so what we report may misrepresent by selection and (inevitable) omission?

• How should we deal with the flood of nonsense information off the web? Who decides that it is nonsense? Roger Pearse (talk) 14:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Issue #1 - Blog Sources

First issue will be on the following question: "Is the use of a blog source both appropriate and consistent with policy?" I have a proposed compromise on the subject, and here I would like your first comments and discussion. I propose that blog sources, prima facie, are bad with the exception for a blog source by a qualified person in the field. So a blog source could be allowed if the author fulfills the usual expert requirements to constitute a source. Thoughts? Lord Roem (talk) 17:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but I would go further than that. My own thought is that a blog post cannot be an *authority*, even if it is written by a qualified person in the field, because it will not be a peer-reviewed publication. People use blogs to chat, not to offer considered opinions. On the other hand, it would be pretty daft to ignore a translation into English by someone of a relevant source, simply because it was on a blog and therefore not peer-reviewed. The link to that material would be of use to readers, in my view. Ideally we would link to a qualified, peer reviewed translation, which was online. Sadly most of the world's literature is not online and does not exist in English. What we should not do in my opinion, tho, is use that post as an authority of any kind. How does that grab people?

Perhaps a specific example: the case that Mithras is connected to Cilicia relies on two ancient sources, Plutarch and Servius. Servius is impossible for any normal person to access. A translation of the relevant portion is on a blog page. Do we link to it or not? Roger Pearse (talk) 19:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

First off, I would say that Roger Pearse should not out himself under any circumstances. Secondly, I would go with the view that blog sources are prima facie bad, except when they would come from an RS, and it appears that the material is serious scholarly exegesis. And, IMO, if RSs ignore to say something, we can do so too.-Civilizededucation^talk 04:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Great! So we have an agreement here. I'll wait for the other parties to confirm this agreement. Lord Roem (talk) 04:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think Lord Roem's suggestion strikes about the right balance... Maybe we would have an agreement... except for one thing... When Roger speaks (in his reply to the Lord Roem's suggestion) of a blog presenting crucial material from the Roman writer Servius, he is alluding to one of his own self-published sites. Reference to Mithras in the Commentary of Servius One of the two sites of Roger's which Civ has objected to, and (if I understand his position correctly) still does.

As for myself, I read Roger's blog with interest, but I still cannot see why the WP page should link there... If this passage ofhas been cited as a relevant bit of evidence by academic historians of Mithras, wouldn't WP be better off to look at what those academics say about it, and link to them, instead of to a blog? On the other hand, if the academic historians have ignored Servius' statement altogether, maybe WP can follow their example?

On the other hand, I agree with Lord Roem that a blog source by a qualified person in the field would be ok. One example of a self-published website to which the page should, in my view, continue to link -- David Ulansey's page Cosmic Mysteries of Mithras. It is Ulansey's own internet adaptation of an article he did for a journal. Ulansey is a specialist in the area, whose views -- though controversial -- are certainly part of current academic discussion. Ulansey's website is a useful "horse's mouth" introduction to his overall position. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 08:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I had not visited Roger Pearse's website or blog. As such, I may have not understood the conversation completely. However, I think that there is agreement that both these links should be deleted.-Civilizededucation^talk 12:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

What I take from the above, Roger, is that you had translations on your blog with you have used in the article. While I understand your qualificaitons, can you understand CE and K7's view that because its not peer-reviewed it shouldn't be linked? Lord Roem (talk) 12:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

They say that no expert can edit Wikipedia, because the moron and the expert meet on equal terms, and the expert has other claims on his time. It seems that it is true. I am weary of explaining this point about Servius, what I did and why I did it; not as an authority, but simply out of goodwill, to help people with no Latin read what was not otherwise available. I have done so at least three times now. None of you have troubled to read what I write, or to grasp the point at issue.

Pardon me, but I have lost any interest in this interminable discussion. I do what I do in order to help people, and the time spent here is interfering with doing so. I am attempting to translate the untranslated Porphyry Ad Gaurum, which I intend to place online. Do whatever you wish with the Wikipedia article. Roger Pearse (talk) 13:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Since you have never had the opportunity to learn civility, besides leaving this article, you are free to retire so that others may be free to edit in a civil atmosphere.-Civilizededucation^talk 14:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I am weary of explaining this point about Servius, what I did and why I did it; not as an authority, but simply out of goodwill, to help people with no Latin read what was not otherwise available. I have done so at least three times now. It is being made out that the point about Servius has been explained three times already. I did not notice it even once. Here’s the course of events as I see them. Please check it too.

I find out that an ed’s name is in the refs and start a thread to query this on 1st Feb here

As can be see in the thread, there is no response from Roger pearse, so where did he explain anything about these links? Only me and Tom Hennel discuss the issue.

In the thread, one may find me AGF on Roger that the may have been trying to be helpful, and may have added the links because he may have been unfamiliar with the policies on the issue. But I still have not response from Roger Pearse.

I removed the links on 10 Feb, and still no response. One may also note that I clearly said that I am going to remove them. Presently, Roger Pearse has been accusing me numerous times that I had removed them while claiming to move them. But this thread is evidence that I had clearly said that I am going to remove them. Can anyone show a good explanation for Roger’s accusation.

And it's not as if I removed these links without providing Roger a decent time for discussion.

After this, the first thing which I see from Roger Pearse is here. Here, he is indulging in misrepresentations, accusations, etc. behind my back, draws fire from another uninvolved admin, but is unfazed, and since then, most of his posts have been extremely uncivil,(I would be happy if somebody should check) and I have either not read most of them, or failed to see any meaning in them because they were intolerably uncivil. And I get to see the edit war. I think he has only explained himself by responding with incivility, misrepresentations, accusations. My attempts to AGF and to provide time for discussion have been futile. I have had to make all this clear because Roger Pearse says that he had explained himself three times already. I don’t think he did it even once.-Civilizededucation^talk 17:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I accept Lord Roem's suugestion. On the specific point discusseed above; it would appear to me that there should not be a problem involved in quoting the untranslated original (Servius/Cumont) in a footnote with reference to the source edition. The issue therefore refers to the translations that Roger has helpfully undertaken for texts that are misrepresented in English citations. I do not see that Roper's rendering might not be shown in parentheses. Is a translation of a quoted text to be proscribed as 'orignal research'; if so, it would seem to me to be straining at a gnat? TomHennell (talk) 14:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Tom here. If Servius is cited in a historical argument by a scholar like Franz Cumont, (a very recent writer in comparison with Servius himself or with Plutarch)... In that case, yes, Cumont's argument can be mentioned in the WP page itself. Translation of relevant excerpts (e.g. Servius from Latin, or Cumont from French), with the original Latin or French text in a footnote, certainly should not be ruled out as "original research". Translations can be verified readily enough today, by a reasonably intelligent person with access to online dictionaries and translators, even if he or she isn't a specialist in the language concerned. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The user has not provided the translations in the article. Added to that, the user has reinserted numerous OR, misrepresentations in the article numerous times without any explanation. The user has also been making completely bad claims based on imagination only. (Please see my response to the user's opening statement, it has one example, more can be provided.) As such, there is no reason to think that the translation would not be imaginative. As such, the translation is not needed.-Civilizededucation^talk 18:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh sorry. I had a different impression of the work on the blog. If its just translations, I see no reason why it can't be linked. If you all want, I can personally check (as I know Latin). Then I propose the following: That the translations be allowed, provided a link is also given to the original text/non-translated version. Good? Bad? Lord Roem (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Roger's blog gives a Latin text with a sentence emphasized, explains its meaning in English. Also accuses another website of having a pro-Jewish and anti-Christian orientation. Why don't you click and take a quick look at the blog? It's not long. Reference to Mithras in the Commentary of ServiusKalidasa 777 (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I've just located a passage in the specialist literature which discusses the relevance of Servius to the history of Mithraism. The book in which it appears is already mentioned on the WP page, however this particular passage is not currently mentioned as far as I can see. Anyway, it was published many years before Roger Pearce's blog, contextualizes Servius and Plutarch in terms of the debate among modern historians, and would, in my view, be more appropriate for the WP page to link to... Suggest other editors have a look at this passage, and see if you agree...

E.D.Francis "Plutarch's Mithraic pirates". Appendix to Franz Cummont "The Dura Mithraeum". In the book: John R. Hinnells Mithraic Studies: Proceedings of the first international congress. Manchester University Press 1975. Vol 2, p 207 to 210. (reference to Servius is in a lengthy footnote to page 208) Google books link Kalidasa 777 (talk) 17:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Kalidasa; Francis's references and notes do indeed provide the relevant texts for the Plutarch and Servius passages (and the less specific one of Lucian). Moreover he also provides chapter and verse for the misuse of those texts by later scholars (and non-scholars) - which is Roger's point; and which needs to be accessible to the article. But Francis does not translate the Lation sources, so for Engish-language Wikipedia purposes we are indebted to Roger, What is also clear in the context of Francis's appendix, is the contrast between Cumont's later scholarship - as demonstrated in the paper on the Dura mithraeum read to the Manchester congress - and his earlier work; which exhibits the tendency towards free speculation (albeit with Cumont, hedged with qualifications) that characterised much late 19th century work on mythological themes. As Francis shows, Cumont's suggestions - without his reservations - then came to be commonly stated as established historical findings. It is not uncharacteristic of much subsequent Mithraic scholarship tht more weight has been laid on Cumont's speculative interpretations than on this stricter account of the actual evidence.( note 320 on page 209; incidentally, Francis's appendix is in Vol 1, not Vol 2. TomHennell (talk) 18:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Tom. You're right, it is in Vol 1, not Vol 2. I won't respond to your point about Cumont straight away, because Lord Roem wanted to divide up this discussion into issues, and we are currently on "Issue # 1 Blog Sources". I hope we get to the Cumont issue soon. There are some points I intend to make re Cumont, and I am looking forward to a stimulating and constructive discussion. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Returning to the issue of blog sources.

Tom, I agree with you that for English language Wikipedia, access to texts in English is important. That is why (as I indicated in my opening statement) I think that out of the 2 Roger Pearse pages to which the article currently links, one of them, which consists almost entirely of raw textual data in English, should probably stay: Mithras: all the passages in ancient texts that refer to the cult

The other page, Reference to Mithras in the Commentary of Servius, it seems to me, is in a somewhat different category. It translates just one sentence into English, also contains a large slab of Latin (which apart from that one sentence remains untranslated), and makes a point about the anti-Christian religious agenda of another website. Is linking to a blog like that consistent with NPOV? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I think K77 is right that the blog entry really doesn't translate the whole passage. I think it should still be used for context, but the other source you provided above is simply better on the question. Thoughts? Lord Roem (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

To put things in perspective, let us consider the following situation- I find some non RS blogs making some point related to the article, convince myself that it is correct in what it says, or convince myself that what it says is necessary for the article. Can I link to those blogs for context? Generally I would not do something like this because I think we can neglect to note any points which scholarly sources neglect to note. If I manage to find a scholarly source, the blog thing is redundant (for WP purposes) in any case? Can I expect to link even when the blog happens to be an attack site and even when I have opposition from other eds? Would it not be better to look at the policies for guidance on this matter? I think WP:QS and WP:Blogs could be saying something on this matter.-Civilizededucation^talk 01:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I am unsure who you reckon you are arguing with here Civilizededucation. No one is suggesting that linking to a blog is good practice. Blogs change, as more material and posts are added, and there is no assurance that the item of interest will remain clearly apparent. The question at issue, as I see it, is how to assist readers with English-language only, with citations to sources that are not in English, and where no peer-reviewed translation is on the web. The untranslated Servius reference is a case in point; but the issue will become more generally appplicable if - as I understand some editors wish - we include more matter sourced to Cumont. Cumont consistently revised his theories in the light of additional evidence, but his later work only exists in French. Beck, for one, has undertaken a number of studies in which he cites later Cumont as a contrast to early Cumont. But Beck being bilingual, saw no need to translate the cited passages. We are not so lucky. TomHennell (talk) 16:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

If we have agreement that we don't think much of blogs, let's delete them? The proper way to providing translations to non english sources is discussed at WP:NONENG. We can also use services like these [2], as suggested by Kalidasa 777.-Civilizededucation^talk 01:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC) And if I want to cite Cumont or any other source, I assure you that I will be doing it without adding my name to the article and I will be doing it without taking recourse to links to my personal blog or website.-Civilizededucation^talk 02:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

While there are some auxillary issues here, I do think we have come to an agreement. Blog sources should usually be considered bad to include, barring a qualified source which attempts to relay information in good faith (so not found as an implicit thought in an opinion piece for example). Lord Roem (talk) 02:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

OK by me TomHennell (talk) 10:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's remove the blog links then? And I am still far from being convinced about the usability of the website link.-Civilizededucation^talk 14:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I want to wait for K77's view on this before clearing it through - but it looks like we are ready to move on to the next issue. Lord Roem (talk) 17:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

With respect, Roger Pearse created the links and sourced the translations. If the solution is to replace the links with orignals and translations within the footnotes; then we should allow Roger the opportunity to do that himself. TomHennell (talk) 11:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

He has been behaving like a bum all through. And there is no reason to show respect to him any more than he would show to others. In any case, articles can be edited. There is only some restriction on editing other user's comments, but there is no need to show consideration to other's edits if they are unnecessary for the article.-Civilizededucation^talk 11:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

We are all engaged in a process of mediation. That involves acknowledging other participants' good faith and respecting the value of their edits. If the consensus is that those edits require to be changed, then Roger should be given the opportunity to do so himself, at the conclusion of the process. Don't jump the gun. TomHennell (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Roger has opted out of the mediation process. And no editor gets the privilege of having a requirement that his edits cannot be edited by others. There is no reason why Roger should be accorded any special privileges. I am not jumping any guns, but I had already taken down these links on an earlier occasion, and I have no qualms about taking down many more edits if I see some problem in them. His ownership of this article has been challenged by me. It is over now. Lots of edits are going to be made and unmade. Please stop regarding his edits as sacred or something. If people do not want their work to be edited by others, they should not submit it on WP. If it is on WP, it is open to editing. In any case, I have already said that I may not be agreeable to not editing the article for an overly long period. So, it is not necessary that I would wait for the process to end before I start editing the article. However, as yet, I have no intention of editing the article without a clear "Go".-Civilizededucation^talk 16:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

And I don't see why we should allow known WP:QS (personal blogs, websites etc.), OR, misrepresentations etc. to stay in the article while we deliberate (for months possibly).-Civilizededucation^talk 01:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think there is enough consensus for now on the principles re this issue. What is the next issue to discuss? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalidasa 777 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bot is quite right -- this is my comment. Sorry forgot to sign! Kalidasa 777 (talk) 21:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Issue #2 - Cumont

Question posted: "Is enough said about Cumont and his views" ? -- Lord Roem (talk) 03:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's have a look at the section about Franz Cumont in the WP page now. The first 3 lines of that section are a description of Cumont's work and views. Followed by 11 lines about strong criticisms of Cumont made at an international conference in 1971. Then a line and a half about Roger Beck saying that actually there are recent theories which revive Cumont's idea of east-west transfer. Then this is immediately contradicted by a quote expressing a position at odds with Cumont's -- a quote which at 1st sight seems to come from Beck, but when we read the footnote, turns out to be the work of someone else...

Here is something else Roger Beck says about Cumont, which might be worth quoting: in a paper presented in 1996, Beck describes Cumont's interpretation of Mithraism as "the 'default' account to which we tend to return". _Beck on Mithraism_ (Ashgate Publishing, 2004) page 31

I have put my own perspective below, but to comment on your suggestions; Beck does not say that Cumont's interpretation of Mithraism is "the 'default' account to which we all tend to return"; he says this of Cumont's account of the role of "Anatolia and and the Mazdean diaspora" as geographic and religious intermediaries between Iranian Mithra and Roman Mithras. This particular paper of Beck is not concerned with the interpretation of Mithaism (Beck's own interpretation has almost nothing in common with that of Cumont), but rather with the process of the cult's 'Genesis'. Furthermore, Beck in the paper specifically contrasts Cumont's early views (on page 31) with his later position (on page 42) which Beck says he himself has done little more than update TomHennell (talk) 03:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC).

I am certainly not suggesting that academic criticisms of Cumont should be denied or censored out. I am simply suggesting that our page should aim at a really neutral overview of the debate among qualified people. And to achieve that NPOV, we need to pay more attention, both to what Cumont actually says, and to what Roger Beck (25 years after that 1971 conference) sees as the continuing relevance of Cumont. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 08:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I certainly agree that there should be a neutral presentation of current scholarship - but the key word here is 'current'. It is not the function of Wikipedia - as I understand it - to give equal weight to old theories that no current specialist in the field would regard as sustainable in view of more recent evidence. Beck states that Cumont's hypotheses remain the starting point for many recent theories of the origins of Mithraism, (albeit that Beck states that Cumont's 'master narrative' identifying Mithaic iconographic representations with Zoroastrian themes is now entirely abandoned). But these new theories are due to current scholars, and if we include them, they should be referenced to those scholars. Beck notes that some of these more recent theories maintain revised 'Cumontian' positions on particular aspects of Mithraism; but that does not imply that those current theories can be found in their current form within Cumont's books; and certainly not that Cumont's works need to be cited in illustrating them. TomHennell (talk) 03:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with all of what has been said above. Besides that, in this ref, we can see Beck saying that one of cumont’s models is still relevant and say that it should remain relevant in future too. As such, there is no reason to think that whatever cumont says is superseded scholarship. IMO, Cumont should be cited like other scholars and in case there is a differeing view or criticism, that should also be cited.

Following this link [3], in a scholarly review of a book by Roger Beck, we can see sentences like “While the long shadow cast by Cumont is sometimes susceptible to exaggeration, recent research such as that of Robert Turcan demonstrates that Cumont's influence is still strong.1” and “This observation is the basis for identifying a range of scholarly positions on the ancient cult. These range from the suggestions of Ulansey, who sees Mithraism as a reflection of exceptionally precise astronomical knowledge among a small, intellectual elite in the ancient world, to Swerdlow, who sees Mithraic doctrine as so poor that the cult was little more than a crude activity of the common Roman soldiery.3 In between are the positions of Merkelbach, who emphasises the ongoing importance of the Platonic tradition, and Turcan, who essentially follows a modified version of Cumont.4”

Besides Robert Turcan, I have the impression that L. A. Campbell has views which are somewhat similar to that of Cumont. So, I think there is no reason to see Cumont’s scholarship as obsolete.-Civilizededucation^talk 11:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

What I find here Civilizededucation, is a series of citations of modern scholars who maintain 'revised' or 'modified' Cumontian theories, or whose views are 'somewhat similar to that of Cumont'. You seem to be moving from the statement 'some modern scholars hold opinions that are similar to instances found within the writings of Cumont' to the statement 'Any theory found in Cumont's writings may be cited as modern scholarship'. I am sure you can see that this does not follow. It is precisely because the overall 'master narrative' of Cumont has been rejected by all specialist Mithraic scholars as unsustainable; that Beck and others point out specific exceptional instances where modern scholars are taking positions that are 'Cumontian'.

However, all this is arguing in a vacuum. You clearly feel that there are particular texts within Cumont's own work that need to be cited within the article as current scholarship. It would help us all I think, to give two or three specific examples; as all the quotes you give above are about Cumont not from him. TomHennell (talk) 03:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

It will help all of us, I think to give the section complete as it stands

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. 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",[27] the Persian state religion, disseminated from the East.

Cumont's theories were examined and largely rejected at the First International Congress of Mithraic Studies held in 1971. John Hinnells was unwilling to reject entirely the idea of Iranian origin,[28] but wrote: "we must now conclude that his reconstruction simply will not stand. It receives no support from the Iranian material and is in fact in conflict with the ideas of that tradition as they are represented in the extant texts. Above all, it is a theoretical reconstruction which does not accord with the actual Roman iconography."[29] He discussed Cumont's reconstruction of the bull-slaying scene and stated "that the portrayal of Mithras given by Cumont is not merely unsupported by Iranian texts but is actually in serious conflict with known Iranian theology."[30] Another paper by R. L. Gordon argued that Cumont severely distorted the available evidence by forcing the material to conform to his predetermined model of Zoroastrian origins. Gordon suggested that the theory of Persian origins was completely invalid and that the Mithraic mysteries in the West was an entirely new creation.[31]

Boyce states that "no satisfactory evidence has yet been adduced to show that, before Zoroaster, the concept of a supreme god existed among the Iranians, or that among them Mithra - or any other divinity - ever enjoyed a separate cult of his or her own outside either their ancient or their Zoroastrian pantheons."[32]

Beck tells us that since the 1970s scholars have generally rejected Cumont, but adds that recent theories about how Zoroastrianism was during the period BC now makes some new form of Cumont's east-west transfer possible.[33] "Apart from the name of the god himself, in other words, Mithraism seems to have developed largely in and is, therefore, best understood from the context of Roman culture."[34]

The problem is with the final para, which mentions Cumont in passing, but consists of Beck's summary of more recent theories from Gordon and Kreyenbroek in particular. These should be put into the next section on Modern Throries and sourced to Gordon and Kreyenbroek as appropriate. In so far as Gordon's more recent paper may qualify the statement in the last sentance of para 2 above, that may need to be removed.

Otherwise, I don't see much wrong with the rest of the section. It should state that Cumont advanced the hypothesis that Roman Mithraism was a Roman form of Mazdaism, and that this view was widely accepted until definitively abandoned in Mithraic scholarship in the 1970s, and it should state why. The rest is properly discussed along with other current theories. Perhaps an extra sentence might be added to the first para, sourced to Beck to the effect that, "while there is now a scholarly consensus that Cumont's master narrative is no longer sustainable, nevertheless some recent theories have explored the possibility that antecents to Roman Mithraism may be found in revised understandings of Iranian religion."

As to whether Cumont should be cited as a current authority on Mithraism in general, the answer is clearly no. The same would apply in most fields. Cumont's late 19th century work is history, and generally should be cited as such. That particularly applies to the Engish translation by McCormack of "The Mysteries of Mithra", which circulates widely on the internet. That was a work of popularistation, most of whose general statements Cumont himself subseqently came to qualify, withdraw or modify in his many later works; which are generally untranslated. Looking through 'Beck on Mithraism' I find the MacCormack translation nowhere referenced. TomHennell (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

If Roger Beck doesn't reference McCormack's translation of Cumont, perhaps that is because Roger Beck can read French, assumes his readers can do the same, and therefore cites Cumont in Cumont's own (untranslated) words...

Even if it were true that Cumont's position was (as Tom puts it) "definitively abandoned" in the early seventies, how are WP readers to understand that abandonment unless they first have a handle on what Cumont actually said? Do five words "the Roman form of Mazdaism" really say all we need to say about Cumont's findings?

Regarding Tom's issue of "current scholarship"... I don't see this question in black and white terms... It is clear that an 1896 publication is not as "current" as a 1996 one... For that matter, a 1971 publication is not as "current" as a 1996 one... But what are we to make of the fact that a hundred years after Cumont's work first appeared, writers like Beck continue to refer to Cumont, and to cite his work in its original form? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 06:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

What I am suggesting, basically, is that since we already have a section with Cumont's name in the header, that section need to pay a little more attention to Cumont's own work. I propose there should be 3 subsections...

• A subsection about Cumont's actual position. Which would logically begin by stating the full title of Cumont's large work about Mithraism, both in French and English.
• A subsection containing criticisms of Cumont made at the conference in 1971.
• A subsection containing assessments of Cumont, given by scholars in this field subsequent to 1971. Which could include the Roger Beck statement which Civ has brought to our attention, that the "old Cumontian model... is by no means dead -- nor should it be".

The first of these 3 subsections might do well to quote or at least refer to a passage from Cumont which is cited in French in Beck on Mithraism (p 31) -- the passage where Cumont speaks metaphorically of a series of layers within Mithraism, like the layers in a geological formation -- the deepest layer being the Mazdaism of ancient Iran, and above that, layers attributable to Babylon and Asia Minor, and then a plant-like growth of Hellenic conceptions on the top.

There is an English translation of this Cumont passage close to the end of the chapter "Origins of Mithraism" in The Mysteries of Mithra. Yes, I know this translation is by McCormack, who is allegedly the source of so many popular misconceptions. I would suggest we refer to it, nonetheless, unless someone can recommend a better translation by a recognized scholar. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 08:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying what you suggest; and I would agree that the article ought to give the titles of Cumont's major works in French, and note that the early introductory monogaraph was translated by McCormack with the title "The Mysteries of Mitha'. It should also note that Cumont substantially revised and qualfied his earlier work in the light of subsequent archeological discoveries by himself and others. One key issue here being that of the dating of Roman Mithraism. In the McCormack translation, Cumont speculates that Mithraism may have first reached Rome in association with the campaigns of Pompey (i.e. around 60 BCE). In his later work 'Les religons orientales dans le paganisme romaine' (1929) he states that the diffusion of Mithraism in the Roman empire did not start until the end of the 1st century CE. As Beck makes clear, when he talks of a modified 'Cumontian' model, he is talking of the later Cumont, not the early Cumont. The passage that Beck quotes on page 31 is one that the later Cumont did return to, but only in heavily qualified form (see quotation in Beck p 42). So we certainly cannot quote it as though it were current scholarly opinion.

The basic point, as Beck states in the introductory essay on page 28 of his collection; that the "Cumont's master narrative of east-west transfer' is generally agreed to be unsustainable. That remains the case, as Beck makes clear. No current Mithras specialist now defends a model of Mithraic developments as geological strata; with Mazdaism at the bottom, Babylonian Meduseans on top of that, Hellenized Anatolian mystery cults on top of that, and Roman Mithraism at the visible growth on the surface. For one thing, 'Mazdaism' as Cumont understood it does not appear to have existed in the form he proposed. Iranian civic religion was Zoroastrian. Secondly, the evidence for a Hellenic stratum of Mithras veneration is entirely lacking. When Beck talks of a revised Cumontian model, he is referring to theories that still maintain that Roman Mithraism derived some elements from Iranian sources, but such alternatives mainly suggest some other point of ultimate origin than Zoroastrian theology, and some other means of transfer than hypothetical Hellenized Anatolian Mithra mystery cults.

My suggestion is that, although such theories are classified as 'revised Cumontian; by Beck, they are not in any sense Cumont's theories - they explicitly deny Cumont's 'master narratives', while looking for alternative possible mechanisms for east-west transfer. Most important, (though this is not so clear from Beck's quoted essay, as in his book: "The Religion of the Mithras Cult in the Roman Empire: Mysteries of the Unconquered Sun": 2006) the revised theories are primarily astrological, where Cumont was theological. They are 'Cumontian' in that they are seeing Mithraism as to some degree originating from an east-west transfer; and also 'Cumontina' in the more general sense that they are seeking for an overall interpretation of Mithraism, not just a description of archeological finds. But being 'Cumontian' does not make you a disciple of Cumont, rather the reverse. This is not to say that such theories are not to be included in the article,; simply that they should be sourced to the scholars proposing them, not to Cumont. TomHennell (talk) 02:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

If Cumont revised his theories regarding the origins of mithraism, we need not cite his earlier works. We can easily cite Ulansey for the 67 B.C. reference by Plutarch. And for the earliest evidence of Mithras in Asia Minor, we can cite Turcan for the 1380 B.C. dating [4].-Civilizededucation^talk 09:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I think this Encyclopedia Iranica article by Beck could help us all a lot. It discusses Mithraism, it's origins, various scholarly positions, cumont, et al. There are also some other articles on En. Iranica regarding Mithraism and Cumont. We could also use the articles by Beck as a source for material for our article. Since the article is by Beck, it would be a secondary source and I think all points made in the article, and all sources used/mentioned therein, are fair game for our article. It seems that the field is quite broader than what we thought. It is also clear from this article that there is no agreement on the origins of mithraism and there is a variety of views on this topic. However, there are two main theories. One is that Mithraism is an astral religion which originated in or around Rome and had some relation with Iran. And the other is the cumontian view of origins in Anatolia etc.-Civilizededucation^talk 02:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I see no problems at all in citing the Iranica Article by Beck which is widely disseminated on the Internet. But as above, we should not confuse modern 'Cumontian' theories (in Beck's formulation) with those of Cumont himself. The theories should be cited as 'Modern Theories' to the scholars who have propounded them. TomHennell (talk) 02:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your concern that the keyword for our presentation in the article should/would be "current". I also fully agree that the scholars who take some form of a cumontian view should be cited as themselves, and cumont should not be cited for modern/revised comontian views. However, I find it difficult to agree with the impression that only those scholars who are currently alive can be cited. For example Newton had some ideas eg. Isaac Newton's occult studies, which would be fringe today. We need not talk about such things. However, Newton can easily be cited for his laws of motion? His laws of motion have been further developed and refined, but they too remain relevant. Einstein too had some ideas regarding sun being the source of flow of time, etc. This theory is also thoroughly discredited now. But he can be cited for the theory of relativity? Similarly, parts of Cumont's theories are untenable now, or became untenable during his own time. We need not cite them. But it is obvious that some parts of his theories remain relevant, and remain a part of the current scholarly discussion. We already have Beck identifying some of those. Would you see a problem with citing cumont for theories whose continued relevance is attested by current scholars? I think you don't. So, do we have a meeting of minds here?-Civilizededucation^talk 07:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I am glad we appear agreed that 'Cumontian' theories of modern scholars should be primarily cited to the works of those scholars. And I would also agree with the general principle that scholars do not cease to be citable as current simply because they are dead. My problems with citing Cumont are twofold; that the texts most referred to are over a hundred years old; and also that in these early works he was inclined to passages of free-association speculation, some of which (much to Cumont's personal chagrin) acquired a life of their own in the controversialist writings of conservative protestants and comparative mythologists. Since both groups are widely represented on the internet, a policy of unrestricted Cumont citation potentially opens the door to a lot of unschlolarly speculative polemics. It would help if you made clear which of Cumont's opinions you think ought still to be citable.

I find Beck's term 'master narrative'helpful here. Cumont in his long career advanced four master narratives, two general, two specific to Mithraism.

* 1. The failure of Roman religion and the rise of mystery religions. Cumont argued that the civic religion of Rome had lost both credibility and adherents by 1st century CE, leading to the growth of mystery cults (including Mithraism and Christianity) as exotic alternative oriental religions.

* 2. The Magusaeans and Greek Zoroastrian pseudepigraph. Cumont argued that the vast Greek Zoroaster religious literature derived from Hellenized Magi transmitting much revised sycretised Iranian religion.

* 3. Mithraism as Romanised Mazdaism. Cumont proposed a detailed system for identifying the iconography of Roman Mithtaism with his back-formation of Iranian religious concepts. Key to this was the identification of the Mithraic lion-headed deity with Iranian Zurvan, and hence the theory that Iranian Mazdaism at this date, combined elements of Zoroastrianism and Zurvanism.

* 4. A four-stage model of Mithraic east-west transmission. In Cumont's account, Mithra in Iranian Mazdaism acquired features of Chaldean astrology in Babylonia, and was then taken up by the Magusaeans who transformed into into a Hellenic mystery cult, before being adopted in close to its final form by Roman legions serving in Anatolia.

I think it is fair to say that none of these master narratives is considered sustainable in current specialist scholarship (although all four are still commonly repeated amongst conservative protestants and comparitive mythologists). No classical scholar now regards Roman civic religion as moribund in the 1st century CE. No Hellenic scholar now regards Greek Zoroaster as other than fictional. No Iranian scholar accepts Cumont's reconstruction of a semi-Zurvanite Mazdaism. No Mithras scholar now regards the Magusaeans as playing any significant role in the transmission of Mithraism. On these (or at least numbers 2-4) the reference is to Beck's articles for the Encyclopedia Iranica. Moreover, Cumont himself largely abandoned 3 in his latest work.

Now there is a great deal more in Cumont than these 'master narratives', much of which could be citable; e.g his descriptions of particular monuments and his reports on the excavations of Dura. But are these latter the items you are primarily interested in? TomHennell (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

It is a nice feeling to proceed with some agreement on basic principles of editing. Now, let us take a look at the four master narratives from Cumont and their defiencies/objections, etc. I do not see much importance in the first point, so let us leave that for now. Regarding your 2, you seem to be saying that Zoroaster is now regarded as fictional by all Hellenic scholars. I don’t see how that could be an issue. The Mithraists regarded Zoroaster as the founder of their cult/religion. And is the non existence of Zoroaster somehow supposed to deny Mithraism’s self proclaimed Zoroastrian connection? I think the issue of Zoroaster’s non/existence would be non-issue in this matter. If it has no effect on the views of current Zoroastrians, how could it be an issue for Mithraists? And even if it does have some sort of effect on their self perception, we should let it be known what Mithraists thought about their founder? Secondly, I would also dispute your assertion that Zoroaster is regarded as fictional. At best, the existence of Zoroaster is disputed, but it is not even close to being regarded as fictional. I have consulted two encyclopedias on this matter, and none of them gave me the impression that he is completely fictional. They gave me the impression that he is supposed to have written some passages of the Zoroastrian sacred texts, and probably lived some time between 5th century B.C. to 11th century B.C. etc. So, the objection that he did not exist does not hold anyway. It is only some scholars who say that he did not exist. I think I would accept your objection to 3. However, for 4, we already have Beck saying that some new form of Cumontian model for east-west transmission is once again tenable. So, we should describe what it is, and also the objections to it. I think you and Kalidasa 777 already have an agreement on that, so that should do for now. Beck, 2006, p30 gives a translation of the passage like this--The basal layer of this religion, its lower and primordial stratum, is the faith of ancient Iran, from which it took its origin. Above this Mazdean substratum was deposited in Babylon a thick sediment of Semitic doctrines, and afterwards the local beliefs of Asia Minor added to it their alluvial deposits. Finally, a luxuriant vegetation of Hellenic ideas burst forth from this fertile soil and partly concealed from view its true original nature. So, we could use this translation comfortably regardless of the fact that it appears to have been taken from MacCormack. While citing this, we should include the objection that no modern scholars regard the Megusaens as important. However, we should also include the point that there is only a bit of evidence about them from Dura. After that, I agree with Kalidasa’s suggestion that criticism of Cumont could/should be balanced further. There are several passages in Beck 2006 which could be useful in this regard, and more importantly, say something which would further our understanding of which parts of Cumont are valid, which are still being taken up by modern proponents, who those proponents are, what are their theories, etc. At present, I am unable to outline the other points for which I may want to cite cumont. I may bring them up as I familiarize myself more with cumont's works. However, I assure you that I would not want to stress on points whose current relevance cannot be shown through some modern scholar. If I want to cite cumont for some other point, it would either be an uncontroversial point, or a point where I would show some modern scholar saying that it is relevant, or some modern scholar making the same point. If it would be a controversial point, I would show some modern scholar discussing the controversy. And, in case I show a modern scholar making the same point, we could use both as well? And we can always balance the point by including some criticisms of that point. Cheers.-Civilizededucation^talk 16:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Regarding your twofold concerns against citing cumont, I have already said that I would only be interested in using him for points which are part of the current scholarly discussion. For example, if currently there is no scholarly discussion of Zurvan etc. we need not discuss it too. Maybe we could cite some modern scholar for this point too. So, Cumont's text being hundred years old should not matter? However, I am unable to understand your concern about speculation on the net. The net is a place where there is a lot of speculation on all sorts of issues. Should we begin to modify our articles so as to preclude speculation on the net? I don't think we could prevent people from speculating on the net even if we kept all our articles blank. People who have a tendency to speculate would still continue to speculate. Do speculations need any basis at all. I don't think netizens who build castles in the air are WP's concern.-Civilizededucation^talk 17:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Civilizededucation, I may not have made myself clear. Nobody is claiming that Zoroaster did not exist. You will need to read the Beck article; but the point is that, contrary to Cumont's view, no Hellenic scholar now considers that the pseudepigraphal Greek writers who claimed the name 'Zoroaster' were thereby intending to claim the identity of the real Persian 'Zoroaster', but rather simply used the name as a token of exotic astral wisdom. It follows that the Maguseans had no role in the transmision of the Zoroastrian pseudepigrapha, the Greeks made it up entirely on their own account. This may seem a rather arcane point, but it destroys Cumont's key paradigm for the supposed transmission of Mithraism, which he similarly ascribed to the Maguseans. As Beck says, no Mithraic scholar now thinks that the Maguseans were Mithraists. Some other group or person needs to be nominated as the conduit for east-west transfer; for those scholars who maintain such a theory. In Beck's case, he proposes the Commagene syncretic Mithra cult as a conduit.

This, I think, answers your point with reference to issue 4. The Maguseans correspond to Cumont's line "a luxuriant vegetation of Hellenic ideas". Without them, he has no Hellenic input into the formation of Mithraism other than the Romans themselves. The corollary of this, is that Cumont's basic principle that Mithraism attained its full canonical form as a Hellenic mystery cult in Syrian or Asia Minor, cannot be maintained. Cumont needed to have Mithas worshippers in Mithraea in Syria and Asia Minor in the 1st century CE, with the Roman's then adopting the whole apparatus ready-made; and no Mithras scholar now maintains that variety of east-west transfer theory. Of course scholars can propose other candidates and modes of east-west transfer, but without Cumont's Maguseans, such theories do not do what Cumont wanted them to do, and it would be quite misleading to cite Cumont as though he had proposed them. TomHennell (talk) 18:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Tom. I can now see that you never did claim that Zoroaster did not exist. The misunderstanding is entirely mine. In the same vein, I would say that if Beck proposes the commagene syncertic mithra cult as a conduit, I would never suggest that cumont proposed this point. It would be absurd to do so. I am becoming concerned that we may not be able to discuss things clearly or adequately without applying changes in the article.-Civilizededucation^talk 00:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Tom, I am glad you are agreeable to full title of Cumont's book appearing early in section about Cumont. I agree with you, Civ -- Beck's article in Encyclopedia Iranica is very relevant and helpful. Glad that you see no problem with using it, Tom. Beck begins his article by focussing on a key question -- should Roman Mithraism be thought of

• as something that migrated to the Roman Empire from the Iran region (east-west transfer theory),
• or, as a Roman innovation with a few Persian trappings (Roman innovation theory)?

I think this is indeed a key question, no only for readers of Encyclopedia Iranica, but for everyone interested in the topic. As for Cumont, he was not only, as Beck writes "the founder of modern Mithraic studies", he was also the first of many modern scholars in the field who argued for the east-west transfer theory.

Tom, you've told us a lot about the different views among these scholars -- with differences between Cumont and the late twentieth century Cumontians, and about changing views expressed by Cumont himself over the course of his career. It is all very interesting... But does this diversity of view mean they are wrong (or obsolete, or untenable) on the basic point about which they agree?

Regarding Civ's point about Newton... Another aspect of Newton's work was his concept of light as a stream of particles Later definitively rejected by physicists who argued that light consists of waves. Then in the early 20th century Einstein and his friends came up with wave-particle duality... Perhaps comparable to what's happened with Cumont's theory of east-west transfer? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Good, it seems we have a considerable degree of agreement. I fully agree that we could classify modern theories of the origins of Roman Mithraism according to the categorisation set out by Beck in his Iranica article. I also think we are agreed that 'Cumontian' theories should be referenced primarily to the current scholar advancing them.

But, to take a specific example, Beck states in the Iranica article "Cumont's Magusaeans, although real enough in their own right, are no longer regarded as the conduit for Mithraism". Are you suggesting that, becuase Beck refers to Cumont's views in his article, that we should ignore this statement denying the central element in Cumont's particular version of the east-west transfer theory?

On a point of detail, the Roman/Iranian distinction should not be confused with the Astal/Theological distinction. For the most part, all scholars who seek to offer an interpretation of the iconographic elements of Mithraism now do so primarily on an astrological or cosmoloigical basis. Gordon's 1971 demolition of Cumont's reconstructed Mazdaist theology remains definitive so far as I am aware. TomHennell (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

It is important that the three of us are agreed on the value of Beck's way of categorizing theories about origins of Roman Mithraism.

Am I suggesting we ignore Beck's statement in the Enc. Iranica "Cumont's Magusaeans... are no longer regarded as the conduit for Mithraism"?

No, but I would suggest we take a close look about the context of that statement... Before he makes that criticism of Cumont's theory, Beck first gives his readers a quite detailed summary of what Cumont's theory was. He is not content just to say that Cumont saw Mithraism as the Roman form of Mazdaism -- he does say that, but he also says a lot more...

"For Cumont, Mithraism in the West was Romanized Mazdaism, thus still at its core a Persian religion, though one which had undergone extensive metamorphoses in its passage first through Chaldaea, where it acquired its astrological overlay and the syncretic assimilation to Mithra of the Babylonian Sun god Šamaš; and secondly through Anatolia and the culture of the Magusaeans, the Hellenized Magi of the Iranian diaspora... where it acquired a Stoic cosmology of sorts, especially in its eschatology " (Italics added)

Then, a few sentences later, he notes that "Cumont's Magusaeans... are no longer regarded as the conduit for Mithraism". Then Beck almost immediately adds "There are however other plausible scenarios, some (e.g. Colpe 1975: pp. 390-9; Boyce 1991: pp. 468-90) involving the Iranian diaspora in Anatolia." (italics added)

What I'm basically suggesting is that WP's treatment of Cumont should be a little more like Beck's treatment of Cumont than the current WP page is... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 03:52,

3 March 2011 (UTC)

As I read Beck, he classifies the theories of Mithraic origins into four: two groups (stong and weak) asserting essential discontinuity and two (stong and weak) asserting essential continuity. The strong discontinuity group includes Clauss; the weak discontinuity group includes Beck himself (and most other recent scholarly studies); the strong continuity group includes Cumont and Bivar, together with Campbell and Widengren in studies from the 1960s; the weak continuity group includes Kreyenbroek, Weiss (and also I think the more recent work of Gordon), and again tends to be more recent in scholarship than the 'strong' theories.

All the scholarly studies that Beck identifies as "revised Cumontian" are in the two weak groups; Beck and Boyce in the discontinuity section; Gordon and Kreynebroek in the continuity section. Of the scholars advancing strong continuity, Bivar and Widengren offer effectively no agreement at all with the italicised passage from Cumont above. Cambell study, on the other hand, was, I think, Cumontian in that sense - but his work is now well over forty years old, and very idiosyncratic. It is only relevant to be cited in the article - in my view - if there are points in it that we cannot find in mainstream scholarship.

What the studies in the two 'weak' groups appear to share with the Cumontian scenario you quote, is the belief that Mithraic ideas crystallized to some degree in Anatolia, as an intermediary stage between Iran and Rome. They differ with one another in the degree to which this Anatolian stage is assumed to have constituted a distinct Mithra cult in its own right. The differ absolutely from Cumont in his insistence that the rituals and beliefs in this intermediate stage were "fixes par une tradition seculaire" and passed unchanged into Roman Mithraism. The also differ from Cumont - as Beck points out - in that none of them see these supposed Anatolian Mithraists as Magusaeans.

For Cumont, the Magusaeans were the key point. Whereas Mithraic modern specialists may be interested in the Magusaeans primarily as possible candidates for east-west transfer of Mithraism, Cumont was interested in Mithraism (at as his career developed) primarily because of the light it might give on the religious ideas of the Magusaeans. For this to work; he could not allow that there can have been much any specfically Roman development in the cult. In effect, Cumont was seeking to rescue the Magusaeans from the accusation of Pliny (amongst others) of being mere 'magicians', and establish them as key mediators of Hellenic, Babylonian and Iranian religious ideas. In this, his polar opposite amongst contemporary scholars would appear to be Marvin Meyer (but that is another discussion) TomHennell (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

You've just written that in your view we should only cite L.A.Campbell's work "if there are points in that we cannot find in mainstream scholarship". Isn't this the exactly opposite of what you've been arguing about Cumont -- that we shouldn't say more about his work because he makes points no longer found in mainstream scholarship? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 21:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that we should not cite Cumont where he makes points that are not found in mainstream scholarship; I am suggesting that we should not cite Cumont where he makes points that are not found in current scholarship. To be honest, I am dubious about considering Campbell as 'current'; but if Beck's evaluation is taken as the standard, then I will accept that he is. But Beck also states taht Cumont's 'master narratives' are not current scholarship; that is exactly the point; and that applies particularly to his four-stage theory of Mithraic origins, and to his categorisation of the Magusaeans as Mithraists. I have no difficulty in citing Cumont on points where subsequent evidence is not considered to have rendered them obsolete. TomHennell (talk) 01:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Well Tom, you seem to be saying that the four stage cumontian model is obsolete, per Beck. Could you please explain what Beck means when he says "The old Cumontian model of formation in, and diffusion from, Anatolia (see Cumont 1956a, 11–32; cf. pp. 33–84 on propagation in the West) is by no means dead—nor should it be." Is there no contradiction between what Beck says here, and what you say about Beck's view of Cumont's four stage model?-Civilizededucation^talk 09:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Cumont proposed a 'strong' four-stage transmission, Iran - Babylonia - Anatolia - Rome; in which the final (Roman) stage made little if any change to the rituals or beliefs of the cult. Beck's current 'Cumontian' models propose a 'weak' three-stage transmission, Iran - Anatolia/Armenia - Rome; in which the final Roman stage added substantial elements at least to Mithraic rituals. None of Beck's 'Cumontian' models are four-stage, and only one of his 'strong' models (that of Campbell of 1968) is described by him as Cumontian. Which is the point I was seeking to make earlier on; it would not help the article to illustrate 'Cumontian' models with a quote from Cumont, since all of them differ strongly from him in key respects. We should cite the authors of the theories directly. TomHennell (talk) 01:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

...it would not help the article to illustrate 'Cumontian' models with a quote from Cumont, since all of them differ strongly from him in key respects. We should cite the authors of the theories directly. The major reason to illustrate the cumontian model is that it is important by itself, as beck attests in the ref. Regarding the other authors, I have already said that it would be absurd to make out that cumont proposed the points/theories which are actually proposed by other authors. I would not describe them as cumontian unless an RS described them as such. I have no objection in pointing out the differences between the various theories, and who proposed what, etc. I am all for citing the authors of the various theories directly. Ah, we may be handicapped by the language barrier in some cases. In case of Campbell, his book may even be out of print. Why can't we use other RSs is such cases? I don't see what the difficulty is.-Civilizededucation^talk 08:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it would help to give Beck's quote in full: Since the 1970s, scholars of western Mithraism have generally agreed that Cumont's master narrative of east-west transfer is unsustainable; but, as Gordon has pointed out, recent trends in the scholarship on Iranian religion, by modifying the picture of that religion prior to the birth of the western mysteries, now render a revised Cumontian scenario of east-west transfer and continuities once again viable. I take this as stating that, while the four-stage model (Cumont's strong 'master narrative of east west transfer') continues to be unsustainable; nevertheless various 'revised Cumontian' scenarios ( weak models of transfer, rejecting the full four-stage model but still looking to Anatolia as an intermediary) are now being proposed in current scholarship. This is clear to me in the context, but are you reading Beck differently? TomHennell (talk) 15:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

My assessment of this quote is different from yours. I think too much is being read into the events of 1971. The picture now is quite changed. But more on this later. Could you please provide the next 3-4 lines of the Beck quote? I think they may be of some help in clarifying the context.-Civilizededucation^talk 08:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Setting aside the issue of Cumont's four-stage model (on which see above):

- would it be fair to say that there no other statements from Cumont's early (i.e. pre-1914) writings that editors are proposing as still citable in discussion of current scholarship? I am taking this from the observation that editors are justifying citations from Cumont on Beck's remarks on 'Cumontion' theories of Mithraic origins; and hence I am assuming it to be agreed that none of the other three of Cumont's four master narratives (on Mithraic iconography and Mazdaism; on the Magusaeans and the Zoroastrian pseudepigrapha, and on 'Oriental cults' within Roman religion) is being argued as sustainable in current scholarship. I am also proposing it as agreed (since no one has suggested otherwise) that the many unsourced passing speculations on Mithraism in Cumont's earlier writings, (such as on the Cilician Pirates, on the relationship of Mithraism to the civic cult of Sol Invictus, on Mithraism and the taurobolium; and on the end of Mithraism) are not being proposed as citable. This of course that does not preclude citing current scholars on these latter points. TomHennell (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Let us take this up first. I think you may be getting too worried about hypotheticals. I would say that it may be better to cross the bridge when (and if) we get there. I have already said that if I want to cite any controversial points from cumont, I would establish the relevance of cumont for those points through some modern scholars. ...none of the other three of Cumont's four master narratives (on Mithraic iconography and Mazdaism; on the Magusaeans and the Zoroastrian pseudepigrapha, and on 'Oriental cults' within Roman religion) is being argued as sustainable in current scholarship. For these points, I think it may be better to say what modern scholars say about them. For example, what Beck/Clauss/Merkelbach/Turcan/Ulansey... have to say about these points would be current? Or, would you hold that even these scholars are precluded from speaking on these points? ...(such as on the Cilician Pirates, on the relationship of Mithraism to the civic cult of Sol Invictus, on Mithraism and the taurobolium; and on the end of Mithraism) are not being proposed as citable. Except for the end of mithraism, I think it may be better to use modern scholars for these points. For the end of Mithraism too, we may need only a few lines (about three or four) from cumont. That much should not be a problem? However, I am far from having studied the whole of the literature around mithraism, so, my views could change in future depending on my familiarity with the writings of various authors. If some current author shows that cumont is citable for something, he should also be citable for us. But again, this is a hypothetical situation. Why worry about that too much?-Civilizededucation^talk 18:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I am simply trying to establish the scope of the debate on this point; and in particular whether there is some other statement of Cumont (i.e. other than concerning the east-west transfer of Mithriasm) that you feel strongly ought to be cited in one of the sections of the article. I agree that it is always better to cite modern scholars where possible; and I certainly recognise all of the names you mention as being current scholars, and have no issue with citing their works directly on any of the points I outlined. I am slightly intrigued that you are inclined to regard Cumont as citable in terms of the end of Mithraism; as the evidence leaves rather less room for debate - by the nature of archeology, it is easier to date when something stopped than when it started. Clauss, I think, provides a good summary of the archeological findings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomHennell (talk • contribs) 22:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I am inclined to use cumont for some points related to the end of mithraism because I find him talking about the archeological evidence regarding the destruction of a mithraeum etc. I did not find any other scholar noting the same points. Most of them seemed to skirt around the issue without elaborating on it. But this may be my impression only. It would require more research to see what other scholars say. I would certainly try to look at clauss's works to see if she says something on what I have in mind. Regarding cumontian models, you seem to have the view that except for campbell's model, no other model for origins is "cumontian". However, in Beck 2006, I found him describing his own recent theory about the commagenian dynasty etc. as "cumontian" in some ways. He also describes Turcan's views on origins as being cumontian. So, besides campbell, at least two models for origins would be "cumontian", even if they do not hold exactly the same view as cumont. I am somewhat perplexed as to why you would want modern scholars to be cited directly for their views. What folks say about their own views is important to make sure that we know their views clearly. But what others say about someone's views is a more reliable indicator of their views? For example, I may say that whatever I say is definitive. But is it worth anything if nobody else would agree? Secondly, it may be necessary to cite Beck and others for folks like campbell, cumont, turcan...because their works may be difficult to access due to various reasons (already alluded to elsewhere). I find that turcan is already cited in the article, but through beck. So, why should this option become unavailable now? I think the section on cumont is rather poor because, as pointed out by Kalidasa 777, it does not show what is being heavily criticised, and seems to heap criticisms in a completely onesided way. I think that Kalidasa 777's suggestions can immediately remove some of these weaknesses. The Iranica article can also help us as a guide and source. Furthermore, I think that the criticisms of cumont can and should be balanced. Actually the whole article seems to censor the iranizing influences on mithraism. And the criticisms of cumont also seem to be directed towards this objective. It is very poor form to censor the iranizing influences from the article. There is a lot of material from numerous current scholars on this issue and a lot of it would be needed for the article. Beck 2006 says that scholars continue to put forward theories of iranizing influences. To get a comprehensive picture, we would also need to discuss the issues of the indo-iranian/rig vedic deity mitra/mithra/mitra varuna. Turcan, clauss, merkelbach may be helpful here. However, it may be some time before we get there and these issues may belong to another thread. For now, I think it may be sufficient to take up Kalidasa 777's suggestions for the section on cumont. I may take up the the issue of my reading of beck on cumont's four stage model sometime later in the day or tomorrow.-Civilizededucation^talk 06:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Three points here;

* Beck divides theories of east-west transfer into four; strong discontinuity, weak discontinuity, weak continuity, strong continuity. Cumont's four-stage scenario argues strong continuity; he holds that Roman Mithraism reproduces with little alteration the rituals and beliefs of a precursor cult (which in his case was the supposed Mithraic religion of the Magusaeans). Beck classifies three more recent scholars as also arguing strong continuity, Bivar, Wikender, and Campbell; of whom only Campbell he considers to be in the 'Cumontian tradition'. Kreyenbroek (and I believe Turcan too) Beck would classify as arguing weak continuity (in that they consider the beliefs of the Roman cult to replicate those of a presumed Anatolian or Iranian precursor, but do not believe that precursor to be the model for the full ritual observances of Roman Mithraism). Beck classifies his own theories as weak discontuity, in that he holds the the beliefs of Roman Mithraism to derive from Anatolian or Armenian exeplars, but does not believe those exemplars to have constituted, in their territories of origin, a distinct cult. Most of the theories of weak continuity and weak discontinuity would be classfiable as 'Cumontian' in Beck's terms, in that they postulate that worship of Mithras transferred from Iran to Rome via the intermediary actions of Anatolian or Armenian cults. However none of these weak 'Cumontian' theories correspond to Cumont's four stage model; in particular, all would see Mithraism as having been to a substantial extent 'Romanised', something that Cumont would not allow at all.

* It is generlly good practice in Wikipedia to cite secondary sources (i.e. the scholars themselves) rather than tertiary sources (one scholar's summary of what anothe scholar says). Obviously there may be difficulties where a particular source is not translated into English; but most of the scholars you mention are accessible fairly easily in any good academic library.

* The article is about the Mysteries of Mithras. There is an entirely separate article for Mitra/Mithra. Academic theories to do with 'the indo-iranian/rig vedic deity mitra/mithra/mitra varuna' are appropriate there. They are only relevant in this artilce in so far as they may be found within the Mysteries of Mithras - on which the modern scholarly consensus (Bivar apart) is 'not at all'. In any case, none of this relates to the issue of Cumont, since he had no expertise (or real interest)in South Asian Mitra traditions. TomHennell (talk) 17:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Point one is mostly about details of Beck's views on other scholars etc. Of course, I would not be saying anything except what Beck himself would say. Are you suggesting we should censor things that Beck says? Regarding your objections, while describing something as "cumontian" or whatever, I think those objections should also be noted in the article (if they can be sourced from reliable sources). These objections would also be valuable material for the article. They would be helpful in presenting a clear picture to the reader. On Turcan and others, we would have Beck saying only what he says, so there is no need to discuss the meaning of what he says unless there be some issue where my edit is found to be misrepresenting Beck? If needed, we can attribute these descriptions to Beck, i.e. if conflicting descriptions can be shown.

There is a danger of going round in circles. Beck states: Since the 1970s, scholars of western Mithraism have generally agreed that Cumont's master narrative of east-west transfer is unsustainable.. Perhaps you would have preferred him to say: Scholars of western Mithraism had generally agreed.., or Scholars of western Mithraism used to be generally agreed..? But he doesn't. We may point out that Beck classifies this or that scholar as 'Cmontian', as we may also point out that Beck describes Cumont's account of east-west transfer via Anatolia as 'the default account'. That does not get away from the simple observation of Beck stating that Cumont's master narrative is not current scholarship. Perhaps you would like to be able to claim that, because Beck says other things that are friendly to Cumont, we can somehow pass over the fact that he dismisses Cumont's overall theory. But that is not how sholarship works. TomHennell (talk) 18:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Again, are you suggesting that we censor what Beck says? Although you, and some other Wikipedians seem to have access to good academic libraries, it is not necessary that all would be similarly fortunate. Where I live, there is a university, but it does not have a department of religion. Actually, on my continent, there is no emphasis on the study of religions as an academic subject. So, their libraries do not even have a single academic book on major living religions, let alone ancient religions. I have some RS books, and I intend to source things from the sources which I have. It is not necessary that I should have access to all possible sources. I will only be doing what I can. I think I have enough sources to increase the article size by at least 50%. And the sources which I mention are not the "be all and end all" of the sources which I may want to include. Even among those sources, not all of their work is available in english. I may even want to source something from Attilio Mastrocinque. Actually, a disproportionately high number of sources in this field seem to be publishing in french. So, the language barrier is a serious problem. Due to these reasons, we have to be dependant on sourcing authors from the works of other authors. Otherwise, we may not be able to make this article comprehensive. And why should this be a problem now only, and not earlier on?

That is a useful corrective to those of us who are more fortunate. But on the other hand,, Wikipedia is essentially a compendium of current published scholarship; it is not here for me or you to express our own personal views for the benefit of posterity. And, unfortunately, that does mean that if you don't have access to current published scholarship on a particular subject, you are going to find it very difficult to source good edits. Maybe your local univerity library has access to published academic resources via something like the ATHENS interface? Otherwise, if you have access to recent specialist published sources, by all means use them and don't hold back. I know that books by Turcan, Beck and Clauss are fairly readily accessible in paperback via Amazon. But this thread is specifically about Cumont; and, if your books are over 100 years old, you may well find that your edits get substantially changed by others with access to more recent findings TomHennell (talk) 18:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• I think you have some serious misconceptions on the third point. I have been looking through a number of current sources and encyclopedias, most of them do not seem to be saying what you say. Like Cumont, you may claim that they have no expretise on oriental cults. I must devalue this claim. As experts on mithraism, they can be RSs on any issue they talk about, as long as it is related to mithraism. If they say that mithraism is somehow related to the man on the moon, they are RSs for that point even if they are not astronomers. It is not necessary that they should also be astronomers to be RSs on this point. When a point be related to two fields, expertise in one field is generally enough to be an RS for that point. But this may belong to another thread.-Civilizededucation^talk 02:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Specialist Encyclopedias and Dictionaries of Religion can often be good sources of tertiary scholarship; but only if they are fully refernenced to the specific works of the scholars in question. It also helps a lot if the contributors to each acticle in the encyclopedia are identifiable. Fortunately, on Mithraism, there are two such encyclopedia entries that are readily available on the internet - Roger Beck in the Encyclopedia Iranica, and Alison Griffith in the Ecole Initiative http://ecole.evansville.edu/articles/mithraism.html. (In fact, I believe that Beck has provided articles on Mithraism for almost all specialist Distionaries and Encyclopedias carrying the OUP imprint. But neither Beck not Griffith identify current scholars who see sources for Roman Mithraism in South Asian Mitra devotions. In ancy cse, as I said, this was not something on which Cumont had any signfiicant contribution to make. Cumont was immensely learned in Classical languages and philology; but he had no understanding of Indic (or Persian) languages at all. TomHennell (talk) 18:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

>There is a danger of going round in circles. Beck states: Since the 1970s, scholars of western Mithraism have generally agreed that Cumont's master narrative of east-west transfer is unsustainable.. <snip> We may point out that Beck classifies this or that scholar as 'Cmontian', as we may also point out that Beck describes Cumont's account of east-west transfer via Anatolia as 'the default account'.

I agree that there is a danger of going round in circles here. However, perhaps there are now a number of areas on which we can agree...

1. Article can include points which Beck makes about Cumont, including the following:

• Since the 1970s, scholars of western Mithraism have generally agreed that Cumont's master narrative of east-west transfer is unsustainable.
• There are a number of comparatively recent scholars of western Mithraism whose views can be called "Cumontian".
• Cumont's account of east-west transfer via Anatolia is "the default account".

2. Title of Cumont's magnum opus to be stated in section about Cumont.

3. Where views of Cumont have been contested in more recent specialist literature, article needs to avoid presenting those views as if they were established facts.

Perhaps if we can agree on these few points, other questions about treatment of Cumont can be addressed in the course of editing? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I too think that there is a danger of going around in circles. It is already a month since the edit war in which weeks of good faith edits were reverted by describing them as vandalism, etc. etc. etc. The rate at which we are progressing, we may continue mediating for decades. I have noticed beck saying that the issue of origins of mithraism is a matter of perennial debate among scholars. Gordon says that it is a neuralgic point. So, it is possible that we too could discuss it endlessly.-Civilizededucation^talk 04:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Kalidisa's summary; with a slight rewording of point 3. Wikipedia does not deal in 'facts' - which would imply original research. It deals in the published opinions of current experts in the field. So I would rephrase: Where views of Cumont have been contested in more recent specialist literature; the article needs to distinguish between those that are no longer held in any form in current scholarship, and those that are still advanced by some scholars in modified forms. (In the former case I would include Cumont's theories on the role of the Maguseans in disseminating Babylonian astral wisdom; in the latter case I would include Cumont's theories of continuity between Roman Mithraism and supposed Anatolian or Armenian Mithra cults) TomHennell (talk) 10:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree in principle with Tom -- I shouldn't have used the word "fact". Although a statement that a theory is "no longer held in any form in current scholarship" is difficult to verify conclusively without going through everything published by specialists in the last half century of so. On the specific point of Cumont's scenario about the Maguseans, we could perhaps quote or cite Beck's statement in the Encyclopaedia Iranica that they "are no longer regarded as the conduit for Mithraism". Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps "stated authoritatively no longer to be held in current scholarship". This is actually quite a common problem in Wikipedia - though more often in the circumstance where one editor quotes a leading current scholar as saying "this view is now universal amongst specialists in the field"; while another editor cites a different scholar making the contrary statement. Experts are inclined to overstate the degree of scholarly unanimity in support of their own pet theories. However, in review articles (like Beck's or Griffith's encyclopedia entries) schoars mey be mor circmspect in making claims, and so the claims they do make may be more authoritative. TomHennell (talk) 00:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Or "stated by Roger Beck no longer to be held in current scholarship"? (It seems kind-of unnecessary to describe Beck as "authoritative" -- if he words didn't carry a certain authority, why would we be cite him at all?)... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 01:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Tom, I've just noticed that Civ has resumed work on the article itself. (He has restored a number of reverted edits.) Perhaps it is time for you and I to resume editing also? Maybe we should thank Lord Roem for initiating this meditation, and conduct further discussions on the talk page of the article itself? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 01:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)