This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ambrose article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 730 days |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on December 7, 2021, December 7, 2022, and December 7, 2023. |
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Extended discussion
|
---|
@ Jenhawk777: as asked, I'll give an input. First, do you think dedicating 4 paragraphs to context alone is a sound idea? Much of it you already wrote for other articles, and have now simply copied it over here. I'm hesitant to make a drastic cleanup on my own after you worked so hard. Second, some citations need to be corrected, for example number 71 (Salzman), which doesn't have a page 861 (neither a 361). Avilich ( talk) 01:48, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Avilich I appreciate your diligence. As to the first "reflected his views", I apologize that it has taken me awhile to get back to you, but I had to go to the resource exchange and get them to send it to me again , since, when I thought I was done here, I closed out all my sources and deleted everything on Ambrose from my sandbox. I was going to send you an email with a copy of the relevant pages, but I don't see that you have enabled email. So. Page 106 is the correct page. It says: "While Ambrose was finishing De Fide, Gratian's colleague Theodosius proclaimed his own faith in an edict... blah blah... subjects ordered... more blah blah... remnant were branded as heretics ... blah ... divine vengence ... imperial intervention. This dramatic declaration has been much discussed, and its exact purport is still debated. But there is unanimity that it expresses the emperor's own long-held beliefs and reflects the characteristic doctrinal views of his native Spain".
The Edict of Thessalonica was issued in 380, and here McLynn's statement also supports what is paraphrased in the next comment. But it is primarily from Ambrose of Milan: Political Letters and Speeches by Liebeschuetz and Hill, that the next part comes. Go to page 11: "The year 378 was a turning point... in the episcopate of Ambrose. In this year ... he was delegated to carry the synod's petition to the emperor Gratian at Sirmium. There he made the acquaintance of Gratian." In footnote 4 on that same page it discusses McLynn's view that they did not make friends at this point, and didn't do so until Gratian moved to Milan. Theodosius was in the East after defeating the Goths until 388 while Ambrose was dealing with Valentinian and Justina, so, on page 17, it says that after defeating Maximus, "Theodosius and his court spent the next three years in Milan. This was the beginning of a fascinating relationship." referring to Ambrose and Theodosius. That is when they met for the first time, so Ambrose couldn't very well have influenced him before then. I paraphrased, but if you think it needs to be represented in more detail, I have no problem with that. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 20:15, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
|
24.154.55.106 I have moved and removed some of what you recently added. It repeated things already in the article in the section on Arianism, directly contradicts the majority view on the Massacre of Thessalonica, and was otherwise out of place in the section on Theodosius. It's now in the character section. If there's a problem please discuss it here. Thank you. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 06:18, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Pious portrayals and triumphalist exaggerations aside,is entirely pov and has no place in a WP article. This should be removed entirely.
several emperors, Theodosius among them, were forced to change course due to his demandsis a claim without evidence or citations to support it. It is not the majority view, and is disputed by current scholarship. You can include a minority view but you have to say that's what it is, and you need something newer than 1980. Some of that discussion is already in the article in the section directly above the one you added as well, so please avoid duplication. This should be removed until properly cited and stated.
When Valentinian II was influenced by an Arian faction to give two Milanese churches to the Arians, Ambrose refused imperial arbitration and thwarted the effort. [1]is a duplication of what is already in the section on Arianism and should be removed accordingly. It's generally a good idea to actually read an article and know what it says before editing.
Ambrose, in fact, did take a stand against Theodosius, who had ordered the military to kill people assembled at a stadium in Thessalonica for the earlier murdering an unpopular official. Several thousand were killed. Ambrose ordered the emperor to do public penance for this act and he did. [2] [3] [4]Theodosius' actions are disputed. Please see the article Massacre of Thessalonica for a more complete explanation. At best, this is a minority view, and that is how it must be presented. I can support adding a little more on Theodosius here, but this is not an article on him or the massacre, this is about Ambrose, and none of these references say Ambrose "ordered" anything, indeed the sources do not say that, and again this reflects pov. Brown does say Theodosius did penance, that's the only thing correct here. This should be removed because it makes assertions not supported by its references.
Please respond. I already posted this once. This is my second request. If I don't hear back from you, I will remove this again for the reasons above and notify an administrator. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 18:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
References
Jenhawk777 ( talk) 18:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
References
Jenhawk777 ( talk) 05:47, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello everybody.
Jenhawk777 has asked to to look at how the referencing in the article is setup, and standardising it. So I'll be making a lot of edits similar to
this one. I'll also post here when I come across issue, speaking of which... (I've signed each one so that they can be replied to separately).
ActivelyDisinterested (
talk)
13:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
The article has references without targets. The first is Cameron 2010, which is referred to twice in the Theodosius section and twice in Attitude towards pagans.
Could this be Cameron, Alan (2010). The Last Pagans of Rome.? This is referenced but as 2011, is there a difference between versions?
ActivelyDisinterested (
talk)
13:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
The second is a reference which is simply Cameron, again it's found in the Theodosius and Attitude towards pagans sections. Could someone clarify which work this is referring to?
ActivelyDisinterested (
talk)
13:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
The next one is Errington 2006, used in Theodosius again. There is Errington 1997 that refers to Errington, R. Malcolm (1997). "Christian Accounts of the Religious Legislation of Theodosius I"., but no work of Errington in 2006 is mentioned in the article.
ActivelyDisinterested (
talk)
13:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
And the next is Hebblewhite also in Theodosius, no mention of the year of the work and again no mention of which work this refers to.
ActivelyDisinterested (
talk)
13:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
The last three are all in the Character section, where Brown 2013, Herrin (no year), and Jedin (no year) are referred to. None of these are defined.
ActivelyDisinterested (
talk)
13:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Has this article had text merged into it? These errors would suggest so, but I could see if this was the case from the article history. ActivelyDisinterested ( talk) 13:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
The first is found in the Early life, following "but some scholars identify his father as an official named Uranius who received an imperial constitution dated 3 February 339". Both Mazzarino, S. "Il padre di Ambrogio", Helikon 13–14, 1973–1974, 111–117. and Mazzarino, S., "Storia sociale del vescovo Ambrogio", Problemi e ricerche di storia antica 4, Rome 1989, 79–81. are referenced, but I can only find reference of Il padre di Ambrogio as a section of Storia sociale del vescovo Ambrogio. I'm guessing 111-117 are page numbers, but my only understanding of Helikon is Greek mythology. ActivelyDisinterested ( talk) 15:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
The section is in the Arianism section, following Ambrose and his congregation barricaded themselves inside the church, and the imperial order was rescinded. a reference to The Cambridge Ancient History, p. 106 is used. But The Cambridge Ancient History is a multivolume work, with several different versions. So there's no way of knowing for sure what this refers to. ActivelyDisinterested ( talk) 15:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
The last two are in the Attitude towards pagans section, following for everything that could be regarded by Christian standards as repulsive and irreligious.". The reference is for North, John (2017). "The Religious History of the Roman Empire", but no page number is given. ActivelyDisinterested ( talk) 15:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
The last one is in Attitude towards pagans again, following Archaeological evidence indicates that, outside of violent rhetoric, the decline of paganism away from the imperial court was relatively non-confrontational.. The reference is to Markus, R. A. (1990). The end of ancient Christianity., also again there is no page number. ActivelyDisinterested ( talk) 15:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Ok another last one, or two. There are two primary sources, the first at the end of the Bishop of Milan following who had served as governor of Campania, went to Milan to attend the school of Ambrose., and the second in the Arianism section following he studied the Old Testament and Greek authors like Philo, Origen, Athanasius, and Basil of Caesarea, with whom he was also exchanging letters.. It would be better if secondary sources could be found. ActivelyDisinterested ( talk) 16:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Jenhawk777, glad to see you working on this again, and happy new year! As we talked about last year, I will plan to write a new music section for it. The more I'm reading about it, the more I'm realizing that this article is using some very old research and conclusions in that realm. Thankfully scholarship on Ambrose's hymns is vast, so it shouldn't be a huge deal to update.
As far as I can tell, the writings section is rather incomplete, so I'm considering making a full bibliography of his writings. I'm thinking the modern editions sections should be subsections of the writings section, thoughts? Also, the Augustine section seems weirdly placed in the article, and I suspect it can be integrated into his biography (or maybe the theology section) at some point. Aza24 ( talk) 23:33, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
@ Aza24, the cited source reads ...distinguished by a vigorous defense of the Church against both Arianism and the authority of the Empire. Are you referring to another source? The concept of the Latin Church was not developed in the 4th century and really not a thing until the East-West Schism took shape. Our own article does not mention any historical references to it, nor does the Catholic Encyclopedia mention any sort of early references, although scholars may retcon this, there was no distinction between "Latin Church" and the Eastern formulation of the faith that Ambrose would've been defending against Arianism and paganism. We certainly don't anachronize Popes in this way. Elizium23 ( talk) 23:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't know if you're reading a different edition of McKinnon other than what's on Google Books, but McKinnon didn't write "Latin Church" anywhere I can see. Elizium23 ( talk) 23:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ambrose article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 730 days |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on December 7, 2021, December 7, 2022, and December 7, 2023. |
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Extended discussion
|
---|
@ Jenhawk777: as asked, I'll give an input. First, do you think dedicating 4 paragraphs to context alone is a sound idea? Much of it you already wrote for other articles, and have now simply copied it over here. I'm hesitant to make a drastic cleanup on my own after you worked so hard. Second, some citations need to be corrected, for example number 71 (Salzman), which doesn't have a page 861 (neither a 361). Avilich ( talk) 01:48, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Avilich I appreciate your diligence. As to the first "reflected his views", I apologize that it has taken me awhile to get back to you, but I had to go to the resource exchange and get them to send it to me again , since, when I thought I was done here, I closed out all my sources and deleted everything on Ambrose from my sandbox. I was going to send you an email with a copy of the relevant pages, but I don't see that you have enabled email. So. Page 106 is the correct page. It says: "While Ambrose was finishing De Fide, Gratian's colleague Theodosius proclaimed his own faith in an edict... blah blah... subjects ordered... more blah blah... remnant were branded as heretics ... blah ... divine vengence ... imperial intervention. This dramatic declaration has been much discussed, and its exact purport is still debated. But there is unanimity that it expresses the emperor's own long-held beliefs and reflects the characteristic doctrinal views of his native Spain".
The Edict of Thessalonica was issued in 380, and here McLynn's statement also supports what is paraphrased in the next comment. But it is primarily from Ambrose of Milan: Political Letters and Speeches by Liebeschuetz and Hill, that the next part comes. Go to page 11: "The year 378 was a turning point... in the episcopate of Ambrose. In this year ... he was delegated to carry the synod's petition to the emperor Gratian at Sirmium. There he made the acquaintance of Gratian." In footnote 4 on that same page it discusses McLynn's view that they did not make friends at this point, and didn't do so until Gratian moved to Milan. Theodosius was in the East after defeating the Goths until 388 while Ambrose was dealing with Valentinian and Justina, so, on page 17, it says that after defeating Maximus, "Theodosius and his court spent the next three years in Milan. This was the beginning of a fascinating relationship." referring to Ambrose and Theodosius. That is when they met for the first time, so Ambrose couldn't very well have influenced him before then. I paraphrased, but if you think it needs to be represented in more detail, I have no problem with that. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 20:15, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
|
24.154.55.106 I have moved and removed some of what you recently added. It repeated things already in the article in the section on Arianism, directly contradicts the majority view on the Massacre of Thessalonica, and was otherwise out of place in the section on Theodosius. It's now in the character section. If there's a problem please discuss it here. Thank you. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 06:18, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Pious portrayals and triumphalist exaggerations aside,is entirely pov and has no place in a WP article. This should be removed entirely.
several emperors, Theodosius among them, were forced to change course due to his demandsis a claim without evidence or citations to support it. It is not the majority view, and is disputed by current scholarship. You can include a minority view but you have to say that's what it is, and you need something newer than 1980. Some of that discussion is already in the article in the section directly above the one you added as well, so please avoid duplication. This should be removed until properly cited and stated.
When Valentinian II was influenced by an Arian faction to give two Milanese churches to the Arians, Ambrose refused imperial arbitration and thwarted the effort. [1]is a duplication of what is already in the section on Arianism and should be removed accordingly. It's generally a good idea to actually read an article and know what it says before editing.
Ambrose, in fact, did take a stand against Theodosius, who had ordered the military to kill people assembled at a stadium in Thessalonica for the earlier murdering an unpopular official. Several thousand were killed. Ambrose ordered the emperor to do public penance for this act and he did. [2] [3] [4]Theodosius' actions are disputed. Please see the article Massacre of Thessalonica for a more complete explanation. At best, this is a minority view, and that is how it must be presented. I can support adding a little more on Theodosius here, but this is not an article on him or the massacre, this is about Ambrose, and none of these references say Ambrose "ordered" anything, indeed the sources do not say that, and again this reflects pov. Brown does say Theodosius did penance, that's the only thing correct here. This should be removed because it makes assertions not supported by its references.
Please respond. I already posted this once. This is my second request. If I don't hear back from you, I will remove this again for the reasons above and notify an administrator. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 18:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
References
Jenhawk777 ( talk) 18:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
References
Jenhawk777 ( talk) 05:47, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello everybody.
Jenhawk777 has asked to to look at how the referencing in the article is setup, and standardising it. So I'll be making a lot of edits similar to
this one. I'll also post here when I come across issue, speaking of which... (I've signed each one so that they can be replied to separately).
ActivelyDisinterested (
talk)
13:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
The article has references without targets. The first is Cameron 2010, which is referred to twice in the Theodosius section and twice in Attitude towards pagans.
Could this be Cameron, Alan (2010). The Last Pagans of Rome.? This is referenced but as 2011, is there a difference between versions?
ActivelyDisinterested (
talk)
13:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
The second is a reference which is simply Cameron, again it's found in the Theodosius and Attitude towards pagans sections. Could someone clarify which work this is referring to?
ActivelyDisinterested (
talk)
13:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
The next one is Errington 2006, used in Theodosius again. There is Errington 1997 that refers to Errington, R. Malcolm (1997). "Christian Accounts of the Religious Legislation of Theodosius I"., but no work of Errington in 2006 is mentioned in the article.
ActivelyDisinterested (
talk)
13:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
And the next is Hebblewhite also in Theodosius, no mention of the year of the work and again no mention of which work this refers to.
ActivelyDisinterested (
talk)
13:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
The last three are all in the Character section, where Brown 2013, Herrin (no year), and Jedin (no year) are referred to. None of these are defined.
ActivelyDisinterested (
talk)
13:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Has this article had text merged into it? These errors would suggest so, but I could see if this was the case from the article history. ActivelyDisinterested ( talk) 13:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
The first is found in the Early life, following "but some scholars identify his father as an official named Uranius who received an imperial constitution dated 3 February 339". Both Mazzarino, S. "Il padre di Ambrogio", Helikon 13–14, 1973–1974, 111–117. and Mazzarino, S., "Storia sociale del vescovo Ambrogio", Problemi e ricerche di storia antica 4, Rome 1989, 79–81. are referenced, but I can only find reference of Il padre di Ambrogio as a section of Storia sociale del vescovo Ambrogio. I'm guessing 111-117 are page numbers, but my only understanding of Helikon is Greek mythology. ActivelyDisinterested ( talk) 15:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
The section is in the Arianism section, following Ambrose and his congregation barricaded themselves inside the church, and the imperial order was rescinded. a reference to The Cambridge Ancient History, p. 106 is used. But The Cambridge Ancient History is a multivolume work, with several different versions. So there's no way of knowing for sure what this refers to. ActivelyDisinterested ( talk) 15:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
The last two are in the Attitude towards pagans section, following for everything that could be regarded by Christian standards as repulsive and irreligious.". The reference is for North, John (2017). "The Religious History of the Roman Empire", but no page number is given. ActivelyDisinterested ( talk) 15:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
The last one is in Attitude towards pagans again, following Archaeological evidence indicates that, outside of violent rhetoric, the decline of paganism away from the imperial court was relatively non-confrontational.. The reference is to Markus, R. A. (1990). The end of ancient Christianity., also again there is no page number. ActivelyDisinterested ( talk) 15:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Ok another last one, or two. There are two primary sources, the first at the end of the Bishop of Milan following who had served as governor of Campania, went to Milan to attend the school of Ambrose., and the second in the Arianism section following he studied the Old Testament and Greek authors like Philo, Origen, Athanasius, and Basil of Caesarea, with whom he was also exchanging letters.. It would be better if secondary sources could be found. ActivelyDisinterested ( talk) 16:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Jenhawk777, glad to see you working on this again, and happy new year! As we talked about last year, I will plan to write a new music section for it. The more I'm reading about it, the more I'm realizing that this article is using some very old research and conclusions in that realm. Thankfully scholarship on Ambrose's hymns is vast, so it shouldn't be a huge deal to update.
As far as I can tell, the writings section is rather incomplete, so I'm considering making a full bibliography of his writings. I'm thinking the modern editions sections should be subsections of the writings section, thoughts? Also, the Augustine section seems weirdly placed in the article, and I suspect it can be integrated into his biography (or maybe the theology section) at some point. Aza24 ( talk) 23:33, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
@ Aza24, the cited source reads ...distinguished by a vigorous defense of the Church against both Arianism and the authority of the Empire. Are you referring to another source? The concept of the Latin Church was not developed in the 4th century and really not a thing until the East-West Schism took shape. Our own article does not mention any historical references to it, nor does the Catholic Encyclopedia mention any sort of early references, although scholars may retcon this, there was no distinction between "Latin Church" and the Eastern formulation of the faith that Ambrose would've been defending against Arianism and paganism. We certainly don't anachronize Popes in this way. Elizium23 ( talk) 23:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't know if you're reading a different edition of McKinnon other than what's on Google Books, but McKinnon didn't write "Latin Church" anywhere I can see. Elizium23 ( talk) 23:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)