This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Here are three quotes from three well-known scholars of Manichaeism (Sundermann writing just two years ago), showing clearly that Mani clearly can be thought of as having Babylonian (i.e. Persian province of Asuristan) background. Whoever keeps changing this to say he was solely Persian, is clearly not correct, and the article needs to be changed to say so:
I do not know why I am discussing with you: you do not even understand difference of Iranian and Persian. Anyways: 1. you are violating wp:3rr 2. you are violating wp:synth. 3. If you want here is my solution: we make a section on family background and quote completely, directly, and without commentariest the quotes from Boyce, Nenning, Iranica agree? Xashaiar ( talk) 01:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay I did some google books search: Mani "Assyrian Prophet" gives zero hits. Mani "Iranian Prophet" and Mani "Persian Prophet" gives hundreds of hits. Also traditional sources discuss both his father and mother as being Iranian (Arsacid/Parthian). Cambridge History of Iran states: "Mani, a Parthian of noble birth, was born under the rule of the last of the ...". Do a google books search "Mani" "Patek".. Patek in the classical sources is his father and a Parthian. "Mani was born to a family distantly related to the Parthian Arsacid royal lineage. " [1]. Overall, the findings of one scholar is important, but even he admits: "The historicity of this tradition is assumed by most, but the possibility that Mani’s noble Arsacid background is legendary cannot be ruled out (cf. Scheftelowitz, 1933, pp. 403-4". Of course anything is possible, but if most sources agree he is Parthian, then that is good enough for Wikipedia. I think the general google books search clearly shows Mani being stated as a Parthian from both his mother and his father's side. At least the article should mention Patek, the Parthian father of Mani. Also taking possible pride in Babylon cannot be used for WP:synthesis since Babylon itself had a large Iranian population (still modern Iraq is 20%+ Kurd who speak languages related to Parthian) and at one time, had a large Persian speaking population (names of Baghdad, Anbar, Fellujah.. are all Persian). Large number of Persians existed at Iraq at one time, and even up to the 20th century [2]. As a 3rd opinion, I believe the fact that Mani's Ardascid background (his father too as shown in google books) is accepted by most sources, is sufficient for Wikipedia and should be given primacy (and other opinions should be attributed to the authors who disagree, but even these authors don't say he is not Iranian they just say he might not be of Parthian descent). I did not see where Iranica states he was of "Babylonian origin" but Babylon at that time was a geography, as there was no ethnic group called "Babylonian" during the Sassanid era. So Sundermann is not saying anything about non-Iranian origin, rather he is suggesting that it is possible (not ) Mani might not have been from the high class Iranians (does not exclude others). Either way, most sources agree he was Parthian according to that article and there might not be a contradiction, sine he was a Parthian from Babylon (hence a Babylonian too. -- Khodabandeh14 ( talk) 04:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Editors I've altered the way the headings were set to reduce the number of main sections to 4:
And moved some chunks of primary sources to primary sources. I hope this makes the article easier to navigate. There appears to be some duplication/disorder in 4. In ictu oculi ( talk) 07:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I have looked around the article for awhile, and I am having trouble determining what fraction of texts by Mani have survived as translations. I think that just about any critical reader would want to know that right away. Can somebody add near the top of the article some range of estimates of that? If available, it should also include some general indication of the fidelity of the translations. Thanks. CountMacula ( talk) 00:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
The article states "It reached Rome through the apostle Psattiq by AD 280".
However, if you click Psattiq you're redirected to Mani the Prophet. Examining the redirect page's history reveals it was a page for Mani's father.
This doesn't make sense. How can Psattiq the apostle be Mani's father? Not only must the years be wrong, the (little) info there is on him doesn't mention ever traveling that far west (as Rome).
I think the names have been mixed up. I'm removing the link (that leads back to Mani anyway). 90.229.34.175 ( talk) 08:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
The first sentence of the little history blurb at the beginning says Manichaeism thrived from the third to the seventh century. The very next sentence says it faded out in China in the 14th century. That's a 7-century jump, and no rationale is apparent for why only China is mentioned. GeneCallahan ( talk) 18:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
The translated phrase "Great King of Honor" might be an enfeeblement of the original.
The roots and construction of "malka raba de-ikara" could be taken to mean "ultimate magnificent king". "Raba", specifically, comes from a root meaning "many", suggesting a ramification of the status of the noun being described. When admiration of a king is intensified in English, it may be done using "magnificent".
To be clear about the internal construction, "malka" corresponds to "King", "raba" corresponds to "Great", and "de-ikara" is a modifier of "malka raba", which in the accepted translation corresponds to "of honor".
To justify changing the translation of "de-ikara", note first that "honored great king" sounds anticlimactic. The problem may be that "honored" is not a strong enough translation for "de-ikara". Indeed, "ikar" is used elsewhere in Semitic lore (consider its use in the watchword "the whole world is a narrow bridge ..." by Nachman of Bratzlav) to mean "the most important thing".
To justify re-organizing the translated phrase, note that the translation "great" for "raba" creates formation problems. "Ultimate great king" has a semantic defect, which is that "great" is already a superlative, so "ultimate" seems inappropriate as a further modifier. Using "magnificent" for "raba" avoids this defect.
I say this as an amateur student of old Semitic texts, who has contemplated how to cultivate inspiration, and how those texts go about doing that. I don't know Syriac specifically, so I can't be sure of my interpretation. Bruce Esrig ( talk) 10:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Manichaeism. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Manichaeism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://mehmetolmez.org/Yuklemeler_Downloads/EskiWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Acta Archelai – link broken Parzivalamfortas 06:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parzivalamfortas ( talk • contribs)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Manichaeism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2501/is_n2_v16/ai_16502939/pg_5/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Manichaeism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
The removed ref (which definitely is a blog by the way) is being used to discuss the work of Theobald Beer on Luther. If this guy is, in fact, an expert on Luther, I'd suggest we can find a stronger ref than some random anonymous blog entry. Just saying. Simonm223 ( talk) 19:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Theologically, Manichaeism is a dualistic religion that postulated an ongoing struggle between the forces of good and evil in the universe. It is also an eclectic religion that attempted to provide a synthesis of previous religious teachings. Its founder, Mani, claimed to be the final prophet for all religions. Nittin Das ( talk) 09:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
It was a movement of Christianity instead of a rival. My edit was undone, however the claim that it was a rival was also not based on sources Kubusia00 ( talk) 10:25, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
I've seen this topic (excessive translations) discussed on other articles before, back when I was an active editor. Here's my concern today. This article begins like this:
The actual text that the reader needs here is:
I had heard of Manichæism before today, but today was the first time I needed to know what it was, so I came here and had to wade through the above mess to get to the heart of it. The very purpose of the lede sentence is to quickly give the reader a sense of the topic. This does not help, and is very annoying.
I've seen other articles trim their multitudinous translations and I think this one needs to as well. Include them somewhere else--maybe we need a new type of infobox--but quit hampering the reader, for whom we all write. Un sch ool 17:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
I definitely disagree the the other commnetator's opinion, that the translation is «excessive». Wikipedia is surely not for people prone to inferiority fits, when confronted with languages they don't speak. The same author, seems to know for sure, what I, and most other Wikipedia users, «need to know». He can easily skip parts of a Wikipedia article, he does not «need to read». Others might find exactly those parts interesting. I, for one, surely do not want to dictate him/her what to read, and what s/he should be not allowed to read. Wikipedia entries are not supposed to be as easily digestible, as some gutter-press articles, targeting semi-illiterate audiences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pisipojakene ( talk • contribs) 11:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
In connection with working on a text where I needed to refer to three basic facts about the spread of Manichaeism to Rome, I checked the corresponding statements in the Wikipedia article against reputable peer-reviewed publications, and all three pieces of information in the section on Manichaeism in the Roman Empire in the Wikipedia article seem to be at least open to serious doubt, and perhaps factually incorrect. Diocletian's edict against the Manichaeans is in scholarly sources dated to 297, not 302 (see, e.g., Robin M. Jensen, "Christianity in Roman Africa", in the Cambridge History to the Ancient World (2013), vol 2, p. 275). The text of the edict is reproduced from an anthology by Gardner & Lieu (2004), but when one checks the reference given in that anthology, De Maleficiis et Manichaeis does not seem to be the title of the edict itself but a slightly garbled version of the title of the chapter in the 4th-century book that (as the article does state correctly) includes the text of the edict. Gardner & Lieu (2004: 117) also write that the identity of the first missionary to bring Manichaeism into the city of Rome is unknown, and that the single source that provides any information is an early 6th-century text that claims that a certain Bundos did so during the reign of Diocletian. I have found no reference in any reputable publication supporting the unsourced statement in the Wikipedia article that a certain Psattiq did so in the year 280. The fact that three out of three pieces of information seem to contradict what one finds in scholarly literature may be a statistical chance occurrence, but it does suggest that the article needs the attention of somebody who is an expert on the topic. Okh123456 ( talk) 06:51, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Here are three quotes from three well-known scholars of Manichaeism (Sundermann writing just two years ago), showing clearly that Mani clearly can be thought of as having Babylonian (i.e. Persian province of Asuristan) background. Whoever keeps changing this to say he was solely Persian, is clearly not correct, and the article needs to be changed to say so:
I do not know why I am discussing with you: you do not even understand difference of Iranian and Persian. Anyways: 1. you are violating wp:3rr 2. you are violating wp:synth. 3. If you want here is my solution: we make a section on family background and quote completely, directly, and without commentariest the quotes from Boyce, Nenning, Iranica agree? Xashaiar ( talk) 01:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay I did some google books search: Mani "Assyrian Prophet" gives zero hits. Mani "Iranian Prophet" and Mani "Persian Prophet" gives hundreds of hits. Also traditional sources discuss both his father and mother as being Iranian (Arsacid/Parthian). Cambridge History of Iran states: "Mani, a Parthian of noble birth, was born under the rule of the last of the ...". Do a google books search "Mani" "Patek".. Patek in the classical sources is his father and a Parthian. "Mani was born to a family distantly related to the Parthian Arsacid royal lineage. " [1]. Overall, the findings of one scholar is important, but even he admits: "The historicity of this tradition is assumed by most, but the possibility that Mani’s noble Arsacid background is legendary cannot be ruled out (cf. Scheftelowitz, 1933, pp. 403-4". Of course anything is possible, but if most sources agree he is Parthian, then that is good enough for Wikipedia. I think the general google books search clearly shows Mani being stated as a Parthian from both his mother and his father's side. At least the article should mention Patek, the Parthian father of Mani. Also taking possible pride in Babylon cannot be used for WP:synthesis since Babylon itself had a large Iranian population (still modern Iraq is 20%+ Kurd who speak languages related to Parthian) and at one time, had a large Persian speaking population (names of Baghdad, Anbar, Fellujah.. are all Persian). Large number of Persians existed at Iraq at one time, and even up to the 20th century [2]. As a 3rd opinion, I believe the fact that Mani's Ardascid background (his father too as shown in google books) is accepted by most sources, is sufficient for Wikipedia and should be given primacy (and other opinions should be attributed to the authors who disagree, but even these authors don't say he is not Iranian they just say he might not be of Parthian descent). I did not see where Iranica states he was of "Babylonian origin" but Babylon at that time was a geography, as there was no ethnic group called "Babylonian" during the Sassanid era. So Sundermann is not saying anything about non-Iranian origin, rather he is suggesting that it is possible (not ) Mani might not have been from the high class Iranians (does not exclude others). Either way, most sources agree he was Parthian according to that article and there might not be a contradiction, sine he was a Parthian from Babylon (hence a Babylonian too. -- Khodabandeh14 ( talk) 04:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Editors I've altered the way the headings were set to reduce the number of main sections to 4:
And moved some chunks of primary sources to primary sources. I hope this makes the article easier to navigate. There appears to be some duplication/disorder in 4. In ictu oculi ( talk) 07:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I have looked around the article for awhile, and I am having trouble determining what fraction of texts by Mani have survived as translations. I think that just about any critical reader would want to know that right away. Can somebody add near the top of the article some range of estimates of that? If available, it should also include some general indication of the fidelity of the translations. Thanks. CountMacula ( talk) 00:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
The article states "It reached Rome through the apostle Psattiq by AD 280".
However, if you click Psattiq you're redirected to Mani the Prophet. Examining the redirect page's history reveals it was a page for Mani's father.
This doesn't make sense. How can Psattiq the apostle be Mani's father? Not only must the years be wrong, the (little) info there is on him doesn't mention ever traveling that far west (as Rome).
I think the names have been mixed up. I'm removing the link (that leads back to Mani anyway). 90.229.34.175 ( talk) 08:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
The first sentence of the little history blurb at the beginning says Manichaeism thrived from the third to the seventh century. The very next sentence says it faded out in China in the 14th century. That's a 7-century jump, and no rationale is apparent for why only China is mentioned. GeneCallahan ( talk) 18:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
The translated phrase "Great King of Honor" might be an enfeeblement of the original.
The roots and construction of "malka raba de-ikara" could be taken to mean "ultimate magnificent king". "Raba", specifically, comes from a root meaning "many", suggesting a ramification of the status of the noun being described. When admiration of a king is intensified in English, it may be done using "magnificent".
To be clear about the internal construction, "malka" corresponds to "King", "raba" corresponds to "Great", and "de-ikara" is a modifier of "malka raba", which in the accepted translation corresponds to "of honor".
To justify changing the translation of "de-ikara", note first that "honored great king" sounds anticlimactic. The problem may be that "honored" is not a strong enough translation for "de-ikara". Indeed, "ikar" is used elsewhere in Semitic lore (consider its use in the watchword "the whole world is a narrow bridge ..." by Nachman of Bratzlav) to mean "the most important thing".
To justify re-organizing the translated phrase, note that the translation "great" for "raba" creates formation problems. "Ultimate great king" has a semantic defect, which is that "great" is already a superlative, so "ultimate" seems inappropriate as a further modifier. Using "magnificent" for "raba" avoids this defect.
I say this as an amateur student of old Semitic texts, who has contemplated how to cultivate inspiration, and how those texts go about doing that. I don't know Syriac specifically, so I can't be sure of my interpretation. Bruce Esrig ( talk) 10:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Manichaeism. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Manichaeism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://mehmetolmez.org/Yuklemeler_Downloads/EskiWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Acta Archelai – link broken Parzivalamfortas 06:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parzivalamfortas ( talk • contribs)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Manichaeism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2501/is_n2_v16/ai_16502939/pg_5/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Manichaeism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
The removed ref (which definitely is a blog by the way) is being used to discuss the work of Theobald Beer on Luther. If this guy is, in fact, an expert on Luther, I'd suggest we can find a stronger ref than some random anonymous blog entry. Just saying. Simonm223 ( talk) 19:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Theologically, Manichaeism is a dualistic religion that postulated an ongoing struggle between the forces of good and evil in the universe. It is also an eclectic religion that attempted to provide a synthesis of previous religious teachings. Its founder, Mani, claimed to be the final prophet for all religions. Nittin Das ( talk) 09:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
It was a movement of Christianity instead of a rival. My edit was undone, however the claim that it was a rival was also not based on sources Kubusia00 ( talk) 10:25, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
I've seen this topic (excessive translations) discussed on other articles before, back when I was an active editor. Here's my concern today. This article begins like this:
The actual text that the reader needs here is:
I had heard of Manichæism before today, but today was the first time I needed to know what it was, so I came here and had to wade through the above mess to get to the heart of it. The very purpose of the lede sentence is to quickly give the reader a sense of the topic. This does not help, and is very annoying.
I've seen other articles trim their multitudinous translations and I think this one needs to as well. Include them somewhere else--maybe we need a new type of infobox--but quit hampering the reader, for whom we all write. Un sch ool 17:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
I definitely disagree the the other commnetator's opinion, that the translation is «excessive». Wikipedia is surely not for people prone to inferiority fits, when confronted with languages they don't speak. The same author, seems to know for sure, what I, and most other Wikipedia users, «need to know». He can easily skip parts of a Wikipedia article, he does not «need to read». Others might find exactly those parts interesting. I, for one, surely do not want to dictate him/her what to read, and what s/he should be not allowed to read. Wikipedia entries are not supposed to be as easily digestible, as some gutter-press articles, targeting semi-illiterate audiences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pisipojakene ( talk • contribs) 11:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
In connection with working on a text where I needed to refer to three basic facts about the spread of Manichaeism to Rome, I checked the corresponding statements in the Wikipedia article against reputable peer-reviewed publications, and all three pieces of information in the section on Manichaeism in the Roman Empire in the Wikipedia article seem to be at least open to serious doubt, and perhaps factually incorrect. Diocletian's edict against the Manichaeans is in scholarly sources dated to 297, not 302 (see, e.g., Robin M. Jensen, "Christianity in Roman Africa", in the Cambridge History to the Ancient World (2013), vol 2, p. 275). The text of the edict is reproduced from an anthology by Gardner & Lieu (2004), but when one checks the reference given in that anthology, De Maleficiis et Manichaeis does not seem to be the title of the edict itself but a slightly garbled version of the title of the chapter in the 4th-century book that (as the article does state correctly) includes the text of the edict. Gardner & Lieu (2004: 117) also write that the identity of the first missionary to bring Manichaeism into the city of Rome is unknown, and that the single source that provides any information is an early 6th-century text that claims that a certain Bundos did so during the reign of Diocletian. I have found no reference in any reputable publication supporting the unsourced statement in the Wikipedia article that a certain Psattiq did so in the year 280. The fact that three out of three pieces of information seem to contradict what one finds in scholarly literature may be a statistical chance occurrence, but it does suggest that the article needs the attention of somebody who is an expert on the topic. Okh123456 ( talk) 06:51, 14 November 2022 (UTC)