This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.
There are a lot of edits made recently starting with "first in a series of efforts to rectify the sly POV tactics of a highly skilled scholar". If the only reason for an edit is to "rectify the sly POV" of someone else, that doesn't help wiki. It's really just POV pushing. And I think in the process content was lost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 07:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I'm happy to incorporate any content I inadvertently deleted. Please note below what points you'd like to see restored. The editor to whom I referred is someone I respect highly, but over various articles has demonstrated a POV pattern of using scholarly obfuscation that's contrary to WP neutrality. For conducting individual scholarship, his methodology is utterly sound, and his learning is, well, awesome. If he were writing something to which he had to put his name, it would of course be incumbent on him to decide which strand of scholarship is correct, and which should be discounted. However, it's WP policy to include all scholarly POVs given due weight and with opposing views—not to exclude them because we think their interpretations are wrong. If they meet the requirements of WP:RS, then it's a non-neutral POV on the part of an editor to push one strand of scholarship over another. (Again, however, due weight should be considered.)
Because this is a generalist encyclopedia and not a piece of scholarship, the article shouldn't read like a dissertation chapter or as a presentation of the scholarship per se. It should focus on presenting the information, with scholarly attribution in footnotes as much as possible. I also saw (rightly or wrongly) "readers first" issues of clarity, and as I recall a structural problem where the supposed "lionhead" from York was treated twice, as if it were two separate things.
I also confess that I was terribly disappointed when the editor was outed for sockpuppetry. If he believed he had been editing in accordance with policies and guidelines, and not pushing a POV, then surely hiding behind socks was unnecessary. Regrettably, the deception casts a shadow on the purpose of his contributions. As I said, however, content omitted inadvertently can be reintegrated, by you or someone else. I'm glad to try if you can be more specific. But reverting wholesale is not the way forward. Let's try to move point by point. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
You want to change the POV of the article because you disagree with this guy and you think hes a Bad Person. Thats why I reverted your changes. Change articles in order to improve them, huh, not to fight with people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 06:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, I'm sorry, but if that's the depth of your reading ability, then I'd be hesitant to trust your adjudication of the sources. I respect the editor's knowledge, but feel he had some trouble distinguishing between an encyclopedic and a scholarly treatment of the subject. I'm perfectly willing to restore any inadvertently omitted information, if someone can point out what it is. Otherwise, I've tried to keep the source attributions in the footnotes, and not in the body copy, except to represent major schools of thought. Scholars seem skeptical as to whether the Latin inscriptions, from contexts identified as Mithraic, are directly related to the passage in Plutarch. A section on the other Greek sources would be good. The figure from York raises many questions, and in the other version is treated in two separate passages as if they weren't dealing with the same piece of evidence. The name Arimanius or Areimanios is explicable as a Gaulish personal name, which has complicated the matter. So please, if you can list even one piece of information that you would like to see put back, then we can begin a productive discussion on how to improve the article. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)