This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Iran C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Classical Greece and Rome C‑class Top‑importance 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.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Greece: Byzantine C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Byzantine world task force. Biography: Politics and Government / Royalty and Nobility C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.

Template:Vital article

This says

When King Hormizd II (302-310)

but Hormizd II of Persia says 302-309. Just noticing this slight inconsistency. Someone might want to correct that. -- Timwi 12:36 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

jep, that´s wrong. Shapur II reigned from 309, not 310 (Frye, History of ancient Iran; Camb. History of Iran etc.).

Now Shapur II redirects to Shapur II of Persia. Is there any reason for this? Would not it be better to have the opposite? --Panairjdde 23:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read somewhere that Shapur II came into contact with the early Huns arriving from Asia? Can anyone confirm this..?

I never knew this. Where are some references? If this is true, it is ironic considering he persecuted/taxed Christians and Jews.

More importantly, Burckhardt (The Age of Constantine the Great) says the Jews participated in the Christian persecution where (among others) 22 bishops were killed. Student7 (talk) 02:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article identifies the individuals represented in a Bishapur rock sculpture of a victorious Persian king as Shapur II (mounted), Jovian (supplicating), and Julian (lying dead). But all the other sources I've found about a very similarly described sculpture at the same location identify the figures as people from the previous century: Shapur I, Philip the Arab, and Gordian III, respectively. They also identify the standing figure in the background as Valerian. (Some debate exists with those who switch the identifications of Philip and Valerian, but that's tangential to the issue I'm raising.) There is at least one other similar sculpture at Naqsh-e-Rustam, but it too is said to represent Shapur I's victory, not Shapur II's. Is there an additional sculpture at Bishapur specifically showing Shapur II over Julian? Or has this article simply misidentified the subjects of a single Bishapur sculpture? (See the Wikipedia article about Shapur I for a reference to a mural of Shapur I's victory at Naqsh-e-Rustam. The Wikipedia article about Naqsh-e-Rustam also refers to a famous Sassanid rock relief at that location of Shapur I's victory over Valerian and Philip the Arab, and it mentions that there is a more elaborate version of this scene at Bishapur.)

There is indeed a rock sculpture representing Shapur II's victory over Julian. However, the one I have now found is different from the one described in the Wikipedia article. It is a bas-relief at Taq-i-Bustan, Iran. According to Adrian Murdoch's The Last Pagan, this sculpture represents Shapur II together with the gods Mithras and Ahura-Mazda. Ahura-Mazda is standing on top of a fallen enemy of Shapur, who is "usually identified as Julian." In this sculpture, all the figures are standing; none is mounted. Interestingly, "[the] fact that it is a god standing over the emperor's head suggests that Julian's death is the result of divine intervention." By the way, the fallen emperor appears to wear a beard, one of Julian's distinguishing features in an era of generally clean-shaven men. This lends support to identifying him as Julian.

Image:Shapur ii bust.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the info box, Shapur was born in 215 CE. Does anyone else find this odd? I am sure he got daily exercise and had a good diet, but I don't believe he lived to 164! We should instead put 'unknown' for his birth date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bulgaroctonus (talk • contribs) 08:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:). Apparently he was "born king." Quite unusual. Have changed the dates. I think they are probably correct.Student7 (talk) 13:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is no era given for the dates of events? Is this some new Wikipedia norm that I wasn't aware of? If it weren't for the reference to the Roman Empire, I wouldn't be able to tell which era was being referred to. Has it become a no-no to indicate "AD" or "CE"? I don't understand this. Clarification appreciated. 68.173.255.96 (talk) 13:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted an undiscussed move- I did check first, there are many more sources that don't use 'the great' than do. Please follow the instructions at WP:RM#CM in the future. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 21:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Yprpyq's edit warring and non usage of page numbers, I would like the page number in Daryaee's book for this sentence, "When Shapur came of age, he led an expedition through Bahrain in revenge, defeating the combined forces of the Arab tribes of "Taghlib", "Bakr bin Wael", and "Abd al-Qays" and advanced temporarily into Al-Yamama in central Najd, the heartland of Arabia.

Pages 16-17 in Daryaee's book, make no mention of Shapur going through Bahrain, no mention of Al-Yamama or of Shapur advancing into the "heartland of Arabia". Whereas this information sounds extremely like what is found on page 136, concerning Ardashir's invasion. Shapur, as per page 16, forced Arab tribes "into the heartland of Arabia", but it make no mention of Shapur and his army advancing there. This is a clear case of original research and may explain why no page numbers are being supplied for the Daryaee source.

This sentence, "The Taghlib tribe was settled in Darayn (a port in Bahrayn) and al-Khaṭṭ; the Abd al-Qays and Tamim were settled in Hajar, and the tribe of Bakr bin Wael was settled in Kerman and the Hanazila in Ramila (vicinity of Ahwaz).", has been copy and pasted from the Daryaee source page 17, which makes it plagiarism, perhaps another reason why there are no page numbers. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Klueske: Didn't mean it in that way when I said secondary source, wasn't much space left to write on, didn't expect it to get misunderstood thou. Anyways the number of 16.000 Christian martyrs is clearly an exaggeration, or you have anything to say in that matter? --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The source used for the 16000 deads claim seems to be a religious source, not written by a historian, therefore, i guess it's unreliable for this topic. This could explain the likely exageration. your thoughts ? Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 20:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@HistoryofIran:, @Wikaviani: The article on Sozomen notes, in the first sentence, he's a historian. An ecclesiastical historian, admittedly, but a historian nevertheless. Please cite sources on the exaggeration, since I'm quite reluctant to accept your word for it. Kleuske (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kleuske: What do you mean by that? It's quite clear that it's an exaggeration by simply looking at numbers, just like the numbers that appear for example at Göktürk–Persian wars (first and second) and Battle of Thermopylae. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I mean: please cite a reliable source that supports that claim. If this writer is known for shameless exaggerations, it should be a breeze to find such a source. I do not accept "it's obvious to me" or "it's quite clear" as a substitute for an actual source that supports that claim. Kleuske (talk) 22:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kleuske, An ecclesiastical historian does not mean he's reliable for a death toll, We need a specialized historical source for that.---Wikaviani (talk) 22:02, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then cite a bloody source disputing him. The quote is sourced and attributed, is pertinent to the period in question, is near contemporaneous from a quite respected historian. If you have sources disputing that number (or the quote in general), then fine, we can talk. All I see now is two people asking me to take their word that he's unreliable without even trying to back it up with an actual source. Just going "that source is no good" does not suffice. Kleuske (talk) 22:16, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You say it like it's so easy to find something about a completely irrelevant and unknown religious historian. He's not a respected historian at all, dunno where you're getting that from. What Wikaviani is saying is true, you don't use ecclesiastical historians for this kind of stuff, the exaggerated number of martyrs he lists speak for itself. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting that from the "Encyclopedia Brittanica", "The Catholic Encyclopedia" and the "New Schaff–Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge", from the fact that he's been in print since the invention of the printing press, is cited in thing like the Codex Regia, etc. As for not being able to find anything on this "completely irrelevant and unknown religious historian", I suggest you try Google Scholar, which has quite a few results (5.290) on this "completely irrelevant and unknown religious historian" from scholarly sources alone. Kleuske (talk) 22:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Actually, we should ask for other users opinon, if the source is unreliable for this claim, it should be removed, no matter how respectable the author is. Again, according to me, this source is unreliable for a death toll. Wario-Man, Kansas Bear, LouisAragon, any insight ? Thanks. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 22:54, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Translation: "I'm all out of arguments". Kleuske (talk) 23:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, is this being out of argument when we deal with the reliability of a source ? To make it clear, i have no problem with the sentence as far as a reliable source supports it. If some other contributors support you view about this source for a death toll, then it would be perfectly fine. Regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 23:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot just go around and declare sources you don't like "unreliable" without something to back that up. I have asked several times, and I will ask again to cite sources which claim he was unreliable. The mere fact that you think he's unreliable (and not a historian and other niceties) does not mean anything, here. If you want, escalate it to WP:RS/N. Kleuske (talk) 23:12, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kleuske: Encyclopedia Brittanica is not even a reliable source, the other 'sources' seem to religious related ones, which is of no use here. With all due respect, this clearly shows that you don't have much knowledge in this kind of topic. He has some searches in some obscure books, so what? He is still a relatively unknown and irrelevant 'historian' in this topic. You claim he is so prominent and well-known, yet no major academic sources refer to him either. Also putting your text in bold doesn't improve your argument. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia Brittanica is not even a reliable source What?! Are you [bleeep] joking? You do realize that competency is required, don't you? Kleuske (talk) 10:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kleuske: It's not, go ask an admin, such as Dougweller (who was the one who told me). Yes, competency is required, which is making me wonder why you're still here, other than being immaturely passive-aggressive and not having much knowledge about sources, you're not bringing anything else here. You still haven't been able to show anything that supports your argument about this so called "well-known and respected" religious historian. Just let go, jesus, you're wasting both our times here. HistoryofIran (talk)

@Dougweller: Please comment, since this claim does surprise me. @HistoryofIran: Please read WP:NPA. Personal attacks are not a valid substitute for an actual argument. Kleuske (talk) 10:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Klueske: You have been hostile and making subtle insults from the start, why don't you read it yourself? Also, as I was about to write as well: Lets pretend Britannica is reliable: the site states that Sozomen was a Christian lawyer writing church history, what can that be of use to exactly? HistoryofIran (talk)

It's a near contemporaneous source, quoted verbatim, attributed and highly pertinent to the period in question, from a well-respected historian. Hence it should be in an encyclopedic article. You have failed to provide any argument against that, except ill informed claims without the merest hint of any backup and a personal attack (which I resent). I have no choice than to conclude your attitude here is summarized best by WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, which are not encyclopedic virtues. Kleuske (talk) 11:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, we should focus on content, not contributors, so, everybody, calm down. Kleuske, i think that you should apply WP:IDONTLIKEIT to yourself because according to me, the source is not reliable for at least two reasons :

1) t's obvious that a christian living at that time had probably a biased POV about the number of christians killed by the Sassanians ( therefore he is not an independent source).

2) Again, he was not a specialized historian for this kind of stuff (death toll) because he studied history of religions.

Since this souce is controversial, why don't you bring another source supporting this death toll ?---Wikaviani (talk) 12:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, claims w/o any evidence. If you read the article on the man, you'll find he did not "study religions" he was an ecclesiastical historian. He was not "a specialized historian for this kind of stuff" because those did not exist in the 5th century. If you are willing to dismiss any source with some kind of affiliation to any side of the story, we should dismiss Tacitus, Cassius Dio, osephus and many others aswell, including any Islamic source. The qualification "utter nonsense" is called for, here. Kleuske (talk) 12:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not, that's a really bad comparison. You srsly comparing Sozomen with Cassius Dio etc? Also you know that just because they're called "Islamic sources" doesn't mean they were written by the Imam that lived in the nearest neighborhood, but that they were written in the Islamic east by actual respected historians, which Sozomen is not. HistoryofIran (talk)

And Sozomen wasn't the parish priest next door, but a well-respected historian. Kleuske (talk) 13:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kleuske: Now you're just making stuff up. Britannica (which is still unreliable) states that your so called respected historian was a Christian lawyer. We dont use Christian lawyers as a source for historical events, in case you didn't know. Also booho, you started the personal attacks yet you don't see me being focused on that. Treat other people like you want to be treated, whether it's on the internet or rl. I am still waiting for you to come up with a source that agrees with your views that Sozomen is a so called respected and well-known historian. If you can't do that, then I see no reason for your edit to stay. HistoryofIran (talk)

That's personal attack #2. Apart from being a lawyer, the man was a historian and wrote a notable work, some of which is quoted here, for good reason. I have asked multiple times for any source that backs up your claim about Sozomen being unreliable, unknown, irrelevant (etc.) and you have failed miserably. I have directed you to Google Scholar, pointed out it has over 5000 results for that name (that's scholarly sources alone), pointed out he's in several notable encyclopedias, and I actually did my homework: this summary (2017), provides a nice overview of works about Sozomen, we got Irfan Shahîd in "Byzantium and the Arabs in the Fourth Century": The most extensive and valuable account of the Arabs in ecclesiastical historians is to be found in Sozomen's Historia Ecclesiastica and goes on to call him "this major historian". Kleuske (talk) 13:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I conclude that neither of you have been able to produce one single source disputing Sozomen's standing as a historian, neither of you have produced one single source supporting your claim the quote is unreliable and both of you insist I should prefer your word over that of actual, published, modern historians despite the fact both of you clearly demonstrate a lack of any knowledge of the historic figure. This is disturbing behavior for an encyclopedian. Kleuske (talk) 13:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"you have failed miserably" : i would welcome the eye of an admin about your words, please note that your comment is WP:WINNING ... stop being aggressive and let's focus on content, ok ?

"I have directed you to Google Scholar, pointed out it has over 5000 results for that name" : let me see if i got this one straight. So, according to you, a google scholar search on Sozomen with 5000 results makes him reliable for this topic ? you're joking, right ? Then just type "Albert Einstein" on Google scholar and you'll get 1170000 results, this does not make Einstein (who was a great scholar) a reliable source for this topic. Please note that i don't say this guy was not a scholar, i just say that, he's unreliable for this topic, big difference.

"This is disturbing behavior for an encyclopedian" : No, we're discussing the reliability of the source (at least this is what i'm trying to do while you keep being aggressive with no reason) this is quite normal, what do you suggest instead ? edit-warring ? Again, if any other user comes up here and says that the source is reliable OR if you provide another source supporting this "16000 death toll", it will be perfectly fine for me.---Wikaviani (talk) 14:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikaviani: You say "let's focus on content, ok" and subsequently go into a rant about the editor you disagree with. Nice one, that. When your done with discussing the editor, please satisfy my request to cite sources to support your claims, as I have done, instead of making (demonstrably false) claims about the historian in question and maligning other editors (i.e. yours truly). And please take this to WP:ANI. I'm up for a good laugh. Kleuske (talk) 14:41, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kleuske, Do you really know what "rant" means ? if yes, when did i "go into a rant about the editor i disagree with" ? I was polite and respectful from the beginning of this thread, clearly, you cannot say as much. Well , if we cannot find a common ground here, then, ok, i'll take this to the relevant board. Please note what sources qualify as reliable for Wikipedia :

The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:

• The piece of work itself (the article, book) : check (the source is a book, ok)
• The creator of the work (the writer, journalist) : cross (the author is not specialized for this topic)
• The publisher of the work : check ? (publisher is ok ?)

Note that Any of the three can affect reliability

More : Context matters : i quote from WP:RS : "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." The source is from an ecclesiastical historian from the 5th century, really objective ?

And : Age matters : the source we're dealing with is 1600 years old ...

"I'm up for a good laugh" : again WP:WINNING and WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality ...

Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the quote is that of a noted historian, quoted verbatim and properly attributed. It is not used to base a claim on, it's not a reference, so the above is moot. There is, I venture to assert, no dispute that the quote is correct. The dispute, as far as I can see, is that you don't like it. Kleuske (talk) 15:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you really think I'm exhibiting WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, you should bring this to WP:ANI, since that's disruptive editing. But you don't and you won't. Kleuske (talk) 15:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to see that at last, you calm down and avoid being aggressive. Yes, the source is from a noted historian of religion who is far from being objective and therefore unreliable here. I'll wait for other users to comment, if they don't, then we'll deal with this on the relevant board. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 15:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Despite personal attacks (and yes, calling your opponent "aggressive" is a personal attack) I have never lost my cool. I have cited sources, rebutted blatant falsehoods and replied to each and every claim made. so for the umpteenth time cite sources supporting your claims or "drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass". Kleuske (talk) 16:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kleuske: Right, you have never lost your cool, I agree. Anyways, you have neither cited sources (let alone a source) that supports your view of him being a respected HISTORIAN (I don't care about his works about Jesus and religion etc, they are irrelevant here), nor have you rebutted these so called 'blatant falsehoods'. Also, playing victim by accusing people of personal attacks every second yet while still making them does not count as answering an argument. Do you seriously want me to into detail of your hostile behaviour and indirect/subtle insults toward us? I'm not blind. Sozomen as a source regarding the number of martyrs under Shapur II is simply too exaggerated and unreliable. Why do I feel like I am repeating myself. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I "seriously want [you] to into detail of [my] hostile behaviour", preferably at WP:ANI, since I'm getting fed up. I also want you to cite a source supporting up your claims as to the unreliability of that number. As an encore, I'll quote mysef (from above) : Irfan Shahîd in "Byzantium and the Arabs in the Fourth Century": The most extensive and valuable account of the Arabs in ecclesiastical historians is to be found in Sozomen's Historia Ecclesiastica and goes on to call him "this major historian". Kleuske (talk) 16:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've never lost my cool either, as to the "personal attack", your aggressive behavior is a fact, therefore, this is not a personal attack. When you debate with others, saying that thay "failed miserably" or "go to ANI, i'm up for a good laugh" and other words from you obviously qualify as "aggressive". Again, no comments about users, focus on content. As i said, i'll wait a few hours for other users opinion, if nobody moves, then we'll go to the relevant board. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kleuske: First comment towards me in some time without making subtle insults or accusing me of personal attacks, we're making progress. You're showing me a source about Sozomen's view on Christian Arabs (who were mostly pro-Byzantine vassals), what can I use that for in this topic? You know that the Sasanians weren't Arabs, right? His view towards Shapur II and the Sasanians when it comes to their treatment towards Christianity should obviously be taken with discretion, and the numbers are clearly exaggerated (16,000). Tell me, should without any care use Herodotus as a source for everything as well? It's the same case. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Look, pal... I'm dutch. If I wanted to insult you, the insults would not be subtle, let alone so subtle no-one but you can see them. Cite sources. I do not accept your claims without sources. Kleuske (talk) 16:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers 'pal', your ethnicity is really irrelevant in this discussion and looks more like an excuse to not take responsibility for your actions, but alright. What do you want me to cite? 'Bosworth: Sozomen is unreliable lol'? Shapur's persecution of Christians is mentioned in various major academic sources, yet none of them list the numbers of martyrs since we can't know that, and I am quite sure they have stumbled upon Sozomen before if he is so respected as you claim, yet they haven't listed numbers like his exaggerated numbers of 16.000 martyrs. We have to take sources like Sozomen with a pinch of salt when it comes to describing topics such as these, it's simply a fact we editors who are contributing/expanding articles with information know of. Also, you didn't answer my question regarding Herodotus. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I want you to cite a source that supports your claim ("exaggerated number"). How often do you want to hear that? Kleuske (talk) 17:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've said what had to be said, and so has Wikaviani, you ignoring it is not my problem. This seems more and more like WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT in my eyes. Also, tell me, should we without any care use Herodotus as a source for everything as well? Go on, answer me, it's exactly the same case with Sozomen, hence why you are avoiding my question. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you have no sources to cite and are now reduced to playing games and trying to sidetrack the issue. Ok. Kleuske (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Putting words into my mouth whilst avoiding my questions and completely ignoring what I am saying, very mature and constructive indeed. The Herodotus question is completely related to our Sozomen problem. Also, wasn't it you that was meant to show a source that shows Sozomen can be trusted in this matter? (hint: it was). If you're not interested in continue discussing due to the fact that you're out of arguments then I am restoring the article back to what it was. Two users who have a lot more knowledge in this kind of topic than you have written several long messages regarding this problem, which you have chosen to ignore, whilst trying to cause a provocation and then immediately use the victim card. That is basically the summary of this discussion. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if Sozen is exaggerating or not. I did a search and the only comment on his figures was in "Fides Et Historia" - Volumes 30-31 [1] 1998 - ‎Snippet view "The fact that Christians in Persia later neglected the Roman theme, and assured the Persian kings of their loyalty, even reaching a certain ... "From then on, waging war against Rome and persecuting the Christians were to Iran two facets of one struggle, and persecution took place especially in ... Even the lower figure of 16,000 deaths for the fourth century, estimated by Sozomen, are quite impressive." Anyway, a lot of sources use Sozen and I think we should but of course it has to be attributed. As an aside, Sozen looks more like a personal essay than an encyclopedic article. Doug Weller talk 18:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So a third party commented and was in favor of including the (attributed) quote. This is subsequently ignored and we're into a edit-war, laced with personal attacks. I invite both users (for the umpteenth time) to come up with a source that disputes the quote in question as unreliable, provide a source with more accurate figures or drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 12:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

^[1]