Talk:History of Christianity
A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the History of Christianity 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: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
History of Christianity has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Other talk page banners | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
As of today, the article is at (13928 words). I could weep. There is one topic that has been requested that another editor is working on, but it should not be larger than a sentence or two. I am currently working on images - a punishment for all my sins. I think I have addressed all your concerns. I removed everything you suggested and more. This was really. really. hard. But it is better, you were right. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:40, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
- I'll look it over during the next few days and see what pointers I can give. A. Parrot (talk) 00:01, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- You are wonderful. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:12, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- With recent additions - 14226 words. This should begin to stabilize now. Content change is pretty much done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
- A. Parrot (12342 words) "readable prose size" and I think it is now as comprehensive and concise as it can be. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:57, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- Down to 12,1. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- A. Parrot It is below 12000 words now. I didn't think it was possible, but the main points and a few explanatory details are all there still. Everything you asked to be gone or added in is as you requested. I am so grateful for your help, I can't say thank you enough. You have made the article better. I hope I haven't been too difficult. This has not been easy for me! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Congratulations! I feel like I should apologize for my lack of comment lately. I haven't had the time for another thorough read-through of the article, and I don't feel comfortable giving more feedback based on a cursory reading. But I wish you luck. A. Parrot (talk) 07:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- A. Parrot That's okay. You already made a big contribution to the article just to help out a fellow editor, and I am grateful. Thank you. I wish you the best as well. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Congratulations! I feel like I should apologize for my lack of comment lately. I haven't had the time for another thorough read-through of the article, and I don't feel comfortable giving more feedback based on a cursory reading. But I wish you luck. A. Parrot (talk) 07:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- A. Parrot It is below 12000 words now. I didn't think it was possible, but the main points and a few explanatory details are all there still. Everything you asked to be gone or added in is as you requested. I am so grateful for your help, I can't say thank you enough. You have made the article better. I hope I haven't been too difficult. This has not been easy for me! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Down to 12,1. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Summary style[edit]
To further improve the article we have to keep in mind WP:Summary style. Currently some sections or paragraphs are too detailed and need to be summarized. Here are some examples:
- "The earliest Christian community in Jerusalem was led by James the Just, brother of Jesus." is unnecessary detail that can be omitted.
- "Christianity quickly spread beyond the Roman Empire. Armenia, Persia (modern Iran), Ethiopia, Central Asia, India and China have evidence of early Christian communities." is a perfect sentence, very summarized. However, the next sentences are far too detailed. There are three sentences explaining that there is evidence of Christian presence in Sri Lanka, Tibet, Georgia, India and Socotra. If Christian presence in Armenia, Persia (modern Iran), Ethiopia, Central Asia, India and China can be mentioned in a single sentence, why not doing the same for other territories?
- subsections <Asia Minor and Achaea Egypt Syria and Mesopotamia Gaul North Africa Rome> can be summarized even more.
- Asia Minor: last sentence "Trevett writes that there was diversity and distinctiveness as catholic leaders of the second century began forming 'official' statements of ‘orthodox’ Christian belief based on apostolic teaching as authoritative." is unnecessary detail that can be omitted. Why would it apply to Asia Minor and not elsewhere?
- Egypt: the first sentence "There is no archaeological evidence of Christianity in Egypt before the fourth century." is unnecessary detail that can be omitted. Why archaeological evidence is a subject for Egypt and not for other subsections (Asia Minor, Gaul, etc).
- Syria: the fact that the prophet Mani was born in Persian Mesopotamia in 216 is unnecessary detail that can be omitted.
- Gaul: "eleven Christians from Vienne and Lyons, although later martyrologies record 49 names." is unnecessary detail that can be omitted. Mentioning that there were several martyrs is sufficient.
- North Africa: mentioning that persecution under Valerian aimed specifically at high-ranking clergy in North Africa is unnecessary detail that can be omitted.
- Rome: last sentence can be summarized and the quote can be put in ref.
- the sentence "The ancient chronicler Malalas claimed Constantine destroyed all the temples; then he said Theodisius destroyed them all; then he said Constantine converted them all to churches" is not very useful as these are contradictory comments that may confuse the readers. It can be omitted.
- paragraphs about John Wycliffe and Jan Hus are too detailed and can be more summarized, if possible.
- last paragraph describing how the Albigensian Crusade ended is too detailed and should be summarized in one sentence, if possible. The main article is here to provide more details to the readers if they want.
- "revitalizing the Norman church into the early twelfth century" is unnecessary detail that can be omitted.
(talk) 00:32, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- SanctumRosarium The balance necessary here is between being as comprehensive as possible while also being as concise as possible. Sometimes one consideration outweighs the other. You have stated that you think only big - what was it you said, "massive evolutionary" - information should be included in this article, but that's a backwards view of Christianity.
- Christianity has been, for most of its existence, a result of multiple individual behaviors. It's not like politics and economics. They are massive and evolutionary and work primarily at the macro level. Christianity was built at the micro level through the power of one human social interaction after another. If there were enough of them, they in turn, created a vast variety of societal changes that varied by location. I have tried to cover the "flashpoints" including the people who struck the match, and how, and what the results were, in some effort to be as comprehensive as possible. Cutting content without discretion ends with an article that is no real history at all. The good the bad and the ugly need to be included, and sometimes there has to be enough detail to explain which is which.
- 1.
"The earliest Christian community in Jerusalem was led by James the Just, brother of Jesus." is unnecessary detail that can be omitted.
I disagree. That is an example of an important individual. Many readers will know that Jesus' family did not support his ministry while he lived, and it wasn't until after Jesus' death - and what 1 Corinthians 15 describes as a post-resurrection appearance to his brother - that James changed. He went from saying his brother had lost his mind to being the head of a church dedicated to him. It doesn't matter if you believe or don't believe any of it personally. It's a significant fact no matter what.
- 1.
- 2.
If Christian presence in Armenia, Persia (modern Iran), Ethiopia, Central Asia, India and China can be mentioned in a single sentence, why not doing the same for other territories?
I agree. Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- 2.
- 3.
Asia Minor: last sentence "Trevett writes that there was diversity and distinctiveness as catholic leaders of the second century began forming 'official' statements of ‘orthodox’ Christian belief based on apostolic teaching as authoritative." is unnecessary detail that can be omitted. Why would it apply to Asia Minor and not elsewhere?
Because it applies to Asia Minor and doesn't apply elsewhere. The development of orthodoxy based on apostolic teaching was a singularly important step in its early development, and Asia Minor is where that first coalesced. I strongly disagree with removing this. Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- 3.
- 4.
Egypt: the first sentence "There is no archaeological evidence of Christianity in Egypt before the fourth century." is unnecessary detail that can be omitted. Why archaeological evidence is a subject for Egypt and not for other subsections (Asia Minor, Gaul, etc).
It's 'a subject for Egypt' because it has been the scholarly view, until recently, that Christianity did not appear in Egypt until the fourth century. This was based on the absence of archaeological evidence. It is only recently - because of discoveries like Nag Hammadi and the Dead Sea Scrolls, and so on - that the sheer weight of documentary evidence has led scholars to conclude otherwise.
- 4.
- Any major changes in scholarship deserve a mention. Still Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- 5.
Syria: the fact that the prophet Mani was born in Persian Mesopotamia in 216 is unnecessary detail that can be omitted.
I can go either way on this one. Manichaeism was a big deal 'heresy' back in the day. The catholics hunted it into extinction. But I did not mention all the heresies, so I guess this one could go. Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- 5.
- 6.
Gaul: "eleven Christians from Vienne and Lyons, although later martyrologies record 49 names." is unnecessary detail that can be omitted. Mentioning that there were several martyrs is sufficient.
I can go either way on this one too. There is a discrepancy in the source, and that seems important, but it is a detail, so it can go without altering much. Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- 6.
- 7.
North Africa: mentioning that persecution under Valerian aimed specifically at high-ranking clergy in North Africa is unnecessary detail that can be omitted.
I can see that, although that means there is no detail about what "persecution" meant anywhere in the article. Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- 7.
- 8.
Rome: last sentence can be summarized and the quote can be put in ref.
Absolutely not. I will fight for this one. Every section has a mention of what happened that was specific to that geographical area - orthodoxy, heresy, persecution - and the last sentence is basically all there is on Rome.
- 8.
- 9.
the sentence "The ancient chronicler Malalas claimed Constantine destroyed all the temples; then he said Theodisius destroyed them all; then he said Constantine converted them all to churches" is not very useful as these are contradictory comments that may confuse the readers. It can be omitted.
I strongly disagree. You originally rephrased this section by quoting Eusebius as if he was completely accepted as authoritative on this, and that's not correct. I replaced that with a reference to 43 sources demonstrating the huge discrepancy in the sources. They are contradictory comments - that's the point: the sources are contradictory. There has been a lot of controversy and disagreement over these issues, and this is why. That seems significantly important to any study of history.
- 9.
- 10.
paragraphs about John Wycliffe and Jan Hus are too detailed and can be more summarized, if possible.
I don't agree. Explanation above applies. These men were as important in their countries as Martin Luther was in Germany. They produced Reformation movements too.
- 10.
- 11.
last paragraph describing how the Albigensian Crusade ended is too detailed and should be summarized in one sentence, if possible. The main article is here to provide more details to the readers if they want.
I strongly disagree and will fight for this one too. There has been a lot of dispute over this topic, and the end is necessary to historically understand the beginning. The last paragraph is sort of the whole point of having it in this article at all - which requires it as representative of the paradigm shift taking place in the church at the time.
- 11.
- 12.
"revitalizing the Norman church into the early twelfth century" is unnecessary detail that can be omitted.
You explain to me why that is not important to a history that claims these reforms were what gave Christianity its power and influence in this era? 'What era' should be included somewhere.
- 12.
Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- Regarding 12th: the full sentence is "Owing to its stricter adherence to the reformed Benedictine rule, the Abbey of Cluny, established in 910, became the leading centre of Western monasticism from the later tenth century, revitalizing the Norman church into the early twelfth century." Cluny becoming the leading centre of Western monasticism is a big change that must be mentioned, while the fact that is revitalized the Norman church is a local consequence and not a significant fact in comparison to the first one, that's why it may appear as unnecessary detail. If you think it should be mentioned, that's ok. SanctumRosarium (talk) 18:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- There is so much in this article that staying clear on timing is difficult. I think it should stay just because it sets it in time as well as place. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- I edited it by removing the first part and leaving the 12th century. It's shorter and maybe a little clearer! So thanx! Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- There is so much in this article that staying clear on timing is difficult. I think it should stay just because it sets it in time as well as place. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
With gratitude[edit]
I would especially like to thank SanctumRosarium for their persistence and aid of the best kind. Thanx to your timely assistance, all that is left now is checking images for alt descriptions and copyright info, and going over all the references for any w/o page #s. I note that there are a few of those left, and if there is some good reason, it should be posted. At least I think that's possible! I'll check! If not, we will have to find other sources. This is one of those truly tedious detail types of work that I hate but is so necessary for the quality editors expect of an FA article. If you are willing to continue with me to the end, I think - I hope - we will see the benefits of our work. Thank you again! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
GA Review[edit]
Good Article review details
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Reviewer: Generalissima (talk · contribs) 19:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
For silly personal reasons, I like to go through the GA criteria in reverse order. 6: Illustrated[edit]6A: All images have alt-text, perfect. Going through, all are properly licensed. (Most are public domain in any case, and those that are not are all in CC or similar free licenses.) The alt text on the multiple image template was slightly mislabeled, but I corrected this. - G
6B:[edit]The images are of good quality and placement, are relevant to the sections where they are included. Couple nitpicks:
Got to go, but I'll try to get back to this tonight. - G
5: Stable[edit]Yep! No evidence of edit wars here. - G 4: Neutral[edit]Having read through it, I haven't noticed any areas where NPOV is violated. You have made a good summary of current scholarly thought on Christian history. - G
3: Broad in its coverage[edit]A: There are certainly nitpicks I could make if this were at a FA-comprehensiveness level, but for GA breadth this is excellent work. Good use of summary style to cover some very complicated and varied history. The only real quibble I have is I think the separation of Christianity form Judaism is a bit brushed over in the first section, and I think it would be important to spend a couple sentences defining Jewish Christians and what specific factors led to Christianity seeing itself as non-Jewish beyond just "doctrinal differences". It's probally also important to mention that sects like the Nazarenes and the Ebionites continued to identify as Jewish Christians for some time after the "gentilefication" of Christianity. - G
B: As mentioned above, very good distillation. At ~12,000 words, it is certainly a long article, but falls within the general upper-bounds of article length. I would be unsure how to shorten this beyond this point without a loss of information. - G 2: Verifiable with no original research[edit]A: Well-organized footnote section using SFNs. Sources are in a standardized citation style, and have ISBNs and links where available. - G B: Every paragraph (honestly, almost every sentence) has inline citations. - G C / D: Earwig repeatedly timed out when I tried to load the page, but considering the intensity of the summary style, I feel it is unlikely to give us any suprising revelations! To check for any OR, I did a spot check of some random cites which I had access to. Most were accurate; I certainly did not see anything resembling copyvio. There were, however, some I was a little confused by. (although I might be missing context or info on these.)
1: Well-written[edit]I will work on this more tomorrow, but some preliminary prose quibbles. - G
(Proper prose review begin) Lede[edit]I don't think you need strictly need most of the citations here, since it's all discussed in the body of the article with the same set of sources. Generally, per MOS:LEADCITE, it's best to avoid citations in the lede whenever possible. Generally pretty well-written lede! I would find a way to mention that Christianity additionally spread to areas outside of the Roman Empire in the paragraph about its grassroots spread, since it is a common misconception that Rome was the first state to adopt it. I'd also probably say the "general acceptance of tolerance as a policy", since not all Christian religious movements following the end of the wars of religion were tolerant to others. The end of the lede has a couple areas I feel might be clunky. Has it become the world's largest religion in contemporary times, or simply maintained this status? I would also rephrase "from West to East and from the North to the global South"; aren't the areas where Christianity growing in the East within the global south? More to come. Generalissima (talk) 05:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Origins to 312[edit]
Limited them to what? Study what is probable? Incorporate within general historiographies what is probable?
Everything in "Beginnings" is solid.
Ain't he an Apostle? He's not one of the Twelve, but he's usually called one. I'd change "and" to "including".
Late antiquity to Early Medieval Christianity (313 – 600)[edit]
Early to High Middle Ages (600 – 1100)[edit]
The rise and fall of Christendom (1100 – 1500)[edit]
"the searchers found the works of Aristotle and Euclid and more. What had been lost to the West after the collapse of the empire, was found, and the future would be forever changed." This section needs quite a bit of work, its tone feels more like a news article than an encyclopedia.
Getting a bit tired, so I will try to finish the prose review tomorrow. Generalissima (talk) 07:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC) Okie dokie, apologies for being gone for a bit. Let's finish this! Generalissima (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
1500 – 1750[edit]
1750 – 1945[edit]
Christianity since 1945[edit]I'd put a summary of trends in modern Christianity instead of having a subsection header right after the section header.
@Jenhawk777: Okay, that's all for now! Once you do more revisions I'll look over the whole article and see if I can do any copy editing touch-ups or if there are any more phrasing issues that need to be touched up. Thank you so much for your hard work - the finish line is in sight, I feel. :3 Generalissima (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
Did you know nomination[edit]
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by NightWolf1223 talk 04:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- ... that the growth of Christianity in 20th-century Africa has been termed "the fourth great age of Christian expansion"? Source: Isichei, Elizabeth (1995). A history of Christianity in Africa: From antiquity to the present. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. ISBN 978-0-8028-0843-1. p=1
- Reviewed:
- Comment: There are several other hook options but this was my first choice
Improved to Good Article status by Jenhawk777 (talk). Self-nominated at 22:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/History of Christianity; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
- I'll review this one! BuySomeApples (talk) 05:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: None required. |
Thoughts while pruning[edit]
@Jenhawk777: Gonna just log my thoughts on parts that might need some prose work as I do my chopping.
- Beliefs and practices of the Middle Ages is currently some kinda disparate strands; we need to tie this together into a cohesive encyclopedic narrative on how it changed from late antiquity.
- I am currently outlining how to redo this section in my sandbox, and had exactly the same thoughts - that it would be better to tie these to other aspects of "Christianity in society" - that kind of thing. I am feeling free to add content to my heart's content knowing you will come along and edit me! Thank you again for this! Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- "By the 1300s, segregation and discrimination in law, politics, and the economy, had become established in all European states." Segregation of who, by what metrics?
- The full discussion is in note 21 in "Centralization, persecution and decline (1100–1450)". Since you want to take out notes, if you could figure out how to add some of that particular note back into text, it would answer that question directly. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- We should at least have a sentence to mention the Seljuks and the Sultanate of Rum under In the East (1000-1500), since that's what the Byzantines and Crusaders were fighting for the earlier crusades.
- It was there in an earlier version. I'll see if I can find it and put it back. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- We should at least have a sentence or two describe the Christianization of the Kievan Rus.
- I had a full section on them and was told by the last person who helped we with conciseness that every individual nation had to go in a broad overview, and that besides, they had articles of their own, and besides it was just too damn long. I did have all the countries, it's true, but it did not seem appropriate for me to pick some as more significant than others. If I put the Kievan Rus back, I should put back the rest of Eastern Europe as well. Right now there's two truly pitiful paragraphs on East Central Europe and that's it. I will happily replace the Kievan Rus, but what about the creation of Poland? Bulgaria? All the rest of them? Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- The summary of Upheavals from 1500 – 1750 really, really, really ought to give more weight to the role of missionaries and Christianity in general within colonial atrocities. At the moment it reads as practically apologia.
- I'm sort of walking a fine line here with this one since colonialism was not a Christian movement. Christian missionaries were "add ons" who weren't always welcomed by colonial powers, had very little power over what happened to people, how things were administrated by the colonial government, and so on. They could appeal to colonial government but that was about it. Lamin Sanneh who was a missiologist - Harvard? or maybe Yale? Yale I think - anyway, his studies are full of examples of missionaries as basically evenly divided in their support and in their opposition to colonialism. He has examples of missionaries taking advantage of colonial power to force locals to cooperate, and of missionaries enduring personal suffering in order to oppose colonial power and protect the locals. I actually thought about cutting colonialism entirely since colonialism was political and economic and not primarily religious; religion was a not always welcome addition that often interfered with making money - the primary goal of colonialism. Christopher Colombus sailed in 1492. It was 1510 before the Dominicans arrived. They were appalled enough at what they found to speak out and nearly get themselves killed. These were the men who converted the famous Bartolomé de las Casas. Colonialism linked war and evangelism as a means of subduing natives, but missionaries thought force was obstructive to evangelism. That was Christian theology since early on. What do you have indicating missionaries were involved with atrocities? Ah, you want to include the Goa Inquisition, I'm guessing. A unique and fascinating example reflecting what was going on at home in Spain and Portugal. Of course the Portuguese were among the worst of the extractor governments, but it probably should be there, you'd be right about that. How, I wonder. It would require at least some context - I will work on something. I may have to split it into different sections. You'd be okay with that, right? It's a 500 year history. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- A Century of Violence in Soviet Russia, from what I can tell, is heavily exaggerating the number of Orthodox priests executed in the period. This appears to be a heavily politically charged work, which doesn't really agree with modern scholarship on the Red Terror.
- This is one of the original sections left in the article from before I started on it. I always try and leave as much of other people's work as I can, but I confess, I did not go over it except to check that it was properly sourced, because it is consistent with what I have read. I will research it and check it out. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- There was a figure that said 8% of India is Christian but that is like, 4x exaggerated from any other academic source I could find.
- Also not mine. I will add it to the list of things to find out and fix! Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hat-notes on the Cristero War and Spanish red terror were in the wrong section.
More to come.Generalissima (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- You are a wonder and a blessing! Thank you! I am currently working on Late Antique. If you are working on Middle Ages, I won't get there for a bit, are you okay with that? It means you will have to come back again. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- Generalissima So a lot of changes already - which are distracting me from adding content - but are very valuable and appreciated. Mostly they are good, but I think meaning has been changed incorrectly in a couple of them. In this Dif [4] you have
Christological debates over the divinity and humanity of Jesus have been a driving force for the religion's development.
and that is not anywhere in that source. Beginning at the bottom of page 8 to the top of page 9 it says that the battle that you describe lay in the future, that it was in the post-Enlightenment that they wanted to remove dogma about Christ's divinity. Young saysYet it is precisely Christology, the dogmas concerning the divinity and humanity of Christ, which have made Christianity what it is. The clarification of these doctrines, against all the variant forms of Christianity around in the earliest period, was impelled by the ‘cult’ of Jesus, and by the fact that his story was quickly incorporated into an over-arching cosmic narrative. Both of these features belong to the period of this volume.
It goes on into page 10 withThe divine has shone through the earthly story,
etc. etc. on in the rest of that paragraph. You have overlaid a later interpretation that wasn't present in the first centuries, and it's contrary to fact. I didn't want to revert the entire diff, because so much of what you did is good, but this needs changing. I liked the quote, it summed it up succinctly, but do your paraphrasing magic if you prefer, just please don't interpret from a modern perspective. That creates an OR interpretation that isn't accurate.- Perhaps I am wrong. Have I misunderstood what you are trying to say here? If so, then there is some ambiguity to resolve. No one argued against Christ's divinity in these early centuries, which is what I understood you to be saying. All the controversies were over how not weather. So if I am wrong in what you meant, I apologize for going on about it, but it does need clarifying. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- I hate autocorrect - whether not weather. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- On down you have
By the late third century, the see in Alexandria held similar influence to Rome.
and that too is not what the source says. That's another OR interpretation that isn't accurate. The Roman Pope did not have influence beyond Rome until much later, so first off, no such comparison can be made even ing it were the Patriarch that had influence, but it wasn't. It was the church in Alexandria through its many writings and the church fathers who lived and wrote there that had influence. - I am all for making things shorter but this
Conceptions of sin and free will led to an increasing focus on the spiritual ethics of sexual behavior.
perhaps removes too much since it doesn't explain why or how that mattered. The other "evidences" of morals causing change make a comparison. That's the only one that now does not. It needs more work. - I think this is also a false claim:
The Greek New Testament had stabilized by the late second and third centuries.
Stabilized and established are technically different. It didn't stabilize till the fourth century. So that's the first Dif. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- Generalissima So a lot of changes already - which are distracting me from adding content - but are very valuable and appreciated. Mostly they are good, but I think meaning has been changed incorrectly in a couple of them. In this Dif [4] you have
- The second Dif [5] I have removed the sentence "This had not previously been a requirement in the West." since it was the requirement that pagans convert that is now gone, so it makes no sense.
- I think this is also false: "Christian emperors wrote laws offering incentives and prohibitions encouraging Christian norms." What norms would those be? I know of no such legislation. They did prohibit sacrifice and magic. I have changed that now for better factual accuracy.
- "These became the first institutes of higher education in Europe since late antiquity." I put sixth century back, since Late Antiquity is currently somewhat disputed. So that's the second Dif. If you disagree with any of this, please bring a source. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- Next diff on images. I'd really like to keep all maps. I think most people know crap all about geography. Really,
We're not here to illustrate all of modern western history
doesn't seem like a fair criticism, since the text directly discusses those regions. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- Next diff on images. I'd really like to keep all maps. I think most people know crap all about geography. Really,
- Diff [6] removes attribution
what John Witte calls
and its citation yet keeps the quote - you can't do that! All quotes must be attributed and properly cited, and it was Witte that said it and not Matthews and Platt. - Under Enlightenment there is a reference to Jacob without even a full name to explain who that is.
- Under the Baltic wars, Saxons were not just German, they were also English and more. Do you know for sure they were polytheistic?
- "Christianity was in full retreat in Mesopotamia and the Near East" , well I don't think that's quite accurate, since it was not the entire area, just the interior of Iran. Everything else is good. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- Diff [6] removes attribution
Diff [7] under Revolution and modernity it mentions revolutionary upheaval in Europe
which is never actually discussed in the text. In the slavery section I removed an unnecessary sentence. Why pick the white woman as the only image? a rapidly growing subpopulation
is not the same as the fastest growing which is what the source says. I think you might want to fix the ambiguity in this: Christianity has grown in India in recent years, from a center in the northeastern states.
I'm good with all the rest. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- Generalissima Nevermind about any of this. I have fixed it all to my satisfaction, if it also suits you, then this initial pass through is done. I have also removed some notes. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:06, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- You know what? I don't really like my edit at Origins. Can you fix it? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, I'll try to get back to this soon! You have been doing some really really good work so far. I'm really proud of how far it's come along! TY for pruning the notes and incorporating some of them into the text.
- One other thing; would you mind if I remove some of the superfluous section hatnotes? I feel there's a little bit too many for my tastes, and I think some FAC reviews might end up disliking them too. Generalissima (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- I do not mind at all, in fact, I agree - go for it! While you are doing all of that, fixing my work, and having a life, in your spare time, please keep an eye on things I am adding. I know they needed adding in, but I also know they need editing down. I will keep filling in those gaps, and keeping an eye on accuracy, and trusting you to keep your eye on the bottom line of word count. We make a pretty good team, imo! Thank you again! Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, I'll try to get back to this soon! You have been doing some really really good work so far. I'm really proud of how far it's come along! TY for pruning the notes and incorporating some of them into the text.
- You know what? I don't really like my edit at Origins. Can you fix it? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Arbitrary break[edit]
The above was getting too long. Generalissima I know there is a bunch of yellow 'no citation' in sources now because so much has been pulled, but please don't do anything about it, at least not until we are done and are sure they will not be reused. I will remove them, then, if that's okay with you. Or you can - or anyone can - but just not till later! Please.
Also, I have now copied the section on persecution and heresy/inquisition, the long note, and some new material, into my sandbox to rework that entire section to be more neutral, maybe, if possible, and more careful, if possible, and to use the sources Borsak wanted, and somehow make it all shorter! Yikes! Give me this week, please dear one. I also have to go out of town for a couple days and am kindo' slammed in RL. Don't give up on me! I will be back with - hopefully - something good that will fill the bill for what the reviewers wanted in the Middle Ages. Thank you!!!!!! Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- The talkpage Template:Refideas exists if it's something you find helpful for some potential refs. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- Ooooohh!! I like that! I am going to look at the books he suggested, just because he thought it was important, but I may still use that template - if not now, then at some point! TY! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- Generalissima Okay, trying to use Borsak's sources did not go well. I got into an argument with him and have now, no doubt, trashed all chances of doing anything with this article. I'm afraid you will conclude you are wasting your time here. I will still redo the section - but I won't be using his sources - and it won't satisfy him. He wants apologetics not neutrality. It's my own damn fault. You told me to remove the "riddled with corruption" phrase, and I didn't listen. I'm an idiot sometimes. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
- Generalissima I have now redone the section Borsak objected to in a manner that satisfies my need for appropriate detail and factual accuracy and good sources. It is shorter than what it replaced so I request that it not be edited further. I am going to request a review at the neutral point of view board in hopes of putting that issue to rest. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- It did not pass muster. I know little of Middle Ages history and was just relying on the sources and apparently my sources were not sufficient. I am going to have to start that section over again. Sorry. I am off line for awhile. I'll be back. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- Generalissima I have now redone the section Borsak objected to in a manner that satisfies my need for appropriate detail and factual accuracy and good sources. It is shorter than what it replaced so I request that it not be edited further. I am going to request a review at the neutral point of view board in hopes of putting that issue to rest. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- Generalissima Okay, trying to use Borsak's sources did not go well. I got into an argument with him and have now, no doubt, trashed all chances of doing anything with this article. I'm afraid you will conclude you are wasting your time here. I will still redo the section - but I won't be using his sources - and it won't satisfy him. He wants apologetics not neutrality. It's my own damn fault. You told me to remove the "riddled with corruption" phrase, and I didn't listen. I'm an idiot sometimes. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Edit request: more info on non-European Christianity[edit]
Hi, would someone enjoy adding a bit on Asian and African Christianity? The current article suffers from undue Eurocentrism. Of course Western Europe is central to the history of Christianity, insofar as the religion spread from there to most of the world during colonialism. But the various Eastern/Orthodox churches are really really important and fascinating context. E.g. the unbroken presence of Christianity from the first century in Ethiopia in East Africa, or in Kerala in India, deserves more detail and explanation. And we should mention the patronage that the Church of the East received under Khosrow I and other Persian rulers, which allowed missions to be sent across Asia, before there was even (see "the Road to a Christian East" chapter of The Silk Roads by Frankopan).
More info could also be given on the strong relationship between Christianity and Islam, e.g. theories of Christian influences on early Islam, or their interactions in Africa or in the Balkans (much has been written on this, but The Case for Islamo-Christian Civilization by Bulliet is an accessible starting point). In other words, to make this a bit more of a well-rounded global history of Christianity, not presupposing Western Christianity to be the default, since it wasn't in the past anymore than it is today.🙏 --MASHAUNIX 13:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- You must edit in whatever you think is vital, keeping in mind this is a broad overview only. The more specifics there are, the longer it gets. Since this is a flagship kind of article for Christianity on Wikipedia, I would very much like to see it go FA if at all possible, and length is an issue for that. Please do add whatever you think is essential to understanding this history in proper perspective, but please also note that there are any number of significant events that only have one or two sentences. Entire movements barely have a paragraph. I am not an Eastern scholar, so having someone that knows more of that area go over every mention of the East would be extremely helpful, but please, I beg you, keep it as short as possible. Try to cut as much as you add! I completely support your efforts and thank you up front. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- MASHAUNIX This is now moot as the article has been moved to History of western Christianity. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:46, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- There were objections to the move and I have now reverted it. It should not be moved until there is a requested-move discussion. SilverLocust 💬 03:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- MASHAUNIX This is now moot as the article has been moved to History of western Christianity. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:46, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- MASHAUN I have attempted to make this article less western-focused. I have not completed the Late Middle Ages in the East yet, and next week RL will prevent me doing much here, but I will get back to this. In the meantime, I would be grateful if you would look over what's been added and see if there are any major topics missing. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Jenhawk777, I have tried to create a short section on the state of Christianity in Northern Africa in the 12th and 13th century. I hope it is short enough but feel free to shorten it if you can. I think especially the Sanneh source can be also used for the further centuries. PontiffSulivahn (talk) 18:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- PontiffSulivahn I am grateful for the participation, but the paragraph has some problems. Right now it reads:
Whereas Christianity continued in the Christian Ethiopian kingdom and with the Copts of Egypt, the indigenous Christian popoulation of Northern Africa had hugely decreased by the 12th century when they were joined by newly arrived Christians from Europe. These consisted in captives or slaves, merchants and soldiers which even the puritanical Almohads tolerated due to their economic and military value.[412] In order to take provide pastoral care for these Christians, the popes and the mendicant orders sent friars to Egypt, Tunesia and especially Morocco, though occasionally the friars also engaged in proselytism which was met with hostility.
- First off, you know you must only write what the sources actually say and cite them accordingly. the article by Lower, on pages 613 - 614, is your first reference. Those pages never mention Ethiopia or the Copts of Egypt. I can find no reference anywhere in Lower's article to either one. The claim is also factually contradicted by your other source on page 16. That has to go. It's OR.
- You are right that this part is not mention in Lower but in Sanneh. I would not read page 16 as contradiction, the page explains what was going on with the Copts in Egypt and also mentions that Egypt tried to block "Christian Ethiopia" from establishing contact with the outside world. This is why I decided to put a half-sentence on the continuity of Christianity in Egypt and Ethiopia. I have therefore included another citation to that half-sentence.PontiffSulivahn
- The connection made within the sentence - "had hugely decreased by the 12th century when" - makes it seem that the newly arrived Christians caused the decrease in the indigenous population. Perhaps that's unintentional, but that causality isn't in the article either. On page 613 it specifically states that what happened to North Africans is "a historical puzzle with many missing pieces" - scholars don't know the cause - so that's more OR. The article speaks of three periods of exodus when "North African Christianity dwindled and disappeared over the late antique and medieval periods," and one of those has some "chronological overlap" with new arrivals in the 13th century, but nowhere does it say European arrivals caused the decline of the indigenous population. That too its OR and must go. If you didn't mean to say that, clarify what you did mean to say.
- I think in this case I have misexpressed myself. I refer to the sentence Lower write on page 614: "In fact, though, there was considerable chronological overlap between the arrival of these European Christians and the gradual disappearance of the indigenous communities." Therefore I wrote that "the indigenous Christians had hugely decreased by the 12th century when they were joined by newly arrived Christians from Europe." As I am not a native speaker, my rephrasing might have shown a bad causal effect, so I am happy with any correction :)PontiffSulivahn
- The next sentence is confusing: were all the new Christians slaves, merchants and soldiers? Did they all come from Europe? Well, no, that's not what the article says. Where did they come from then? That needs clarifying at least.
- Maybe Lower would have been the clearer citation as on page 614 he mentions the three groups very distinctively: captives & deported Christians, primarily from Spain and also including Mozarabic Christians, soldiers and mercenaries from Catalonia, Provence and the Italian maritime republic. Sanneh mentions on page 15 the merchants, the soldiers serving in the bodyguards and then Mozarabs. In case you can read German, I also suggest Die beziehungen der paepste zu den islamischen und mongolischen herrschern im 13 jahrhundert anhand ihres briefwechsels (The relation of the popes towards the Islamic and Mongolian rulers in the 13th century according to their letters) by Karl Luprian and here you can read again on page 19 that in the Maghreb (Northern Africa) one could find primarily Christians of foreign origin, namely merchants, mercenaries and slaves although in the inner parts of the country Christianised Berber tribes remained.PontiffSulivahn
- Who were the puritanical Almohads? That's not explained, and I can't see how that could possibly be considered an appropriate adjective to apply to Moslems. It's not in the source. That makes it more OR.
- puritanical would be used here in the sense of e.g. "having standards of moral behavior that forbid many pleasures" (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/puritanical). As far as I know, it is a common word in English, not only applicable to the Puritans and Sanneh also uses it on page 15.PontiffSulivahn
- What economic and military value could slaves and merchants have? The reasons for the Pope's support should be mentioned and isn't.
- Sanneh mentions on page 15 that Muslim rulers tolerated Christian for the lucrative trade that they brought and also mentions how Christians served in their bodyguards. Lower, whose article deals with the Christian soldiers in 13th century Magreb and how they sparked missions and papal interest to the region, mentions that as well and goes into more detail. Page 619 mentions how caliph al-Ma'mum put more trust into Christian mercenaries and "the Almohad's dynasty growing reliance on the military support of Christian mercenaries". Page 629 mentions how also the subsequent dynasties, the Hafsids, Marinids and Zayyanids, continued to employ Christian mercenaries. The whole article is basically about how the importance of the mercenaries became a source of leverage of the popes to promote Christianity in North Africa (page 620).PontiffSulivahn
- The Sanneh citation page numbers do discuss the mendicants, but not as it is conveyed here. Francis spoke to the Sultan apparently without producing hostility. It was the mission to Tunis that was met that way, and the 5 that went to Morocco were martyred. That seems worth a mention to my mind.
- The thing here is that the appearance of the three aforementioned groups in North Africa triggered the need to provide pastoral care as every Christian community would need a priest to administer rites (Lower, p. 615). This was the primary reason for the missions. Then, the Franciscans sent the above mentioned missions to Egypt, Morocco and Tunis to also Christianise local Muslims and pope Honorius III made this official papal policy in his bull Vineae Domini custodes. This was, as mentioned by Sanneh p.15 forbidden and you find the same in Joseph O'Callaghan's Reconquest and Crusade in Medieval Spain p. 118 that also states that proselytisation was contrary to Islamic law. The proselytisation was then met with violence and martyrdom as you mention. Therefore I phrased the sentence in the way I did, but I am happy for better ways.PontiffSulivahn
- Lower's article is on the Muslim use of Christian mercenaries to fight other Christians, and nowhere is that even mentioned in this paragraph. It's actually an interesting topic, but when it comes down to it, it might be one of those details that isn't significant enough to include. At any rate, it can't stay as it is. It would set off all kinds of alarm bells at FAC and get the nomination quick-failed for OR. Repair or remove, please. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- I have not found any mention in the article how Christian mercenaries were deployed to fight other Christians. As mentioned above, it discusses how the mercenaries became an important impetus in the efforts to promote Christianity in North Africa. Nevertheless, the article together with Sanneh offers a short overview on what was going on at the time in former Christian North Africa: local Christianity diminishing, European Christians arriving, this triggering new missions by the mendicants and interest by the popes, typically to provide pastoral care for them, but occasionally also to proselytise. Additionally the short overview on Egypt and Ethiopia. I will try again, but feel free to edit it to make it shorter and so that the nomination works out :)PontiffSulivahn
- Just so you know, I have now reverted the edit for the above reasons. If you fix the problems, it can be reinserted. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- PontiffSulivahn I am grateful for the participation, but the paragraph has some problems. Right now it reads:
- Hi @Jenhawk777, I have tried to create a short section on the state of Christianity in Northern Africa in the 12th and 13th century. I hope it is short enough but feel free to shorten it if you can. I think especially the Sanneh source can be also used for the further centuries. PontiffSulivahn (talk) 18:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- MASHAUN I have attempted to make this article less western-focused. I have not completed the Late Middle Ages in the East yet, and next week RL will prevent me doing much here, but I will get back to this. In the meantime, I would be grateful if you would look over what's been added and see if there are any major topics missing. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
protection for this article[edit]
Multiple acts of vandalism as demonstrated in recent edits at 20:19, 23 February 2024, by 2a01:5a8:30d:4a77:ec8d:21a1:41f8:de32 talk; 20:17, 23 February 2024, by 2a01:5a8:30d:4a77:ec8d:21a1:41f8:de32 talk; and at 20:15, 23 February 2024, by 2a01:5a8:30d:4a77:ec8d:21a1:41f8:de32 talk
indicate to me that this page needs protection. Do others agree? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- 2a02:c7c:4671:6300:dd2f:ea0c:376:ba69 Please stop. I will be compelled to report this to [[10]] otherwise. Since you are already partially blocked, that would not lead to good things for you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- I've requested semi-protection at RPP. Can't hurt. Remsense诉 21:56, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Apparently there is not enough disruption. I did not go back and collect all previous ones, but if this continues, I will. Thank you Pbritti and Remsense for trying. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Ohnoitsjamie, per [11], you may want to partially block from this article too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- I only see those 2 edits from that /32 range since the beginning of the year. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Well, I don't get to decide that! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
GA Reassessment[edit]
History of Christianity[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result: No consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
After receiving GA from Generalissima I asked for a peer review to take this article to FA. In that review, Borsoka had a problem with sources that, in his view, were not general enough to reflect consensus. I have added more general sources, and have used multiple references to find and demonstrate majority views, but in his view this article, still, not only doesn't deserve FA, it doesn't even deserve a GA and should be reassessed accordingly. I am cooperating and asking for the community to weigh in. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Just for the records, I mentioned more than one problems. 2c: It probably contains original research because I found at least two sentences after a quick review that were not verified by the allegedly cited source. Furthermore, the article is not based on works about the general history of Christianty, but on several books and studies about specific aspects of church history. 3a: The article fails to address major aspects of the topic because it mainly focuses on the history of Western Christianty. 3a: In some cases, the article goes into unnecessary details. Borsoka (talk) 09:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Please be specific. Which sentences do you think are not properly cited, and what major topics are omitted and what details remain. I've explained that this article covers each era by the geography of where Christianity was primarily centered in that era.Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Read my peer review. Borsoka (talk) 13:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think I have fixed everything you mentioned there. I am still researching and adding more on the East one section at a time, but I am doing that. I meant, is there something else? Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- Read my peer review. Borsoka (talk) 13:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- Note that per the GA criteria, "The "broad in its coverage" criterion is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles. It allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
- Personally, I do feel that the article is rather weak on its coverage of non-Western Christianity. Take e.g. Orthodoxy, which is mentioned in only four paragraphs across the whole article, and nothing between 1054 and the modern era. Similarly, Oriental Orthodoxy is mentioned once in prose and the Coptic traditions not at all. I think the assertion above that "this article covers each era by the geography of where Christianity was primarily centered in that era" is perhaps subconsciously biased; what it should read is "this article covers each era by the geography of where developments in the Christianity we see today were primarily centered".
- The "Early Middle Ages (600–1100)" section is especially teleological: it deals near-exclusively with Western Europe (including the Crusades, viewed exclusively through a "Frankish" lens), which is difficult to justify. The sole paragraph dealing with Byzantium, beginning "By the end of the first millennium..." is inexcusably vague and dismissive.
- That said, bearing in mind the GA criterion above, which allows "significantly weaker" broadness than that expected from featured articles, I think this article is acceptable at GA. Western-biased, yes, but that's not unusual for Wikipedia, and it's not terrible in the later sections. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Please be specific. Which sentences do you think are not properly cited, and what major topics are omitted and what details remain. I've explained that this article covers each era by the geography of where Christianity was primarily centered in that era.Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Discussion of featured criteria issues
|
---|
|
- Thank you for the quote. My problem is that this is not a "shorter article", but a large article which covers almost exclusively Western Christianity. I think it should be quickly delisted. Borsoka (talk) 13:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- I feel that it comes under "overviews of large topics". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:42, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think the text would not allow us to present the history of Germany, France and England in an article about the history of Europe. Borsoka (talk) 02:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- I don't understand this.Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think the text would not allow us to present the history of Germany, France and England in an article about the history of Europe. Borsoka (talk) 02:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- Adding Eastern Christianity across the board will take time. It would be a demonstration of good faith to acknowledge that I am doing that and have done the rest of what you have asked as well. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- Why not move that material out and this page to History of western Christianity...? There seems to be a consensus that that seems to be what it actually is... ——Serial 19:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- There is no History of Western Christianity article as such - but there could be. There is Western Christianity that contains a short history section. So are you suggesting a sub-article that expands the history section? That's probably doable. It would be a lot of work but that might actually resolve the conflict here. It would also make it possible to keep the size down.
- There's actually an awful lot in this article on the East - I guess that could be merged into Eastern Christianity as well - if it isn't already there. I wouldn't mind doing all this if others agree it's the best approach. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- Why not move that material out and this page to History of western Christianity...? There seems to be a consensus that that seems to be what it actually is... ——Serial 19:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- I feel that it comes under "overviews of large topics". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:42, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the quote. My problem is that this is not a "shorter article", but a large article which covers almost exclusively Western Christianity. I think it should be quickly delisted. Borsoka (talk) 13:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- Does this end the reassessment? Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- So a general History of Christianity just doesn't exist anymore? What about the interwikis? I think a move like this really needs a consensus beforehand. Skyshiftertalk 23:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I too think this is a rather strange move. I get maybe there is a lot of detail in the west and east parts that merits its own attention, but there should be an overall history of Christianity page. As noted during the recent DYK run, it also needs a bit more balance in my view, the relative coverage of Christianity in the United States compared with Africa and Latin America is not proportionate. — Amakuru (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- I certainly don't see where SN54129 got the idea there was a consensus for the move, so
I'll move it back per WP:RMUM and start an RMnope, Amakuru has already asked to do that at WP:RM. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)- I have reverted the move. SilverLocust 💬 03:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Dagnabbit!! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you SilverLocust for doing the work that restoration required. This article makes a better "History of Western Christianity" I thought and an overview article could easily be recreated from a synopsis of both the western and eastern articles. But if it's consensus to leave it, I will accept the decision of the community.
- Now back to the GA reassessment I guess. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Jenhawk777: My revert was at the request of the others. I am mostly indifferent about whether it is moved/split, but I agree with Skyshifter, Amakuru, and AirshipJungleman29 that the move needs a discussion beforehand — either by way of a requested move or proposed split. SilverLocust 💬 00:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Well, I appreciate that, but it does seem as if many are willing to make demands about what this article should be without being willing to do the work. When you reverted, you did the work of adding back the refs and so on, so I thank you for that. Since there is disagreement over the move, we should probably deal with one issue at a time, and since the GA issue came first, we should probably address that first. So far, there is one yes and one no. I originally posted this request for reassessment because of that no. They give these reasons:
- 2c) First, it says two citations that cited the wrong chapter are "original research". I cited the author/chapter after the right one, but the rest was correct, even the page numbers. That's not OR, it's just an error. At any rate, that has been fixed.
- 3a) The "no" voter says the article needs more general histories. Those have been added. The reasoning given is that only general histories lead to an understanding of majority views, but I don't think that's true. They are only one person's perspective on a very broad history, and they probably aren't experts in every aspect. By using multiple books and articles on specific aspects of history written by experts, it is possible to get multiple points of view on the same events. The "common" view can be found two ways: when multiple sources say the same things - or when one of those specialists report on what's happening in the field. There are plenty of sources of both kinds used here, and I can assure everyone that the majority view is what is in the text.
- 3a) The complaint that the article has a western bias is fair and is being addressed. It is just taking some time for additional research.
- "In some cases, the article goes into unnecessary details". For reviewers on this page, there are two complaints about not enough detail on some topics and one complaint about too much detail without saying where. One way or the other, I am working, with help, to make the article as concise as possible and still be complete in its coverage.
- None of these should prevent this article from being seen as deserving its GA. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Well, I appreciate that, but it does seem as if many are willing to make demands about what this article should be without being willing to do the work. When you reverted, you did the work of adding back the refs and so on, so I thank you for that. Since there is disagreement over the move, we should probably deal with one issue at a time, and since the GA issue came first, we should probably address that first. So far, there is one yes and one no. I originally posted this request for reassessment because of that no. They give these reasons:
- @Jenhawk777: My revert was at the request of the others. I am mostly indifferent about whether it is moved/split, but I agree with Skyshifter, Amakuru, and AirshipJungleman29 that the move needs a discussion beforehand — either by way of a requested move or proposed split. SilverLocust 💬 00:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- I have reverted the move. SilverLocust 💬 03:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- So a general History of Christianity just doesn't exist anymore? What about the interwikis? I think a move like this really needs a consensus beforehand. Skyshiftertalk 23:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- My concern is that after a short reading I found highly debatable statements: (1) In what would become Eastern Central Europe, Christianization and political centralization went hand in hand in creating the nation-states of Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia, Poland, Hungary, and Russia. Many of the nation-states listed came into being in the 20th and 21th centuries. (2) [In the Byzantine Empire] The eleventh century was a period of relative peace and prosperity, and Christianity was the ‘glue' of the empire. After around 1050, the Byzantine Empire lost large territories to the Seljuk Turks. 3. Bulgarians are mentioned as living in Asia, Alanians in the lands now forming Iran. I think you should do your homework, and complete this article before demanding new and new reviews from other editors. Alternatively, you may want to complete an article about a shorter period of the history of Christianity, and achieve its promotion as GA and FA. Borsoka (talk) 04:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Borsoka, Thank you. You are right. I should have waited until all the new material was in, checked and polished before asking anyone anything. I rushed because this is still standing open. I expected to come back and continue to add and move things around, because I thought others would be willing to help. Now you have.
- The nations listed had their roots/precursors in the Middle Ages, but that is unclear in how it is stated. Thank you for pointing that out. I have now changed it.
- That "The eleventh century was a period of relative peace and prosperity," is not incorrect, it is just not a detailed discussion of "relative". If losing territory qualifies as the absence of peace and prosperity, then Byzantium never had any after Justinian, and we all know that is simply not true.
- You are right again that Bulgaria would more properly be listed under Europe - except that category wasn't there. Since it's kind of borderline, it can be described as connecting to the Asian continent, and at the time, I had no better place to put it, so I just squeezed it in. I have now changed the section title and moved Bulgaria so it is now with the rest of southeastern Europe - which wasn't there before but is now.
- I have added material on the East in every age including creating the entirely new section. Have I adequately addressed the issue of "Western bias"?
- Have I adequately addressed all the issues you raised in the peer review? You have been the most critical - not complaining, just noting - but that is why I need an answer from you directly on whether or not I have adequately addressed those issues. If not, I need to know what hasn't been done. I know it's asking a lot, but this article is complex and needs all the input from multiple editors that it can get. I appreciate that you want the article to be the best it can. I share that desire and believe you are well able to help with that. You have, so please let me know. I do need your help and I am grateful for it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Let me add that I have not yet completed the East in the Late Middle Ages. I thought I would have it done by the time you read this, but I am not satisfied with it - mostly because I am now reluctant to put in anything that isn't already perfect - so I am not publishing it yet. You can still answer about the rest of it though, and I will have this last bit in the next couple of days - RL is interfering right now, but I'll get it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, I stop replying your queries because we obviously live in paralel worlds: in your world, the loss of more than half of Byzantine territory is the sign of a period of relative peace, in my world it is not; in your world, the Byzantine Empire was continuosly losing territories, in my world, the empire was expanding under the first Macedonian emperors, and later under the Komneni; in your world, Bulgaria is located on the borders of Asia and Europe, for me, it is a clearly European country, etc. My opinion has not changed: the article has never reached the level of a GA. Borsoka (talk) 04:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- The direct quote from Jonathan Harris' "Byzantium and the Crusades" is this:
One consequence of Byzantine military success is that, especially after 1018, many parts of the empire enjoyed a period of relative peace and prosperity as the threat of foreign invasion, ever-present in previous centuries, now diminished. The frontier districts, particularly newly incorporated Bulgaria, Syria and Armenia remained vulnerable to raids from neighboring nomads, so many urban centers such as Adrianople, Philippopolis, Antioch and Theodosiopolis retained their military function and garrisons. In the interior provinces on the other hand, particularly in what is now Greece and western Turkey, towns were flourishing as centers of industry and commerce. Archaeological excavations reveal that areas of Corinth and Athens, which had been deserted for centuries, had now been reoccupied and built over, and important industries had begun to grow up. ... In general therefore Byzantium was probably a more prosperous and settled society in the mid-eleventh century than the fragmented and localized countries of Western Europe.
- Constantine the 5th's reforms brought about a revival that lasted until 1204 and the fourth crusade. From the tenth century on, Byzantium projected wealth. This is in Paul Magdalino's, "Medieval Constantinople: Built Environment and Urban Development". In Angeliki E. Laiou's "The Economic History of Byzantium (Volume 2)"; in W. Treadgold's "A History of the Byzantine State and Society"; and any other history you check.
- This is not an error on my part.
- It does seem we are not living in the same world. For me, it is fair and reasonable - an act of good faith - to let things go once they've been addressed. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- In the "Cambridge History of Christianity", volume 2, Bundy says on page 133: "The adoption of Christianity as the ‘glue of empire’ within Byzantium had serious repercussions for Persian Christians."
- The
Macedonian emperors
are political and off topic for this article. - However, I have to say I am surprised you would mention them, since they prove my point and do not support your parallel world. Byzantine Empire under the Macedonian dynasty says
...revival took place in the late 9th, 10th, and early 11th centuries. ... The cities of the empire expanded, and affluence spread across the provinces because of the newfound security. The population rose, and production increased, stimulating new demand for trade.
That's exactly what Harris - and all the others - say. It's what I said. later under Komneni
I did say I have not done the late Middle Ages yet.- None of these are legit complaints, except for one, Bulgaria is in Europe, which it is now. The GA criteria says that
You are expected to respond to the reviewer's suggestions to improve the article to GA quality in a timely manner
. It does not say that if anyone has any suggestions for improvement, that immediately sinks the nomination. This article meets the 6 criteria. You'll have to do better than this to prove otherwise. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- The direct quote from Jonathan Harris' "Byzantium and the Crusades" is this:
- Sorry, I stop replying your queries because we obviously live in paralel worlds: in your world, the loss of more than half of Byzantine territory is the sign of a period of relative peace, in my world it is not; in your world, the Byzantine Empire was continuosly losing territories, in my world, the empire was expanding under the first Macedonian emperors, and later under the Komneni; in your world, Bulgaria is located on the borders of Asia and Europe, for me, it is a clearly European country, etc. My opinion has not changed: the article has never reached the level of a GA. Borsoka (talk) 04:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Let me add that I have not yet completed the East in the Late Middle Ages. I thought I would have it done by the time you read this, but I am not satisfied with it - mostly because I am now reluctant to put in anything that isn't already perfect - so I am not publishing it yet. You can still answer about the rest of it though, and I will have this last bit in the next couple of days - RL is interfering right now, but I'll get it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
New peer review[edit]
Please add any and all comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/History of Christianity/archive2 Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- My first comment is a defense of Matthews and Platt The Western Humanities as a most excellent source. This article references history, but it must also use culture, politics, sociology, the arts and philosophy to provide both context and explanation. This is critically important to understanding the history of any religion simply because it is fact that religion influences culture and culture influences religion.
- There is no better source - anywhere - that provides the kind of comprehensive view of all of that than this college textbook. It is a history, a history of all the humanities as they reflected and influenced one another. I have tested every statement on the history of religion, used from this textbook, in this article, and there are no inaccuracies. Perhaps that is why this book has been reprinted - 6 times? - since it was first published. It is not limited to being a history of art as some have claimed. It is the highest quality history of the humanities, and that makes all the difference. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- The Cambridge History of Christianity is referenced 40 times through nearly as many individual authors. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- 39 now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Have reduced content to below 13,000 words! Still working at reduction in size. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- 39 now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- The Cambridge History of Christianity is referenced 40 times through nearly as many individual authors. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- I got all radical and moved everything out of "Eastern Christianity" into its corresponding times. I think it's easier to follow this way. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- It has been recommended that it's time to put this article up for FAC. Any opinions on this would be appreciated. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Question[edit]
When something in one section of an article is mentioned in another section, should it be referenced somehow? How? The investiture controversy is mentioned in the early Middle Ages but not actually discussed until the high Middle Ages. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- Requests for peer review
- Wikipedia good articles
- History good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- Wikipedia Did you know articles that are good articles
- GA-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-4 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in History
- GA-Class level-4 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-4 vital articles in History
- GA-Class vital articles in History
- GA-Class Christianity articles
- Top-importance Christianity articles
- GA-Class Christian theology articles
- Top-importance Christian theology articles
- Christian theology work group articles
- GA-Class Christian History articles
- Top-importance Christian History articles
- Christian History articles
- WikiProject Christianity articles
- GA-Class Catholicism articles
- High-importance Catholicism articles
- WikiProject Catholicism articles
- GA-Class Eastern Orthodoxy articles
- High-importance Eastern Orthodoxy articles
- WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy articles
- GA-Class Oriental Orthodoxy articles
- High-importance Oriental Orthodoxy articles
- WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy articles
- GA-Class history articles
- High-importance history articles
- WikiProject History articles
- GA-Class Religion articles
- Top-importance Religion articles
- WikiProject Religion articles
- Wikipedia articles that use Oxford spelling
- Wikipedia articles that use British English