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)
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:
( talk) 00:32, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
"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.
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
Jenhawk777 ( talk) 05:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
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)
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: Illustrated6A: 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: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: StableYep! No evidence of edit wars here. - G 4: NeutralHaving 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 coverageA: 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 researchA: 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-writtenI will work on this more tomorrow, but some preliminary prose quibbles. - G
(Proper prose review begin) LedeI 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
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)
Early to High Middle Ages (600 – 1100)
The rise and fall of Christendom (1100 – 1500)
"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
1750 – 1945
Christianity since 1945I'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.
|
The result was: promoted by
NightWolf1223
talk 04:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
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.
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. |
@ Jenhawk777: Gonna just log my thoughts on parts that might need some prose work as I do my chopping.
More to come. Generalissima ( talk) 22:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
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 says
Yet 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 with
The 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.
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.
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.
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)
We're not here to illustrate all of modern western historydoesn't seem like a fair criticism, since the text directly discusses those regions. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 19:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
what John Witte callsand 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.
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)
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)
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.🙏 -- MA SHAUN IX 13:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
Discussion of featured criteria issues
|
---|
|
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.
Macedonian emperorsare political and off topic for this article.
...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 KomneniI did say I have not done the late Middle Ages yet.
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)
Please add any and all comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/History of Christianity/archive2 Jenhawk777 ( talk) 18:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
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)
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:
( talk) 00:32, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
"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.
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
Jenhawk777 ( talk) 05:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
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)
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: Illustrated6A: 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: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: StableYep! No evidence of edit wars here. - G 4: NeutralHaving 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 coverageA: 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 researchA: 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-writtenI will work on this more tomorrow, but some preliminary prose quibbles. - G
(Proper prose review begin) LedeI 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
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)
Early to High Middle Ages (600 – 1100)
The rise and fall of Christendom (1100 – 1500)
"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
1750 – 1945
Christianity since 1945I'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.
|
The result was: promoted by
NightWolf1223
talk 04:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
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.
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. |
@ Jenhawk777: Gonna just log my thoughts on parts that might need some prose work as I do my chopping.
More to come. Generalissima ( talk) 22:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
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 says
Yet 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 with
The 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.
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.
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.
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)
We're not here to illustrate all of modern western historydoesn't seem like a fair criticism, since the text directly discusses those regions. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 19:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
what John Witte callsand 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.
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)
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)
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.🙏 -- MA SHAUN IX 13:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
Discussion of featured criteria issues
|
---|
|
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.
Macedonian emperorsare political and off topic for this article.
...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 KomneniI did say I have not done the late Middle Ages yet.
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)
Please add any and all comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/History of Christianity/archive2 Jenhawk777 ( talk) 18:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)