Talk:History of Christianity

↓ Jump to bottom of page ↓

With gratitude

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)

SanctumRosarium Well that comment shows how much I knew last December! Comments from peers at FA said the article was too western biased to ever make FA, so it had to be rewritten yet again. There are few secondary sources, and even fewer original sources on the East, but I did my best to provide as balanced and thorough a picture as possible. It is now close to 13,000 words. If you feel like walking across coals yet another time, please take a look and see if you can suggest edits that would shorten content without losing the thoroughness other editors have insisted FA requires. I've been working on this article for two years now. It's about to kill me. Any comment will be appreciated. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

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. This review is transcluded from Talk:History of Christianity/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. Reviewer: Generalissima (talk · contribs) 19:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC) Howdy! This popped up on my watchlist and it looks like a really high-quality article given the impressive scope of the topic. I'm going to try to give it a look-over over the next few days and see if it meets the GA criteria, and to see what needs to be touched up if not. Generalissima (talk) 19:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC) For silly personal reasons, I like to go through the GA criteria in reverse order. 6: Illustrated 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 Thank you! Bless you, I appreciate that. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC) 6B: The images are of good quality and placement, are relevant to the sections where they are included. Couple nitpicks: Anna Murray Douglass and Frederick Douglass should be wikilinked in their caption. You should also have a sentence connecting Douglass and abolitionism to Christianity in the caption, as mentions of abolitionism within the text are brief. Moreover, wouldn't Frederick Douglass himself be more recognizable as a figure? He himself was a preacher, so it would be easier to directly tie that into Christian abolitionism with a short caption. Figures that are facing right should have their images on the left side of the page per MOS:PORTRAIT. Got to go, but I'll try to get back to this tonight. - G I like this suggestion! I will make those adjustments immediately. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC) @Jenhawk777 Ty! Though I don't think we need both Douglasses; perhaps Joseph Smith in lieu of Anna Douglass to represent the more idiosyncratic side of the Great Awakening? Generalissima (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC) Generalissima. Awwhhh! I liked including both white and black women, but I also agree that Frederick himself is the more significant character. Do I have to pick? I do not like the idea of adding Smith for several reasons: he is never mentioned in the text - though Latter Day Saints are mentioned under the second great awakening, but all of the various movements make no mention of any details including who their leaders were. If I get into that with one, won't I have to do them all? Then this article becomes a very long list of one name after another. It was hard to determine who to mention, since Christianity is a movement of the people, but I had to draw the line somewhere! Tell me if you feel strongly about it. I will adjust. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC) @Jenhawk777 I agree including Black female preachers is important; how abput Sojourner Truth to cover Abolitionist revivalism in general in stead of either Douglass? Generalissima (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC) I can do that, but I would like to understand how she is superior to Douglas, if you can explain please. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC) @Jenhawk777 Ultimately down to your personal preference, but I feel that Soujourner Truth is generally seen as more connected to her religious work, as well as more of a stand-alone figure as opposed to the two Douglasses who are often spoken of as a pair. Also, still on mobile but should be able to get started on a prose review this evening when I get back home. Generalissima (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC) That seems like a good explanation, but I already put her in because I figured you would have a good reason. See you later then! I will be offline for about the next six hours, but will come back then - with bells on! (That just means I'm excited.) Hah! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC) 5: Stable Yep! No evidence of edit wars here. - G 4: Neutral 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 Thank you. I have tried to show the good, the bad and the ugly as it was appropriate and representative. Paradigm shifts are all noted (even if the term is not used). I tried to include some of the interesting stuff, though a lot of that's in the details that got cut. Sigh. I have a commitment to neutrality - it's even on my user page - but nobody told me that meant cutting content! Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC) 3: Broad in its coverage 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 Generalissima This is amazing, thank you, but please do not hold back on anything - nitpick away! This article is important enough it should be a Featured article, and I would like to get it there, so anything at all that you know of that FA would require, please do tell me. I lack the experience you have, so anything you say will help. Part of the difficulty in writing this article has been balancing 'A' and 'B'. I have focused more on getting the length down, so a lot of content has been distilled or removed entirely. There was at one time an entire section on Jewish Christians, then the sentence still had Ebionites and some staying Jewish for centuries, then it became what it is now. Cutting out details and summarizing as succinctly as possible, has been what I was advised to do - but that does leave many, many aspects of history without any real explanation. What seems critically important to me doesn't always seem so to those who have peer reviewed here - and vice versa of course. I was advised to cut the Galileo affair, but I left it in because it is the beginning of the mistrust between science and religion that still exists for many. I cut Jewish Christians down because everyone knows that Judaism rejects Jesus as Messiah, so it needs less explanation. However, I will see if I can't enhance that sentence a little - without adding too much to length. I'll do my best. And thank you for this - for all of this. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)  Done and I'm still under 12,000 words! I hope it will do. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC) I wouldn't necessarily use a direct quote from Marcus (since he doesn't seem to be a particularly notable figure, and I feel a paraphrase would work just as well in this situation). My main remaining quibble is that the "remained a Jewish sect, for centuries in some locations" in the lede is not elaborated on within the article. Generalissima (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC) Quote is gone - I really liked the squeezed out part, but oh well! - locations and time frame are now specific. Hope this works. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC) Oh, I also meant to say Marcus is a specialist in early Christian history at Duke Divinity who is respected enough that Cambridge asked him to contribute to their official history. I don't know why we don't have a page on him - except that we generally don't of anyone at a "Divinity school". Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC) Well, if you ever need a break from these big general overview articles, writing about notable academics and scholars of theology could be fun! :3 Generalissima (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC) Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:12, 4 January 2024 (UTC)  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:14, 4 January 2024 (UTC) 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 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.) 52 (Davies, Horbury & Sturdy 2001, pp. 94–167) 60 pages for one sentence is a bit excessive, but it ultimately checks out; this section is describing the intense series of political and social upheavals of 1st century Judea. I am unsure what you are seeing. # 52 is Bokenkotter 2007, p. 18. Davies, Horbury & Sturdy is # 58, and since there are two others there for an undisputed claim, I agree it is excessive and will remove it.  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC) 65 (de Pressensé 1870, p. 21) Source supports the text, but is this the best source for this? It's a 150 year old text by a relatively obscure theologian. For such a core concept in the understanding of Christianity's spread. Wouldn't another source that you encountered while working on Historiography of the Christianization of the Roman Empire would support a continued modern scholarly understanding of Christianity in this way? Ah! I figured it out. Because of the change to Jewish Christians up front and the need for citations there, the numbering is now off. You are referring to #67 now. de Pressensé is one of those classic iconic works that has remained authoritative. He is not obscure in the field of theology. The description of him at [1] says "he has placed himself in the highest rank of modern defenders of the primitive Christian faith." It seemed the right fit for the section's claim. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC) Ah, my apologies! I didn't know the context behind de Pressensé. This looks good, then. Generalissima (talk) 21:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC) No apology necessary! Who outside of this obscure field would possibly know?Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC) 246 (Acts 2:42–47.) Clever biblical cite. The Book of Acts isn't exactly a modern academic source, but I am assuming on good faith that this section is discussed in Crislip (as is typical for primary source citations in contexts like this.) On pages 156 and 168. Do you think those need to be added? I don't have a problem removing the primary source reference if you think that would be better. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC) Ah, nah, it's fine since it's discussed in the source! Generalissima (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC) I went and added a page number just in case someone else wants to find it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2024 (UTC) 321 (Witte 1997 pp. 29, 36.) Supports the thesis of the sentence, although page 29 is primarily talking about Aquinas's views, rather than the earlier Gregorian reforms, no? 321, 322 and 323 are all Witte! Hmm, there is definitely an unintentional ambiguity there. Inserted "Thirteenth century theologians" in hopes that clarifies.  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC) Looks good now, thank you! Generalissima (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC) 425 ( Golden 2011, p. 47.) Describes Christianity spreading among the Uighur Turks during the 9th century. The way it is placed in the sentence, however, makes it seem like it's the primary source for all prior info in the paragraph, instead of Baum & Winkler. (Additionally, I don't think that "Mongol kingdoms in Central Asia" existed prior to the Mongol Empire, which you explicitly mention afterwards. Christianity among the Mongols talks about specific tribes such as the Naiman converting, but these were not kingdoms per se, and certainly not in most definitions of Central Asia. 425 is now 426. This was in the original pre-me article and I admit, I failed to properly run down its provenance. Shame on me. None of this is in Golden - at least not that I can find, so that is going, going gone. I am researching this now, and will return with something well founded and verifiable. Sorry about this. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC) @Jenhawk777: Thank you! I realize this is a big ask considering the sheer volume, but since my review brought up some irregularities, I would advise doing a source-review and making sure everything is backed up by the pages you're citing. Since you plan to bring this to FAC, this will make things a lot easier, since you'd be a lot more likely to pass the (at times, fairly stringent) source reviews. Generalissima (talk) 23:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC) Generalissima I am confident that was the only paragraph left from the original article not written or checked by me. I am unsure how it slipped past me, but I am very thankful you caught it. That is really the purpose of going through the GA process for me. You can of course opt to fail it immediately. I would understand. But I promise I have been extremely careful with my own composition, which is about 90% of the text here, and have done repeated spot checks of the rest. If there is a second problem, I will withdraw the nomination myself. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC) Okay, I'm assuming on good faith that this was an anomaly in that department (and I'll try to review some sources during the prose review if anything seems sketchy.) On-wards to that, which might take a bit due to the length of the article. Generalissima (talk) 05:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC) Thank you for that act of faith in me and my work. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC) Comment I "got through" with an Earwig, and it was fine, it noted a long-ish quote. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC) 1: Well-written I will work on this more tomorrow, but some preliminary prose quibbles. - G Origins to 312 Notes 2 and 3 probably could use some links; such as to Enlightenment, relics, Nebuchadnezzar, Babylon, and Jewish diaspora.  Done Jenhawk777 (talk)! Christianity since 1945 In the Ecumenism section, you mention the WCC, but this is not defined anywhere else in the article. You also say "Roman Catholic goals are..." but don't specify if these positions from the church are a result of Vatican II, or were a goal beforehand.  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC) (Proper prose review begin) Lede 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) Generalissima I have now removed all of the citations from the lead. I will have to follow this up with removing the unused references from the sources section, but I will have to come back and do that later. I have about 5 more minutes here right now. I added in and outside the empire - good point that one. It just says "the development of tolerance as policy" and makes no claims as to who and how much. Hmm - would you prefer this: "the development of tolerance as a theological option" ? Has it become the world's largest religion in contemporary times Yes indeed it has. Numerically verified by the Pew references removed from the lead. Oh, my bad. It might be good to cite specifically that one since it's direct quantifiable data rather than summary. Generalissima (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC) No problem. I should be able to find it in recent diffs. Should I place it in the lead? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC) Looks good. Generalissima (talk) 20:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC) aren't the areas where Christianity growing in the East within the global south? China and SE Asia are above the equator - the north. It's Africa that's in the global south. "Global South" usually includes SE Asia and China, despite those being in the Northern Hemisphere. Generalissima (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC) It does? In all the PEW reports I have read, and the material referenced here, China is 'global East' and Africa is 'global south'. I have never seen anything else. If China is ever referred to as global south, that reference is at best a weird minority view and at worst an error in fact. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC) Allow me to eat my words! With some hot sauce as an extra punishment! China is in the global south according to PEW. You were right along. According to Oxford Academic, it is also in the global East. Mea culpa! Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC) Hah, no worries. It's very confusing. Generalissima (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC) I'll be back later. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC) It now reads "Growing criticism of the Roman Catholic church and its corruption in the Late Middle Ages led to the Protestant Reformation and its related reform movements, which concluded with the European wars of religion, the return of tolerance as a theological and political option, and the Age of Enlightenment." What do you think? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC) I like this! Good job. Generalissima (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC) Bless you! Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC) Origins to 312 "This [...] has limited scholars to what is probable" Limited them to what? Study what is probable? Incorporate within general historiographies what is probable?  Fixed I hope. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC) Yep! Generalissima (talk) 01:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC) Everything in "Beginnings" is solid. "...with the Apostles, and Paul." Ain't he an Apostle? He's not one of the Twelve, but he's usually called one. I'd change "and" to "including". Changed. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC) Looks good. Generalissima (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC) I don't think "Achaia (Roman province)" is the main article for early Christianity's spread in the province. Just wikilink it and Asia Minor when you mention them in this section.  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC) In general, I don't think any of the "Christianity in (X)" are the main articles for these sections, but further information. If there was, for example, "Christianization of Gaul" (currently a redirect) or "Spread of Christianity in Africa", then that would be the main article for those topics.  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC) You can merge two sentences in the Gaul subsection. "Most of what is known of early Christianity in Gaul (modern France) comes from a letter, most likely written by Irenaeus, which theologically interprets the detailed suffering and martyrdom of Christians from Vienne and Lyons during the reign of Marcus Aurelius."  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC) "There is nothing more of Christianity in Gaul beyond one inscription" Is a bit vague, and implies that Christianity might have been completely eradicated during this. To my knowledge, it'd be more accurate to say that there is no written records of Christianity in Gaul until the 4th century. It might have been completely eradicated for a time. No one knows, and your surmise is actually one among many theories. The one piece of evidence is written evidence, it just happens to be on a gravestone. I think changing it implies there might be other evidence - as in Egypt - and there isn't any at all. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC) I added gravestone, does that help any? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC) That looks good! Generalissima (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC) Isn't Egypt part of North Africa? I feel those two subsections could be merged; especially since most of the discussion would be about Egypt anyhow. Geographically you are of course correct, but in the study of Antiquity, they are separate and you will always see them that way. They were separate Roman provinces. It would be doing something that scholars do not do to combine them.Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC) Fair enough! Generalissima (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC) I'd give a footnote, if not a subsection, about Southern India since the St. Thomas Christians are quite interesting and extremely early, and would give due weight to how quickly Christianity spread to regions outside of the Roman Empire. I find them fascinating as well, and I would love to do this, and indeed there were details on them in one of the earlier versions of this article, but I was told to ditch all the specifics of that type including the Germans and everyone else as too detailed for this article. If the Thomas Christians are mentioned, then fairness requires mention of all the other churches likely founded by one of the apostles - and there are a lot of them - a few dozen attributable to Paul alone. I could easily expand the missionary section, but it would be an expansion of at least a paragraph. Also, some of the claims are disputed. How committed to this are you? Perhaps I could just add a link instead. Do you know how or where I could put this? [[2]] Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC) Wouldn't the Church fathers section make sense for Apostolic succession discussion? (Also, describing the doctrine of Apostolic succession itself might be a good thing to add to the end of the early history section; it gives the readers a lot of context for the structural transition from the murky early days to the more historically covered church of the Roman state) Generalissima (talk) 20:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC) "It is likely the Christian message arrived in Rome very early." This feels a bit too church-y in its phraseology to me? I think it'd be more direct to say Christian missionaries arrived in Rome very early. This seems like changing happy to glad for the most part. "Missionaries" seems to imply a modern concept. Since no one really knows for sure who first brought it, and this reflects what the source actually says, 'the message' of the gospel arriving in Rome (by sources unknown) is more accurate and direct imo. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC) I added the unknown part. Is that any clearer or did I muddy the waters further? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC) That works, IMHO! Generalissima (talk) 20:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC) "In groups formed by Paul the Apostle" Need a comma after this.  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC) "Christians offered last rites to the dying and buried them" Incidentally implies they were burying the dying rather than the death. Since the next sentence talks about burials, I think you can just end this one at dying. Ha ha! Good catch!  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC) I'm not sure how relevant the sentence about sexual morality is, esp. since it comes from the thesis of a single (albeit fairly notable) work. I used him for convenience, but all the latest work says the same, and imo, it is not only relevant, it is important. It is one of the major changes Christianity made back then, and since sex remains a problematic topic in the modern church, and it goes back to this early interpretation by Paul, there is relevance into the modern day. Here is a longer discussion that will hopefully explain more: [3] This was also a discussion that was removed. This distresses me. It indicates these various removals have clouded the ability to understand the history. Perhaps this should be expanded instead of removed. It seems almost like an afterthought as it is, and it was, and remains, incredibly significant. Think how much of society remains impacted by this! Okay, I have now expanded it a little. Tell me what you think. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC) "Christianity in its first 300 years was also highly exclusive" I think "to outsiders" would be an important addition to help clarify this statement. I think that would be redundant since the rest of the sentence already includes believing was the crucial and defining characteristic that set a "high boundary" that strongly excluded non-believers. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC) A lot of other section hatnotes should be made "see also" instead of "main article". There is now only one main article remaining - I think.  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC) "In the first century, new religious texts were written in Greek." Should probably specify that Christian religious texts were being written in Greek, rather than other world religions. Also, I'd spell out "Koine Greek" to prevent confusion with older registers.  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC) Probably don't need to mention that Edwin A. Judge is a social scientist. Other editors have previously cited me for not including proper attribution and "why should we care what this guy thinks? Who is he?" etc. etc. I think I have included something like this on every named authority in the article that doesn't have a wp page I can link to. Do you want me to goo through and remove them all? Won't that cause the other problem? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC) "The list of accepted books was established..." Not by everyone! Some apocrypha, the Book of Enoch for instance, was accepted as canonical to Oriental Orthodox. Should note that it was the canon of Chalcedonian Christianity. That creates a chronological problem. It now says The list of accepted books was established by the Council of Rome in 382, followed by those of Hippo in 393 and Carthage in 397. and the Council of Chalcedon was the fourth ecumenical council that wasn't held until 451. It wasn't until that same century that Enoch was excluded from the western canon. I can add 'for catholics' but that's actually redundant since, at the time, there was only one church and the east was part of it. It wasn't until 451 that Oriental Orthodoxy split from the rest of Christianity. Do I have your okay to leave it as is? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC) I didn't realize Enoch was part of the canon established at the Council of Rome. Yeah, that works. Maybe just a quick clarification that later churches would exclude books from this canon would be helpful to readers? Generalissima (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC) "The title "Church Father" is used by the Church to describe those who were the intellectual and spiritual teachers, leaders and philosophers of early Christianity" You can ditch the "those who were" here. Generalissima (talk) 06:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC) Late antiquity to Early Medieval Christianity (313 – 600) You need a comma after "In the fourth and fifth centuries."  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC) Were the problems truly "unsolvable"? This seems rather absolutist language.  Fixed Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC) Language like "ageless" and "relentless" seems a bit too flowery to maintain an encyclopedic tone. Fine. Why does encyclopedic have to mean boring and bland? Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC) If it were up to me, I would pepper my articles with so much more exciting language too; but sadly there's a MOS to uphold. Generalissima (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC) You have a comma leading into a parenthetical phrase in the first line of the Constantine subsection. Uh oh!  Fixed Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC) "In 313, he issued the Edict of Milan, which was already Licinius' policy." How can something he issued be his predecessors policy? Not his predecessor, his co-emperor. See previous sentence he did not become sole emperor until after defeating Licinius the emperor in the East in 324 That must need clarifying or it would not confuse you.  Done hopefully Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC) Oops, yeah. Thank you though! Generalissima (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC) I feel you overquote Cameron here, and should try to condense these quotes down a bit with paraphrasing. In general, I think the use of quotes is a bit too high for my tastes and should be tapered down to only when strictly necessary.  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC) "Christianity of this era" What era? It's hard to keep track in an article this large, so you should specify.  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC) Link "Visigothic".  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC) "With an "autocratic government, stable farm economy, Greek intellectual heritage and ... Orthodox Christianity", it had great wealth and economic resources enabling it to survive until 1453" This quote makes it sound like Orthodox Christianity was one of the reasons the Byzantine Empire was able to survive, but I'm not sure if that is accurate here. It reflects the source and probably is correct. Having one religion was a unifying cultural factor at the societal level back then. Since Gibbon has been undermined by current scholarship, and it is no longer fashionable to hold Christianity responsible for the demise of the western empire, there are even theories floating around claiming Christianity is what kept the west afloat when it should have collapsed after the third century. No one really knows of course. That statement's from a History of the Western Humanities, a really well done book that's been reprinted repeatedly since 1992. Current scholarship supports their statement. Any counter-view would be a minority view. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC) I will have to finish this later. Thank you for all your amazing work here. You are taking this seriously, are bending over backwards to be fair and reasonable and seem knowledgable about the topic - not a combination I get very often. I am very grateful. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC) Oh, that's fair enough! Again, apologies for any gaps in my knowledge on my part. Generalissima (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC) "Eastern church" shouldn't both be capitalized? Yes of course, you are absolutely correct.  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC) Use the "circa" template whenever you abbreviate circa as "c.", for accessibility reasons. I am apparently operating under the misunderstanding that it automatically did that. So now I have replaced them all with the circa template - I hope - I did not do the sources though because they came with a c. - is that okay? If so, this is  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC) There we go, that looks good! Thank you. Generalissima (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC) Should probably wikilink "state religion"  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC) So many unnecessary quotes! I can tell you love a good quote, but a lot of these are unnecessary and not really brilliant prose. "When the Theodosian Code was published in 438, no emperor had as yet legislated enforced conversion... no emperor was willing to legalize the enforced conversion of pagans until [the Eastern emperor] Justinian in A.D. 529." Is too lengthy and can comfortably be paraphrased. Sigh. You are not the first to complain about my quote fetish. I will replace them with some boring prose... Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC) "Historian Peter Brown surmises that it was for this reason that, except for a few instances involving violent politics, "In most areas, polytheists were not molested" they were ignored; fourth century Christians focused on heretics instead" Not only is the quote unnecessary here, it is ungrammatical. Just remove it. Both are  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC) "Sometime before the fifth century, some churchmen reinterpreted millennialism, which is the hope of the thousand-year reign of the Messiah on earth centered in Jerusalem and ruling with the Jews, and added supersessionism, which sees the Church as the metaphorical Israel in place of the Jews." This sentence has quite a few issues. Earth isn't capitalized, and "which is" is unnecessary and somewhat informal. Since the subject is somewhat vague to begin with, I would rewrite it to something like "Sometime before the fifth century, millennialism (the hope of a thousand-year earthly reign of the Messiah centered in Jerusalem) was reinterpreted within a doctrine of supersessionism, which sees the Church as the metaphorical Israel in place of the Jews." Why would earth be capitalized? I have struggled with this section and have tried to find a way to rewrite it that doesn't create other issues. For example, this was reinterpreted within a doctrine of supersessionism, implies the one replace the other, and that is not so. They existed alongside each other, one official and the other not ever an official doctrine of the church. Our article here on WP takes a full paragraph in the lead to try and explain it, and doesn't do a great job. I will work on this one. It's too important to cut which would be my knee-jerk response to anything this problematic. I will do some more research and see if I can find a better clearer definition. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC) Generalissima So I found something and edited in something, and it's a mealy mouthed sentence that says "someone did something", but part of the problem is that no one knows how or when this actually began - there are different theories that suggest different time frames - and there is no clear definition, since it has never been an official doctrine. It's more of an attitude, and while I assume you will hate this sentence - since I know I do - it's still an improvement over what was there! That's kind of pitiful, I know. If you have a better version, please do tell me! Otherwise, I guess this is  Done Maybe. Sorta. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC) Yeah, it's not perfect but I think its the best with the sources and current scholarly understand available. Generalissima (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC) "Central figures in the development of monasticism were Basil in the East and, in the West, Benedict, who created the Rule of Saint Benedict, which would become the most common rule throughout the Middle Ages and the starting point for other monastic rules" This sentence is missing a comma before "and", but it would be awfully lengthy either way, and would be best split. "Basil was a central figure of monasticism in the East. In the west, Benedict created the Rule of Saint Benedict, which would become the most common rule throughout the Middle Ages and the starting point for other monastic rules."  Done It's after midnight here. I'm tired and going to bed now. Be back tomorrow. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC) Early to High Middle Ages (600 – 1100) With few exceptions, most organized societies c.600 called themselves Christian if they were headed by Christian leaders, not because populations were fully converted." Societies, including these non-Christians, were calling themselves this? Or were outside sources? This is a good question. I went to the source, and it says: The Jews raised the fact that many “barbarian” nations had plainly not become Christian. Julian’s answer to such skeptics is revealing. He divided the world into two zones. The first was fully Christian; and it was fully Christian because it was ruled by Christian rulers. “For although there are still unbelieving peoples in some regions, they are nonetheless unable to escape the Lordship of Christ. For they are suppressed by rulers in whom it is known that Christ already dwells through their faith in Him.”4 The second zone formed a less well-defined penumbra of the first: “For nor do I think [Julian continues] that there is any population left which does not know of the name of Christ. And although it may not have a preacher [of the Gospel present among them] it cannot but know of Christ from what it has heard from other nations.”5It is with this notion of a double zone within the single, overarching territory of the world-wide Kingdom of Christ that we must begin our account of what we now call “Christendom” in 600 CE.}} So this is the Emperor Julian, so perhaps that should be said instead of "themselves". Perhaps I can rephrase to include the two-zone idea without the preaching. I have rewritten that sentence. I don't know if it's actually better or if it's more of a "who cares?" kind of thing. You will need to tell me if you think this is  Done or not. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC) I went back and redid it. Take a look - and damn if it isn't better without the quote! Ouch! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC) Indeed it is, thank you! Generalissima (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC) "The Frankish King Clovis I converted from Paganism to Roman Catholicism around 498-508, becoming the first to unite all of the Frankish tribes under one ruler." This sentence he became the first unified Frankish king due to conversion, but AFAIK this wasn't the case. Maybe switch the order around? . Ooops! Good catch - again!  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC) Looks good; but IIRC it's debated if Charlemagne was actually a descendant of the Merovingian dynasty; it relies on some sketchy later genealogies that might have been dynastic propaganda. I'd call him just "A later Frankish king" Generalissima (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC) Wikilink liberal arts. linked them all  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC) "famous" is usually superfluous and flowery when used in the encyclopedia's voice.  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC) I'm not sure if master's degrees and doctorates were distinct in the Middle Ages? The initial paragraph of the body on Master's seems to say they were practically synonymous, but I don't have access to the source it cites. They were because the system was modeled after the apprentice/journeyman programs already established in society. But perhaps 'degrees' is sufficient.  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC) Don't need to put quotes around Church of the East, since that is its common name. Yes but it is also a proper name. Should it be in italics then? The quotes are now removed and it can be left as you see fit.  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC) Only in italics if it's the title of a work or a non-English proper name according to MOS:ITALICS. Generalissima (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC) Again, a lot of these quotes aren't needed. Is there an icon for a frown face? I removed it.  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC) Need a comma after "and biblical scenes".  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC) I would use "Central and Eastern Europe" instead of the highly geopolitical "East-Central". The source says The eleventh century in Europe gave birth not just to new states but to a new region which later became known as East Central Europe.44 at the very bottom of page 87. I could add it as a quote... Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC) Ah, if the source uses it fair enough. Generalissima (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC) "Saints Cyril and Methodius played the key missionary roles in spreading Christianity to the people beginning in 863." To which people, where? To the Slavs.  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC) "For three and a half years" needs a comma afterwards.  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC) "developing the first Slavic alphabet using Cyrillic script." But Cyrillic postdates Glagolitic (and Cyril) Well, our article on Cyril and Methodius has this: The alphabet has been traditionally attributed to Cyril. That attribution has been confirmed explicitly by the papal letter Industriae tuae (880) ... The early Cyrillic alphabet was developed by the disciples of Saints Cyril and Methodius at the Preslav Literary School (previously in Pliska as Pliska Literary School) at the end of the 9th century ... This reflects the sources I looked at and the one I ended up using as well. The article on Cyrillic script says it began at the school and sort of brushes over the brothers. As a result, it does not seem fully accurate imo, but I can change it as you see fit. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC) I did a little CE to clarify this sentence a bit more; I hope it's okay? Generalissima (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC) The rise and fall of Christendom (1100 – 1500) "Before there was Europe, western society worked toward creating Christendom: a loosely interdependent community of Christian kingdoms and peoples with a shared religious tradition." I get what you're trying to say here, but Europe has existed for several billion years. Social conceptions of "European civilisation" are a bit newer. Good point. I added political. "Before there was a political Europe," is that cool? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC) Looks good! Generalissima (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC) Also, I think this section is named confusingly. Perhaps rename the previous section to "Early Middle Ages" and this one to "High and Late Middle Ages"? None of the dates chosen for this article correspond exactly to those names. The Early Middle Ages are generally seen as 500-1000. The High Middle Ages is a bit clearer as 1000 to 1300, but these are neither hard a fast nor universal. Such nomenclature is still being discussed, so I felt free to combine eras in hopes of focusing on paradigm shifts and geography. I thought several times of removing the titles entirely and just having the dates. What would you think of that? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC) So I went back and did that. Just dates now. Is it too weird? If it's less confusing, perhaps that's still a decent trade off. What do you think? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC) I think it's ultimately less confusing, yeah. Generalissima (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC) "riddled with corruption" While very true, overly dramatic prose. I am going to disagree on this one. I haven't really disagreed with you before this, but imo, this succinctly summarizes several sources, and several descriptions - detailed descriptions - of what that means, and it seems to me that riddled is fully accurate. It is a bit dramatic, you're right, but it was dramatic in history as well, for those people, and for the revolutions it led to. They betrayed their trust, and it changed everything that followed. It was dramatic, and IMO, that description should stay accordingly. The bad should be as clear as the good in a history. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC) Fair enough! I admit it's probably a fair usage. Generalissima (talk) 21:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC) "Aristotle" you talk about more than him here; I'd choose a more general subsection outdated.  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC) Very strange language used to refer to Muslims; "Moslems" has been outdated since the 19th century, and "Islamists" refers to adherents of the 20th/21st century political movement. Without actually checking, I would guess that reflects whatever the sources used. I can normalize that. Which term do you prefer? I can change all references to that one. Hmm, I went and tried and didn't find 'Moslims' but changed the two refs to Islamists.  Done?? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC) Just "Muslims" works best as a catchall. Generalissima (talk) 21:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC) "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. But that is exactly what did happen! It created a complete paradigm shift. Okay, so I went and said that instead. "What had been lost to the West after the collapse of the empire, was found, and its rediscovery created a paradigm shift in the history of Christianity." Is that better? Is this  Done then?? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC) Again, unnecessary amounts of quotes for things you can paraphrase. I don't know how to do that this time, since they are already just phrases. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC) But I did it.  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:21, 6 January 2024 (UTC) "This formed the foundation of future Western civilization" - if you subscribe to theories that treat "western civilization" as a set of distinct innovations, which is not a universal viewpoint. I would rephrase it to avoid using the word "civilization", is that can be highly controversial in academic circles. Without getting into discussions of post-modernism and the legitimacy of its claims, it is exactly what the source says, and it seems important enough to include. I'm sorry you don't like this section. It is terrifically important to all that follows after it. The roots of much of the future are here. I added an attribution, so it is clear it is their view, and modified the sentence a bit. I hope that is sufficient. It is, from my POV, therefore  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC) Generalissima Good Lord I sound pompous and put out, and I'm not - really - I apologize for sounding that way. I am somewhat distracted here. This section wasn't done, but hopefully it is now. I have reworked it, added specific details, removed quotes, then added a new one that included "civilized life" instead of "western civilization". I hope you approve. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC) So,  Done ?? Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC) Add "In both the East and West".  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC) I would rebracket things to move Renaissance-era events in the Early Modern (where it is often included). I got fussed at for including anything that even referenced the Renaissance as not being an aspect of Christian history. I thought I had done that. Other than supporting art and architecture, what would you be referring to? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC) 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) I don't think you need commas around the list of sacraments in Beliefs and Practices, since it's in a parenthetical list. I had to go look up the rule for that one. The Brief English Handbook says that if the information inside the parentheses is a list, then use commas. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC) I'd wikilink Neume when you discuss musical notation. I had to go look that up as well. A. Parrot would remind me this is Christian History not history of music. I think I would agree that it isn't relevant to the topic here. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC) It's somewhat unclear which centuries you're referring to in "Centralization and persecution (1100-1300)", so I would just move the date to the beginning and start the paragraph "From the 12th to 14th centuries"  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC) Generalissima I completely redid this section, so it may have new problems in place of the old ones. I am attempting to make the transition that takes place within the church easier to see and understand. It's so easy to muddy these waters and not so easy to clear them. I keep going round the same circles, so you tell me what you think, please. I will go by that on whether to revert this change or keep it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC) I'd move the centralization and persecution section before the church militant for clarity of timeline. The Reconquista and early crusades began before the Medieval Inquisition and the Albigensian Crusade. Centralization and persecution is before the church militant. I organized these originally by content, though I did take time into consideration. Right now the order is Centralization and persecution (1100-1300), and its subsets: Law (it says by the 14th century so that's before 1300) and Inquisition (1184–1230) and (1230s–1240s). The Albigensian Crusade (1209) is in the same section because it was persecution on the part of the church. Then there's Church militant (1095 - 1218) as a separate big topic which includes the Baltics wars 1147 to 1316. The Iberian Reconquista is placed based on when it ended in 1492. Since there is overlap in the time frames, this seemed the best approach. Can you see your way clear to accepting that? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC) "By the end of the first millennium in the East, a rich and varied culture, characterized by ethnic diversity, and centered around Constantinople, a famously prosperous and powerful city with numerous market places, massive walls and magnificent monuments, had fully developed." This is a really long sentence and kind of difficult to parse. Could you find a way to split it into two sentences?  Done I think Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC) You link "Christianization of Kievan Rus", but don't actually discuss this. I think this is a pretty important topic that I would go into more depth to, but would move earlier. The creation of a unified Orthodox state in Russia is important, but I don't think needs a subsection here. I agree with you. I thought it was important too. That's why I originally included a whole long section on it. Then it was cut, because I was told by three different editors in a row that "this is a broad overview and you can't keep all the details about every country. If someone wants to know more, countries have their own pages." I had every country and it all got cut. It made me cry, but that's when the article had over 20,000 words. I would love to put it back, but I'm afraid they're right. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC) I posted this earlier, but I think it got lost. No apologies necessary. You are by far the single best reviewer I have ever had. I write exclusively in this area - religion, religious history - and I've been doing this for a few years now, and you are amazing. It is no small feat to put up with me with the equanimity you have shown, and I am grateful for your knowledge, your hard work, and your grace. You have given me so much work though! It may take awhile for me to catch up with you! Please be patient. I'll be back in a few hours and get to work tonight. Thank you again. No more apologies! You rock! Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC) Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC) 1500 – 1750 This paragraph opens a bit strangely and dramatically; you should avoid making objective statements about importance, and rather state that scholars generally believe the establishment of sovereign states to be the most important political development of the period.  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC) I think "Seventeenth century Enlightenment" can just be titled "The Enlightenment"; there were others, but The Enlightenment is generally unambiguous. (Also while most of the "Main Article" hatnotes should be removed, here's one where it'd be useful to have one! Also put a hatnote for main article on Counter-reformation)  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC) "world changing debate" Again, important not to make claims of relative importance in the encyclopedia's voice; see MOS:PEACOCK Mos Peacock uses the term subjective. If this is actually the view of scholars, then it has some objectivity instead, (which I think I remember reading, but now need to go find it again, and if I'm correct then it isn't subjective), but it should probably still be restated as to exactly what scholars do say. So now I will spend some time researching as well as writing. I will be back with something tomorrow.  Doing... Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC) Generalissima Okay, I think you are right here - whether it's subjective or objective is beside the point. So I have now rewritten that paragraph with some new references. Please tell me you approve! If so, this is  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC) "Spinoza, an Amsterdam Jew, who published against religion, along with Hobbes and others, supported a matter based (materialistic) mechanistic universe with no need of God". I think this sentence can be rewritten to avoid needing as many short subclauses, but I'm not sure how directly important Spinoza is to the history of Christianity rather than Enlightenment philosophy in general. That's probably a good point. I was just using him to make the transition to society becoming secular at every level. I can redo that.  Doing... Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC) {{It's gone now.  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC) I think it would be important to mention foreign missions more in this section; especially the widespread missionary activity in Japan, the work of Jesuit missionaries in China, and the the conversion of the Kongo to Christianity. I think it's important to present a worldwide overview of this as often as we can. I had a bunch under colonialism - and guess - it got cut as too much detail for an overview article like this one. You want all the same things I did in this article. I sympathize. I will still see if I can't accommodate you in a very short paragraph. I'll be back  Doing... Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC) I am struggling with this one. I think you're right that it deserves mentioning. There was a paradigm shift after the 1960s. I will work on it more tomorrow, but I am setting it to the side tonight. Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC) 1750 – 1945 Please just go through and remove the "Main article" hatnotes unless the articles are dedicated to covering the history of Christianity within the period described. You overuse these, and I would argue that it's far more useful to just link them in-article than shove a big list of hatnotes at the beginning of each section. I am happy to do that. If you went back and looked, you would see I didn't put any of them in this article. People come along and add them at will. I am happy to remove them. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC) Wikilink Second Great Awakening. Otherwise this section is very well-written! It is in the endless blue list at the beginning oof the section - do you mean instead? In addition? Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC)  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC) "After 1828, most missionaries found it difficult to defend the policies of their government" writes McLoughlin." - another quote that would be better to write in prose. Do you have a suggestion? The quote packs a slight punch just because it's a quote. I'm afraid prose will require more explanation.Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC) This section reads a little America-centric. Can we try to mention the Kulturkampf and the Taiping Rebellion? Oh, and you don't mention the French Revolution at all; I feel the brief rejection of Christianity by the French revolutionaries represents a high-water-point to the Enlightenment era secularism. It is American-centric. Each section is focused geographically where the center of Christianity was most active during the time frame being covered. First in Palestine, then Rome, then Europe, then America, then Africa, Asia and global. I have gone back and forth on the French Revolution. It isn't strictly a major aspect of the history of Christianity itself, though it's really interesting. So much could be said! I will do some reading! But I am going to bed now. Tomorrow! Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC) Fair enough. I think the Taiping Rebellion is worth mentioning though, since it was a hugely impactful event (one of the deadliest wars in history) that directly stemmed from Christian missionary activity in Asia. Generalissima (talk) 05:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC) Well, I can't find a source that says that, yet, though I am still looking. This one (Michael, Franz. “Military Organization and Power Structure of China during the Taiping Rebellion.” Pacific Historical Review, vol. 18, no. 4, 1949, pp. 469–83. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/3635664) lists several causes such as taxation and never mentions missions. This one is the same: (Taylor, George E. "Taiping Rebellion, The." Chinese Soc. & Pol. Sci. Rev. 16 (1932): 545.) Google-scholar on Taiping rebellion produces several more like this. So then I looked specifically for Christian influence and found one provocative article (Durham, Walter T. “A Tennessee Baptist Missionary in China: Issachar Jacox Roberts and the Taiping Rebellion, 1837-1866.” Tennessee Historical Quarterly, vol. 72, no. 2, 2013, pp. 92–105. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43825602) with an interesting perspective. I am now looking for some corroboration that indicates this is a majority view, since in a "broad overview" I can't really include minority views. This is taking awhile. If you can help with a reference, that would be appreciated! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC) You don't really describe what "Neo-orthodoxy" is, so it might be helpful wikilinking and/or elaborating to distinguish from Orthodox Christianity.  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC) Pius XI declared in Mit brennender Sorge. I speak a little German, (I lived there as a kid), and I don't see how that can be correct. "Mit" means with, while "in" basically means in but is usually about time or place. In and with wouldn't be used together in this manner - I don't think. Brennender is burning, such as extreme anguish or anxiety, so in English this sort of says "with rising anxiety". What do you have as a source? Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC) I'd wikilink Bolshevik Revolution (and possibly just use October Revolution to reduce confusion, as its the common name). I'd also mention the League of Militant Atheists as part of Soviet anti-religious repression.  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC) Might be good to mention anti-Catholic repressions during this period, especially the Cristero War in Mexico and the Terror during the Spanish Civil War. I hate to get into too much on persecution. There are several articles on it. I will think on this one for a bit. Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC) There is a paragraph on persecution, and I think that will have to be sufficient, though I will add these links. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:28, 9 January 2024 (UTC) Christianity since 1945 I'd put a summary of trends in modern Christianity instead of having a subsection header right after the section header.  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC) "In the twentieth century, liberal Christianity embraced the Social Gospel and liberation theology movements." Not universally. I'd rephrase this to say reform ideas such as the Social Gospel and liberation theology.  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC) I would dedicate a lot more energy to trends in Latin America; such as the growth of Protestantism in traditionally Catholic areas. I will work on that.  Doing... Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC) I feel your description of the Prosperity theology is a bit too positive in tone for one of the most heavily opposed strands of modern Protestantism. However, I do believe it's very important, and I think the emergence of megachurches and televangelism represents a very important part of how modern technology and social relationships has affected Christianity. I agree. It was the racial aspect that earned it a mention however, Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC) "Racial violence over the last several decades demonstrates how troubled issues of race remain in the twenty-first century" Avoid making relative statements of time as it quickly dates an article. I would also specify this is racial violence in the United States. In general, these later sections trend towards a highly American perspective - not to blame at all, I guarantee the sources themselves are biased in this respect - but are important to work against for the sake of presenting a good worldwide overview. Make sure to mention South Korea as an area where Christianity has grown (as it has become the largest religion in the country; although this trend started in the late 19th century, so it might be worth putting earlier.) These last three have been  Done - hopefully - by adding a paragraph on the prosperity gospel and its spread. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC) @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) Generalissima The topics you have mentioned adding seem to me to be more at the level of 'detail' rather than 'overview': they are specific to a certain locale. Those that are more universal are already either mentioned or alluded to in various references. I am going to decline to add and expand on that basis. The 'comprehensive' aspect of this article is limited to its biggest most sweepingly significant aspects. The Cambridge history of Christianity has 10 volumes, I think, and 30 topics in each volume. There is not room in a WP article like this to even mention them all, nevertheless all the additional interesting details that you and I would like to see here. Other editors have convinced me of this, even though I kicked and screamed the whole way. I don't like it - I would let the article be long - but then it would never make FA, and I think this is too important a topic for it not to be. So I am constrained. I'm sorry. Genuinely. I want to add the other things you suggest, but I think they can't be included. I think that indicates I have  Done all that I can here. I hope it's okay. If not, please argue your position and reasoning. I am still willing to adapt and adjust. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC) Y'know, that is more than fair enough. We have to be limited to what is listed in the reliable sources for what qualifies as an overview; I apologize if I have been overzealous in this. I'm gonna take one last sweep over the article to see if there's any spots that need touching up; thank you so much as always for your hard work. Generalissima (talk) Generalissima (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC) Once again, you owe me no apologies. You have been remarkable, and your "overzealousness" is akin to my own, so I see it as a virtue! You have been a truly great reviewer. I often find that change requests amount to changing "happy" to "glad", but yours were all substantive and I think they genuinely improved the article. I am deeply grateful that you were the one to answer this nomination. You are informed, serious, conscientious and most of all, you took the time. I have no complaints of any kind. Whatever the outcome here, I wish you all the best, and I thank you for all your hard work. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC) You know, this isn't per se part of the review, but this is getting me thinking about how to, at an FA level, we could let a reader get to more detailed information. For areas where we have to do intense summary and there isn't a single article covering it, you could use a lot of the information you have already had to cut to write a summary of Christianity in a particular region/time period and then link those as the "main topic" in certain areas. These already exist for a number of areas, but even relatively short articles could help a lot. (IE, "History of Christianity in the Age of Exploration" would let you use all those sources about early modern colonial Christianity) While this obviously outside the main scope of this article or review, it could be a fun way to frame your work going forward; since this is definitely an area you have spent a lot of time writing on As for the prose itself: Doing a look-over, I think it's a state I'm happy signing off on now. I feel like the road to FAC going forward is looking pretty bright, albeit most likely quite difficult due to the pure amount of prose that the FAC reviewers will have to latch on to and nitpick. 1a: The prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and 1b: it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Congrats on a level 4 vital GA :3 Generalissima (talk) 22:45, 9 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.

protection for this article

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)

Here are the last two: [4]; [5]

2a02:c7c:4671:6300:dd2f:ea0c:376:ba69 Please stop. I will be compelled to report this to [[6]] 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 think it might be time to take this to RFPP. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:54, 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 [7], 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

History of Christianity

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 • Watch article reassessment page • 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)

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)

Discussion of featured criteria issues

Coptic Christianity was originally in the article, was removed as a less than major detail, and is now added back in. The article does focus more on the West than East. I used the Cambridge History of Christianity extensively - it's probably my major source - and it seemed to me like that is what they did, so it's what I did. I want the article to be as comprehensive as possible, and I am also deeply concerned about adding length. I will try to figure out how to fix this with both those things in mind. I have already asked for help from another editor who is knowledgable of Eastern Christianity. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC) Well, it clearly isn't what they did. Look at the relevant volume of the Cambridge History for that section ("Early Medieval Christianities, c.600–c.1100): nearly every chapter contains extensive discussion of the non-Italian/Western Christianity this article is centered around. If you are deeply concerned about length, you should look at where you are wasting words, such as entire paragraphs cited to single sources, a clear sign of WP:UNDUE material. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC) I admit I have not read every chapter of that volume. I must be wrong, but I was unaware. I have already been working on doing what you suggest. Please be patient. I was just explaining my previous thinking. Before coming here, I added 3 paragraphs on the East to Late Antiquity, but I'm afraid you still won't like them as they mostly cite one source. It does represent the majority view. It's just convenient, which I suppose is the same as saying it's the lazy approach. It's not an excuse, but I have spent so much time on this article that I'm worn out with the conflict over it. I want to see it through, and I am trying. I am concerned about wasting words. Please, you know I am. And I am again unaware of what you are referring to. It sounds as if "entire paragraphs" should be cut. Please tell me where. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC) (I have collapsed this section as it does not relate to the GA criteria) In general, with articles of this size, you should not be including information which only one source has seen necessary to mention. Relying for entire paragraphs on one source creates WP:WEIGHT issues you can ill afford: how can you judge "the prominence of each viewpoint" from one source? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:22, 1 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)

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)

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)

I have now moved the History of Christianity to the History of western Christianity. If there are any objections, please go to the talk page there. Thank you ——Serial. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:28, 4 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 RM nope, 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)

SilverLocust , ~~ AirshipJungleman29, Amakuru, Borsoka, and Skyshifter. I have now added Eastern Christianity - and am not yet finished adding - but it's already to the degree that this article is no longer the same article that received the GA. It should, perhaps, be reassessed accordingly. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:16, 20 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 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.

New peer review

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)

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

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)