Talk:Historiography of the Christianization of the Roman Empire
![]() | Historiography of the Christianization of the Roman Empire 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. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
References
I've begun (though not finished) standardizing the reference style throughout the article in preparation for GAN—at the request of Jen. I have some questions thus far:
- What exactly is Dunn 1982? I assumed it was a book since there is a page number with its citation but it looks visually like a spoken lecture. There is no publisher info either.
- Aza24I have borrowed a computer!! I hope I have now fixed this with a journal reference to the same content.
Done
- Aza24I have borrowed a computer!! I hope I have now fixed this with a journal reference to the same content.
- Is there a page number available for Biondi?
- Nope. It is deletable as there're other refs. What's your opinion?
- Are we sure that the year for Bibliowicz is 2019?
- Well, this is quite maddening! If you click on the title, it says 2022, whereas if you look up the isbn, it says 2019, but if you actually go to google books and look at the book, it says 2016!!! Arrgh! What should I do?
- BY THE WAY, your work is amazing! I want to patent you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:20, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Will comment here once I get further/other questions arise. Best – Aza24 (talk) 02:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- MacDonald 1976 is also missing a page number Aza24 (talk) 05:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- Dear one, my computer is currently in the shop awaiting diagnosis and repair - or replacement. I may not know for a week. I will try to address these as I am able, but I am feeling very handicapped right now! Will be back soon- and thank you from the bottom of my heart. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:58, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
- Happy to help. And no worries, I should be done with the refs by then. Aza24 (talk) 00:08, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- There is another citation for that sentence, with one, so Macdonald's gone. Do you have any insight on Bibliowitz? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:44, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- Dear one, my computer is currently in the shop awaiting diagnosis and repair - or replacement. I may not know for a week. I will try to address these as I am able, but I am feeling very handicapped right now! Will be back soon- and thank you from the bottom of my heart. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:58, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for you responses thus far, I'm going to try and do one last push tonight to finish up the basic formatting (will probably leave more comments here) and will then return to respond to comments from above. Best – Aza24 (talk) 04:08, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- Might be nice to have a more specific page number for Anastos Aza24 (talk) 04:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- Hamlet 2004 as well Aza24 (talk) 04:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- I'm getting the sense that Abruzzi is a self-published study, so may not be ideal Aza24 (talk) 05:29, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- Westerholm could use a more specific page number and Jacobs doesn't have a page number+
GA Review
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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Historiography of Christianization of the Roman Empire/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 12:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Introduction
|
---|
Jenhawk777, I intend to review this article. As it is rather lengthy, I will divide this review up into a few stages. Firstly, I will ask preliminary questions and make straightforward edits to conform to the MOS; secondly, I will make a general review of the article, including a source spot-check; thirdly, if the article has passed the previous two stages, I will review the article in detail. Please let me know if this method is acceptable for you. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
I love this script! It makes it so easy to tell if, when I remove a sentence - or ten - if those were the only uses of a particular reference. I am amazed and impressed. So those are gone now, and the bibliography is beautiful again.
Refs are |
GA Review table
Moving on, @Jenhawk777: GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Perhaps one or two minor errors; we'll check later.
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections,
Done layout
Done, words to watch,
Done
fiction,and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- Earwig shows a 50% similarity with this website, from which several experts are cited. Based on their use in the text, I deem this satisfactory.
- ~~ AirshipJungleman29 Those are quotes, but for some reason that I can't explain Earwig flags them every time. I have thought of removing them entirely, they are just single sentences, but they are such pertinent summations of other material that would be longer, and they are by recognized highly respected scholars, so I left them. Thank you for recognizing that!Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:13, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Earwig don't know that quotes are quotes (or backwards copies), so it always needs a human interpreter, you can't follow it blindly. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:38, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- It seems to have recognized all my other quotes but those! It just doesn't like them! I take it personally...
Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- It seems to have recognized all my other quotes but those! It just doesn't like them! I take it personally...
- Earwig don't know that quotes are quotes (or backwards copies), so it always needs a human interpreter, you can't follow it blindly. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:38, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- ~~ AirshipJungleman29 Those are quotes, but for some reason that I can't explain Earwig flags them every time. I have thought of removing them entirely, they are just single sentences, but they are such pertinent summations of other material that would be longer, and they are by recognized highly respected scholars, so I left them. Thank you for recognizing that!Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:13, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Earwig shows a 50% similarity with this website, from which several experts are cited. Based on their use in the text, I deem this satisfactory.
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Random source spot-check
In this section I will randomly spot-check a number of sources for accuracy to the text; this is to check the article against 2c) of the GA criteria. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
spotcheck passed
|
---|
Overall, then, the fifteen citations are all relevant to some degree; four have minor issues, and one has attribution issues. This is not enough to prevent me as marking 2c) as fulfilled. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:26, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
|
Lead section
Back. Let's get this started, Jenhawk777.
MOS:LEAD passed
|
---|
Let me know if you think anything was missed or if you have any questions. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:32, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
~~ AirshipJungleman29 ![]() |
WtW, layout, & list incorporation
- On a quick read-through, I can't find much breaking the words to watch guideline. However, as this is a very academic article, make sure you always note MOS:AWW, MOS:EDITORIAL and MOS:SAID.
- There are, however, breaches of the list incorporation guideline, in the notes. Note 6 and 7 should both be combined into prose. I will address their necessity when we discuss unnecessary detail in the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- I did that because I don't know how to create separate paragraphs in a note. I write it with paragraphs and the note automatically combines it into one long block. Is there some way to prevent that? Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- ~~ AirshipJungleman29 This has yet to be addressed and I don't want to miss anything that you want done. Can you help me with this? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:12, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- {{parabr}} should do the trick. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:18, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- ~~ AirshipJungleman29 Bless you and thank you! That really does look so much better! I learned something new, and that is always awesome. This is great!
Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:35, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- ~~ AirshipJungleman29 Bless you and thank you! That really does look so much better! I learned something new, and that is always awesome. This is great!
- {{parabr}} should do the trick. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:18, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- ~~ AirshipJungleman29 This has yet to be addressed and I don't want to miss anything that you want done. Can you help me with this? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:12, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- I did that because I don't know how to create separate paragraphs in a note. I write it with paragraphs and the note automatically combines it into one long block. Is there some way to prevent that? Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
- The see also section can be trimmed. Several links can be incorporated into the article if they aren't already; others, such as Reconstructionist Roman religion, can be exclude.
- Single or two-sentence paragraphs can generally be combined with others, unless they are somehow very long.
- Do you think that the further reading section has a reasonable number of publications? Too many? Too few? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- No, I don't think further reading is reasonable. I have trimmed it for the third time now! I also trimmed see also. I will look at combining paragraphs while I check attributions and wtw. Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- All
Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:35, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- Have shortened the first section considerably. No failures of attribution or wtw that I saw. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- All
- No, I don't think further reading is reasonable. I have trimmed it for the third time now! I also trimmed see also. I will look at combining paragraphs while I check attributions and wtw. Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- ~~ AirshipJungleman29 I have trimmed and shortened everything I am able to with a clear conscience. The detail remaining is what I consider absolutely necessary to adequately summarize what is usually complex detailed information. I have boiled it down as far as I dare imo. No doubt you will feel differently, and I will do my best to cooperate or explain. At any rate, I think everything mentioned here is
Done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- ~~ AirshipJungleman29 I have trimmed and shortened everything I am able to with a clear conscience. The detail remaining is what I consider absolutely necessary to adequately summarize what is usually complex detailed information. I have boiled it down as far as I dare imo. No doubt you will feel differently, and I will do my best to cooperate or explain. At any rate, I think everything mentioned here is
Neutrality and detail
Further comments
|
---|
I will address these issues together. May take a while, and may involve me advising you to cut/change things you feel are essential, so sorry in advance for that. To start us off, here are some preliminary recommendations:
Okay, thank you for making that call. I couldn't. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:41, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Further comments:
|
Jenhawk777, I think that's about it for me. Keeping the good article criteria and this essay in mind, I feel that this article is ready for promotion. If the article were to face a GAR, I think it would be on charges it doesn't meet 3b); I think that the concept of 'unnnecessary detail' differs from person to person, and to me, this article is satisfactory on that count. I will note that it is definitely below FA standard, so a nomination there will require significant efforts, should you wish to pursue that course. Congratulations on the promotion, and thanks to you and others for working collaboratively with me over the past three weeks. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:28, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Necessity to mention homosexuality in this article?
hello!
after reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christianity_and_homosexuality, this article brought up significant viewpoints on early christianity's relationship with homosexuality. is it insightful to add a section on said relationship in this article though? 98.59.80.64 (talk) 19:24, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that would be a digression rather than an explanation of anything pertinent to this article imo. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:59, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- cool! that sorta makes sense on how just analyzing christian ethics doesn't relate to the article. however, personally, it could be interesting/noteworthy/important in the history of christianized europe to see the attitudes for and against homosexuality evolve before and after religious change. does this make sense? and if its unnecessary then 100% understand, Homosexuality in medieval Europe does give a few sentences on the change of tolerance 98.59.80.64 (talk) 02:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- 98.59.80.64 Please forgive the long delay in my response here. My computer died and had to be replaced - after an appropriate mourning period of course.
That was sarcasm over how these blankety-blank things have taken over our lives! At any rate, I am back.
- In this article, there is an allusion to Paul's teaching, but no discussion over homosexuality specifically, because it would be a rabbit hole that is off topic for how the Roman Empire was converted. It was asceticism - celibacy - that impacted the empire so hard, it wasn't about homosexuality as such. Paul lumped all sexual behaviors that weren't marriage into one category, and only advocated for marriage or celibacy.
- However, I have included a more detailed discussion of ancient attitudes in two other articles that might interest you, here: [1] and here : [2]. Or not, which is also fine. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Marriage and the rest. Simple, I'll give him that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- hello! sorry for the late reply, it turns out that there is actually a cool article here:
- https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1074&context=younghistorians
- , and although i agree that it shouldn't be on this article (probably more on History of homosexuality and the other articles you've mentioned), it, and the article sections referenced, scratched my itch on, to really put it informally "girl what happened to the greeks and romans to reverse stances on homosexuality"
- so yay! tysm and have a nice day, also sorry for my own late reply :DD 98.59.80.64 (talk) 03:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- No problem! Hope you have a happy holiday season. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:25, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- 98.59.80.64 Please forgive the long delay in my response here. My computer died and had to be replaced - after an appropriate mourning period of course.
A thought
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1f/Distribution_of_the_documented_presence_of_Christian_congregations_in_the_first_three_centuries.tif/lossy-page1-220px-Distribution_of_the_documented_presence_of_Christian_congregations_in_the_first_three_centuries.tif.jpg)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/Territorial_evolution_of_the_Eastern_Roman_Empire.gif/220px-Territorial_evolution_of_the_Eastern_Roman_Empire.gif)
It would, I think, be helpful if the lead image was "animated" in 3 stages, pink dots, pink + blue dots, pink + blue + black dots. I think there are people around who can do this if they want to. Somewhere. Otoh, perhaps it would just be distracting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:42, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- LOL!! That would be entertaining! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Decline of Greco-Roman Polytheism
I read this article a few years ago when it was still the “Decline of Greco-Roman Polytheism.”
I looked through the talk history, and there may have been some merit in making the topic more neutral. It looks like someone had proposed calling it something like, “Religious Change in the Late Antique Roman Empire.”
However, the focus has not only gone completely in the other direction –focusing on the spread of Christianity rather than the decline of traditional polytheism– but it's also become a meta commentary on the history of how this history of the spread of Christianity has been told.
The original article was an important topic in its own right with a straightforward recounting of historical events from the standpoint of polytheism rather than Christianity.
I would add that this article now covers territory that is very similar to a number of other articles on early Christianity, and no longer covers the original topic with any specificity.
I have no issue with this article remaining as it is, but I believe the original topic deserves being revived in a separate article. Livius Plinius (talk) 18:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- The article Persecution of pagans in the late Roman Empire may largely cover the topic you're saying is absent, albeit perhaps in a slightly different fashion. Aza24 (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- In that case, it may make more sense for the redirect from “Decline of Greco-Roman Paganism” to point to that article. Livius Plinius (talk) 19:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- Indeed. I've just changed it as such and it seems the redirect originally went there anyways. Aza24 (talk) 05:42, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
- In that case, it may make more sense for the redirect from “Decline of Greco-Roman Paganism” to point to that article. Livius Plinius (talk) 19:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Missing "the" in title
Shouldn't the title of this article be Historiography of the Christianization of the Roman Empire? I think the current title is ungrammatical. I noticed that in September 2022, the article title was briefly moved from Historiography of the Christianization of the Roman Empire to Christianization of the Roman Empire, before being moved back by Rosguill to the current title. The initial renaming was brought up previously on this talk page by Jenhawk777. Rosguill, did you mean to exclude "the" from the title when you moved the page back? Malerisch (talk) 04:25, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- No objections, I think this was an oversight on my part. signed, Rosguill talk 14:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- Rosguill, If there are no objections, could you move it back? I'm unable to because the current redirect page Historiography of the Christianization of the Roman Empire has more than one edit in its page history, and I'm not a page mover. Malerisch (talk) 23:24, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia good articles
- History good articles
- GA-Class Religion articles
- Mid-importance Religion articles
- WikiProject Religion articles
- GA-Class Philosophy articles
- Low-importance Philosophy articles
- GA-Class social and political philosophy articles
- Low-importance social and political philosophy articles
- Social and political philosophy task force articles
- GA-Class philosophy of religion articles
- Low-importance philosophy of religion articles
- Philosophy of religion task force articles
- GA-Class Modern philosophy articles
- Low-importance Modern philosophy articles
- Modern philosophy task force articles
- GA-Class Contemporary philosophy articles
- Low-importance Contemporary philosophy articles
- Contemporary philosophy task force articles
- GA-Class politics articles
- Mid-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- GA-Class history articles
- Mid-importance history articles
- WikiProject History articles
- GA-Class Greek articles
- Low-importance Greek articles
- Byzantine world task force articles
- Greek articles needing attention
- WikiProject Greece history articles
- All WikiProject Greece pages
- GA-Class Classical Greece and Rome articles
- Mid-importance Classical Greece and Rome articles
- All WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome pages
- GA-Class Christianity articles
- Mid-importance Christianity articles
- GA-Class Christian History articles
- Mid-importance Christian History articles
- Christian History articles
- WikiProject Christianity articles
- GA-Class European history articles
- High-importance European history articles
- All WikiProject European history pages
- GA-Class Rome articles
- High-importance Rome articles
- All WikiProject Rome pages
- Unknown-importance history articles
- GA-Class Ancient Near East articles
- Mid-importance Ancient Near East articles
- Ancient Near East articles by assessment
- Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates