Jump to content

Talk:History of Christianity/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

A. Parrot

As of today, the article is at (13928 words). I could weep. There is one topic that has been requested that another editor is working on, but it should not be larger than a sentence or two. I am currently working on images - a punishment for all my sins. I think I have addressed all your concerns. I removed everything you suggested and more. This was really. really. hard. But it is better, you were right. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:40, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I'll look it over during the next few days and see what pointers I can give. A. Parrot (talk) 00:01, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
You are wonderful. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:12, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
With recent additions - 14226 words. This should begin to stabilize now. Content change is pretty much done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
A. Parrot (12342 words) "readable prose size" and I think it is now as comprehensive and concise as it can be. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:57, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Down to 12,1. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
A. Parrot It is below 12000 words now. I didn't think it was possible, but the main points and a few explanatory details are all there still. Everything you asked to be gone or added in is as you requested. I am so grateful for your help, I can't say thank you enough. You have made the article better. I hope I haven't been too difficult. This has not been easy for me! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Congratulations! I feel like I should apologize for my lack of comment lately. I haven't had the time for another thorough read-through of the article, and I don't feel comfortable giving more feedback based on a cursory reading. But I wish you luck. A. Parrot (talk) 07:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
A. Parrot That's okay. You already made a big contribution to the article just to help out a fellow editor, and I am grateful. Thank you. I wish you the best as well. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Summary style

To further improve the article we have to keep in mind WP:Summary style. Currently some sections or paragraphs are too detailed and need to be summarized. Here are some examples:

  • "The earliest Christian community in Jerusalem was led by James the Just, brother of Jesus." is unnecessary detail that can be omitted.
  • "Christianity quickly spread beyond the Roman Empire. Armenia, Persia (modern Iran), Ethiopia, Central Asia, India and China have evidence of early Christian communities." is a perfect sentence, very summarized. However, the next sentences are far too detailed. There are three sentences explaining that there is evidence of Christian presence in Sri Lanka, Tibet, Georgia, India and Socotra. If Christian presence in Armenia, Persia (modern Iran), Ethiopia, Central Asia, India and China can be mentioned in a single sentence, why not doing the same for other territories?
  • subsections <Asia Minor and Achaea Egypt Syria and Mesopotamia Gaul North Africa Rome> can be summarized even more.
    • Asia Minor: last sentence "Trevett writes that there was diversity and distinctiveness as catholic leaders of the second century began forming 'official' statements of ‘orthodox’ Christian belief based on apostolic teaching as authoritative." is unnecessary detail that can be omitted. Why would it apply to Asia Minor and not elsewhere?
    • Egypt: the first sentence "There is no archaeological evidence of Christianity in Egypt before the fourth century." is unnecessary detail that can be omitted. Why archaeological evidence is a subject for Egypt and not for other subsections (Asia Minor, Gaul, etc).
    • Syria: the fact that the prophet Mani was born in Persian Mesopotamia in 216 is unnecessary detail that can be omitted.
    • Gaul: "eleven Christians from Vienne and Lyons, although later martyrologies record 49 names." is unnecessary detail that can be omitted. Mentioning that there were several martyrs is sufficient.
    • North Africa: mentioning that persecution under Valerian aimed specifically at high-ranking clergy in North Africa is unnecessary detail that can be omitted.
    • Rome: last sentence can be summarized and the quote can be put in ref.
  • the sentence "The ancient chronicler Malalas claimed Constantine destroyed all the temples; then he said Theodisius destroyed them all; then he said Constantine converted them all to churches" is not very useful as these are contradictory comments that may confuse the readers. It can be omitted.
  • paragraphs about John Wycliffe and Jan Hus are too detailed and can be more summarized, if possible.
  • last paragraph describing how the Albigensian Crusade ended is too detailed and should be summarized in one sentence, if possible. The main article is here to provide more details to the readers if they want.
  • "revitalizing the Norman church into the early twelfth century" is unnecessary detail that can be omitted.
(talk) 00:32, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
    • SanctumRosarium The balance necessary here is between being as comprehensive as possible while also being as concise as possible. Sometimes one consideration outweighs the other. You have stated that you think only big - what was it you said, "massive evolutionary" - information should be included in this article, but that's a backwards view of Christianity.
    • Christianity has been, for most of its existence, a result of multiple individual behaviors. It's not like politics and economics. They are massive and evolutionary and work primarily at the macro level. Christianity was built at the micro level through the power of one human social interaction after another. If there were enough of them, they in turn, created a vast variety of societal changes that varied by location. I have tried to cover the "flashpoints" including the people who struck the match, and how, and what the results were, in some effort to be as comprehensive as possible. Cutting content without discretion ends with an article that is no real history at all. The good the bad and the ugly need to be included, and sometimes there has to be enough detail to explain which is which.
    • 1."The earliest Christian community in Jerusalem was led by James the Just, brother of Jesus." is unnecessary detail that can be omitted. I disagree. That is an example of an important individual. Many readers will know that Jesus' family did not support his ministry while he lived, and it wasn't until after Jesus' death - and what 1 Corinthians 15 describes as a post-resurrection appearance to his brother - that James changed. He went from saying his brother had lost his mind to being the head of a church dedicated to him. It doesn't matter if you believe or don't believe any of it personally. It's a significant fact no matter what.
    • 2.If Christian presence in Armenia, Persia (modern Iran), Ethiopia, Central Asia, India and China can be mentioned in a single sentence, why not doing the same for other territories? I agree.  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
    • 3. Asia Minor: last sentence "Trevett writes that there was diversity and distinctiveness as catholic leaders of the second century began forming 'official' statements of ‘orthodox’ Christian belief based on apostolic teaching as authoritative." is unnecessary detail that can be omitted. Why would it apply to Asia Minor and not elsewhere? Because it applies to Asia Minor and doesn't apply elsewhere. The development of orthodoxy based on apostolic teaching was a singularly important step in its early development, and Asia Minor is where that first coalesced. I strongly disagree with removing this.  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
    • 4.Egypt: the first sentence "There is no archaeological evidence of Christianity in Egypt before the fourth century." is unnecessary detail that can be omitted. Why archaeological evidence is a subject for Egypt and not for other subsections (Asia Minor, Gaul, etc). It's 'a subject for Egypt' because it has been the scholarly view, until recently, that Christianity did not appear in Egypt until the fourth century. This was based on the absence of archaeological evidence. It is only recently - because of discoveries like Nag Hammadi and the Dead Sea Scrolls, and so on - that the sheer weight of documentary evidence has led scholars to conclude otherwise.
    • 5.Syria: the fact that the prophet Mani was born in Persian Mesopotamia in 216 is unnecessary detail that can be omitted. I can go either way on this one. Manichaeism was a big deal 'heresy' back in the day. The catholics hunted it into extinction. But I did not mention all the heresies, so I guess this one could go.  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
    • 6.Gaul: "eleven Christians from Vienne and Lyons, although later martyrologies record 49 names." is unnecessary detail that can be omitted. Mentioning that there were several martyrs is sufficient. I can go either way on this one too. There is a discrepancy in the source, and that seems important, but it is a detail, so it can go without altering much.  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
    • 7.North Africa: mentioning that persecution under Valerian aimed specifically at high-ranking clergy in North Africa is unnecessary detail that can be omitted. I can see that, although that means there is no detail about what "persecution" meant anywhere in the article.  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
    • 8.Rome: last sentence can be summarized and the quote can be put in ref. Absolutely not. I will fight for this one. Every section has a mention of what happened that was specific to that geographical area - orthodoxy, heresy, persecution - and the last sentence is basically all there is on Rome.
    • 9.the sentence "The ancient chronicler Malalas claimed Constantine destroyed all the temples; then he said Theodisius destroyed them all; then he said Constantine converted them all to churches" is not very useful as these are contradictory comments that may confuse the readers. It can be omitted. I strongly disagree. You originally rephrased this section by quoting Eusebius as if he was completely accepted as authoritative on this, and that's not correct. I replaced that with a reference to 43 sources demonstrating the huge discrepancy in the sources. They are contradictory comments - that's the point: the sources are contradictory. There has been a lot of controversy and disagreement over these issues, and this is why. That seems significantly important to any study of history.
    • 10.paragraphs about John Wycliffe and Jan Hus are too detailed and can be more summarized, if possible. I don't agree. Explanation above applies. These men were as important in their countries as Martin Luther was in Germany. They produced Reformation movements too.
    • 11. last paragraph describing how the Albigensian Crusade ended is too detailed and should be summarized in one sentence, if possible. The main article is here to provide more details to the readers if they want. I strongly disagree and will fight for this one too. There has been a lot of dispute over this topic, and the end is necessary to historically understand the beginning. The last paragraph is sort of the whole point of having it in this article at all - which requires it as representative of the paradigm shift taking place in the church at the time.
    • 12. "revitalizing the Norman church into the early twelfth century" is unnecessary detail that can be omitted. You explain to me why that is not important to a history that claims these reforms were what gave Christianity its power and influence in this era? 'What era' should be included somewhere.

Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Regarding 12th: the full sentence is "Owing to its stricter adherence to the reformed Benedictine rule, the Abbey of Cluny, established in 910, became the leading centre of Western monasticism from the later tenth century, revitalizing the Norman church into the early twelfth century." Cluny becoming the leading centre of Western monasticism is a big change that must be mentioned, while the fact that is revitalized the Norman church is a local consequence and not a significant fact in comparison to the first one, that's why it may appear as unnecessary detail. If you think it should be mentioned, that's ok. SanctumRosarium (talk) 18:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
There is so much in this article that staying clear on timing is difficult. I think it should stay just because it sets it in time as well as place. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
I edited it by removing the first part and leaving the 12th century. It's shorter and maybe a little clearer! So thanx! Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by NightWolf1223 talk 04:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

(
)
  • ... that the growth of Christianity in 20th-century Africa has been termed "the fourth great age of Christian expansion"? Source: Isichei, Elizabeth (1995). A history of Christianity in Africa: From antiquity to the present. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. ISBN 978-0-8028-0843-1. p=1
    • Reviewed:
    • Comment: There are several other hook options but this was my first choice

Improved to Good Article status by Jenhawk777 (talk). Self-nominated at 22:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/History of Christianity; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: None required.
Overall: Wow, definitely a well written and well sourced, good luck getting it to Featured status! @Jenhawk777: I'm not seeing any issues with the hook, although it would be nice to add some more hooks. It's such a broad topic that I think there's a lot to choose from. It doesn't affect the hook, but it might be good to briefly define the previous three ages of Christian expansion (per the source) in the article. Also, this doesn't determine whether this is ready for DYK or not, but I think it might be helpful to add wikilinks to the term "Global South" in the article. BuySomeApples (talk) 04:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Thoughts while pruning

@Jenhawk777: Gonna just log my thoughts on parts that might need some prose work as I do my chopping.

  • Beliefs and practices of the Middle Ages is currently some kinda disparate strands; we need to tie this together into a cohesive encyclopedic narrative on how it changed from late antiquity.
    • I am currently outlining how to redo this section in my sandbox, and had exactly the same thoughts - that it would be better to tie these to other aspects of "Christianity in society" - that kind of thing. I am feeling free to add content to my heart's content knowing you will come along and edit me! Thank you again for this! Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
  • "By the 1300s, segregation and discrimination in law, politics, and the economy, had become established in all European states." Segregation of who, by what metrics?
    • The full discussion is in note 21 in "Centralization, persecution and decline (1100–1450)". Since you want to take out notes, if you could figure out how to add some of that particular note back into text, it would answer that question directly. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
  • We should at least have a sentence to mention the Seljuks and the Sultanate of Rum under In the East (1000-1500), since that's what the Byzantines and Crusaders were fighting for the earlier crusades.
  • We should at least have a sentence or two describe the Christianization of the Kievan Rus.
    • I had a full section on them and was told by the last person who helped we with conciseness that every individual nation had to go in a broad overview, and that besides, they had articles of their own, and besides it was just too damn long. I did have all the countries, it's true, but it did not seem appropriate for me to pick some as more significant than others. If I put the Kievan Rus back, I should put back the rest of Eastern Europe as well. Right now there's two truly pitiful paragraphs on East Central Europe and that's it. I will happily replace the Kievan Rus, but what about the creation of Poland? Bulgaria? All the rest of them? Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
  • The summary of Upheavals from 1500 – 1750 really, really, really ought to give more weight to the role of missionaries and Christianity in general within colonial atrocities. At the moment it reads as practically apologia.
    • I'm sort of walking a fine line here with this one since colonialism was not a Christian movement. Christian missionaries were "add ons" who weren't always welcomed by colonial powers, had very little power over what happened to people, how things were administrated by the colonial government, and so on. They could appeal to colonial government but that was about it. Lamin Sanneh who was a missiologist - Harvard? or maybe Yale? Yale I think - anyway, his studies are full of examples of missionaries as basically evenly divided in their support and in their opposition to colonialism. He has examples of missionaries taking advantage of colonial power to force locals to cooperate, and of missionaries enduring personal suffering in order to oppose colonial power and protect the locals. I actually thought about cutting colonialism entirely since colonialism was political and economic and not primarily religious; religion was a not always welcome addition that often interfered with making money - the primary goal of colonialism. Christopher Colombus sailed in 1492. It was 1510 before the Dominicans arrived. They were appalled enough at what they found to speak out and nearly get themselves killed. These were the men who converted the famous Bartolomé de las Casas. Colonialism linked war and evangelism as a means of subduing natives, but missionaries thought force was obstructive to evangelism. That was Christian theology since early on. What do you have indicating missionaries were involved with atrocities? Ah, you want to include the Goa Inquisition, I'm guessing. A unique and fascinating example reflecting what was going on at home in Spain and Portugal. Of course the Portuguese were among the worst of the extractor governments, but it probably should be there, you'd be right about that. How, I wonder. It would require at least some context - I will work on something. I may have to split it into different sections. You'd be okay with that, right? It's a 500 year history. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
  • A Century of Violence in Soviet Russia, from what I can tell, is heavily exaggerating the number of Orthodox priests executed in the period. This appears to be a heavily politically charged work, which doesn't really agree with modern scholarship on the Red Terror.
    • This is one of the original sections left in the article from before I started on it. I always try and leave as much of other people's work as I can, but I confess, I did not go over it except to check that it was properly sourced, because it is consistent with what I have read. I will research it and check it out. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
  • There was a figure that said 8% of India is Christian but that is like, 4x exaggerated from any other academic source I could find.
  • Hat-notes on the Cristero War and Spanish red terror were in the wrong section.

More to come.Generalissima (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

    • You are a wonder and a blessing! Thank you! I am currently working on Late Antique. If you are working on Middle Ages, I won't get there for a bit, are you okay with that? It means you will have to come back again. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
      • Generalissima So a lot of changes already - which are distracting me from adding content - but are very valuable and appreciated. Mostly they are good, but I think meaning has been changed incorrectly in a couple of them. In this Dif [1] you have Christological debates over the divinity and humanity of Jesus have been a driving force for the religion's development. and that is not anywhere in that source. Beginning at the bottom of page 8 to the top of page 9 it says that the battle that you describe lay in the future, that it was in the post-Enlightenment that they wanted to remove dogma about Christ's divinity. Young says Yet it is precisely Christology, the dogmas concerning the divinity and humanity of Christ, which have made Christianity what it is. The clarification of these doctrines, against all the variant forms of Christianity around in the earliest period, was impelled by the ‘cult’ of Jesus, and by the fact that his story was quickly incorporated into an over-arching cosmic narrative. Both of these features belong to the period of this volume. It goes on into page 10 with The divine has shone through the earthly story, etc. etc. on in the rest of that paragraph. You have overlaid a later interpretation that wasn't present in the first centuries, and it's contrary to fact. I didn't want to revert the entire diff, because so much of what you did is good, but this needs changing. I liked the quote, it summed it up succinctly, but do your paraphrasing magic if you prefer, just please don't interpret from a modern perspective. That creates an OR interpretation that isn't accurate.
        • Perhaps I am wrong. Have I misunderstood what you are trying to say here? If so, then there is some ambiguity to resolve. No one argued against Christ's divinity in these early centuries, which is what I understood you to be saying. All the controversies were over how not weather. So if I am wrong in what you meant, I apologize for going on about it, but it does need clarifying. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
        I hate autocorrect - whether not weather. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
      • On down you have By the late third century, the see in Alexandria held similar influence to Rome. and that too is not what the source says. That's another OR interpretation that isn't accurate. The Roman Pope did not have influence beyond Rome until much later, so first off, no such comparison can be made even ing it were the Patriarch that had influence, but it wasn't. It was the church in Alexandria through its many writings and the church fathers who lived and wrote there that had influence.
      • I am all for making things shorter but this Conceptions of sin and free will led to an increasing focus on the spiritual ethics of sexual behavior. perhaps removes too much since it doesn't explain why or how that mattered. The other "evidences" of morals causing change make a comparison. That's the only one that now does not. It needs more work.
      • I think this is also a false claim: The Greek New Testament had stabilized by the late second and third centuries. Stabilized and established are technically different. It didn't stabilize till the fourth century. So that's the first Dif. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
        • The second Dif [2] I have removed the sentence "This had not previously been a requirement in the West." since it was the requirement that pagans convert that is now gone, so it makes no sense.
        • I think this is also false: "Christian emperors wrote laws offering incentives and prohibitions encouraging Christian norms." What norms would those be? I know of no such legislation. They did prohibit sacrifice and magic. I have changed that now for better factual accuracy.
        • "These became the first institutes of higher education in Europe since late antiquity." I put sixth century back, since Late Antiquity is currently somewhat disputed. So that's the second Dif. If you disagree with any of this, please bring a source. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
          • Next diff on images. I'd really like to keep all maps. I think most people know crap all about geography. Really, We're not here to illustrate all of modern western history doesn't seem like a fair criticism, since the text directly discusses those regions. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
            • Diff [3] removes attribution what John Witte calls and its citation yet keeps the quote - you can't do that! All quotes must be attributed and properly cited, and it was Witte that said it and not Matthews and Platt.
            • Under Enlightenment there is a reference to Jacob without even a full name to explain who that is.
            • Under the Baltic wars, Saxons were not just German, they were also English and more. Do you know for sure they were polytheistic?
            • "Christianity was in full retreat in Mesopotamia and the Near East" , well I don't think that's quite accurate, since it was not the entire area, just the interior of Iran. Everything else is good. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Diff [4] under Revolution and modernity it mentions revolutionary upheaval in Europe which is never actually discussed in the text. In the slavery section I removed an unnecessary sentence. Why pick the white woman as the only image? a rapidly growing subpopulation is not the same as the fastest growing which is what the source says. I think you might want to fix the ambiguity in this: Christianity has grown in India in recent years, from a center in the northeastern states. I'm good with all the rest. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  • Generalissima Nevermind about any of this. I have fixed it all to my satisfaction, if it also suits you, then this initial pass through is done. I have also removed some notes. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:06, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
    You know what? I don't really like my edit at Origins. Can you fix it? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
    Sure, I'll try to get back to this soon! You have been doing some really really good work so far. I'm really proud of how far it's come along! TY for pruning the notes and incorporating some of them into the text.
    One other thing; would you mind if I remove some of the superfluous section hatnotes? I feel there's a little bit too many for my tastes, and I think some FAC reviews might end up disliking them too. Generalissima (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
    I do not mind at all, in fact, I agree - go for it! While you are doing all of that, fixing my work, and having a life, in your spare time, please keep an eye on things I am adding. I know they needed adding in, but I also know they need editing down. I will keep filling in those gaps, and keeping an eye on accuracy, and trusting you to keep your eye on the bottom line of word count. We make a pretty good team, imo! Thank you again! Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

The above was getting too long. Generalissima I know there is a bunch of yellow 'no citation' in sources now because so much has been pulled, but please don't do anything about it, at least not until we are done and are sure they will not be reused. I will remove them, then, if that's okay with you. Or you can - or anyone can - but just not till later! Please.

Also, I have now copied the section on persecution and heresy/inquisition, the long note, and some new material, into my sandbox to rework that entire section to be more neutral, maybe, if possible, and more careful, if possible, and to use the sources Borsak wanted, and somehow make it all shorter! Yikes! Give me this week, please dear one. I also have to go out of town for a couple days and am kindo' slammed in RL. Don't give up on me! I will be back with - hopefully - something good that will fill the bill for what the reviewers wanted in the Middle Ages. Thank you!!!!!! Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

The talkpage Template:Refideas exists if it's something you find helpful for some potential refs. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Ooooohh!! I like that! I am going to look at the books he suggested, just because he thought it was important, but I may still use that template - if not now, then at some point! TY! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Generalissima Okay, trying to use Borsak's sources did not go well. I got into an argument with him and have now, no doubt, trashed all chances of doing anything with this article. I'm afraid you will conclude you are wasting your time here. I will still redo the section - but I won't be using his sources - and it won't satisfy him. He wants apologetics not neutrality. It's my own damn fault. You told me to remove the "riddled with corruption" phrase, and I didn't listen. I'm an idiot sometimes. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Generalissima I have now redone the section Borsak objected to in a manner that satisfies my need for appropriate detail and factual accuracy and good sources. It is shorter than what it replaced so I request that it not be edited further. I am going to request a review at the neutral point of view board in hopes of putting that issue to rest. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
It did not pass muster. I know little of Middle Ages history and was just relying on the sources and apparently my sources were not sufficient. I am going to have to start that section over again. Sorry. I am off line for awhile. I'll be back. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Edit request: more info on non-European Christianity

Hi, would someone enjoy adding a bit on Asian and African Christianity? The current article suffers from undue Eurocentrism. Of course Western Europe is central to the history of Christianity, insofar as the religion spread from there to most of the world during colonialism. But the various Eastern/Orthodox churches are really really important and fascinating context. E.g. the unbroken presence of Christianity from the first century in Ethiopia in East Africa, or in Kerala in India, deserves more detail and explanation. And we should mention the patronage that the Church of the East received under Khosrow I and other Persian rulers, which allowed missions to be sent across Asia, before there was even (see "the Road to a Christian East" chapter of The Silk Roads by Frankopan).

More info could also be given on the strong relationship between Christianity and Islam, e.g. theories of Christian influences on early Islam, or their interactions in Africa or in the Balkans (much has been written on this, but The Case for Islamo-Christian Civilization by Bulliet is an accessible starting point). In other words, to make this a bit more of a well-rounded global history of Christianity, not presupposing Western Christianity to be the default, since it wasn't in the past anymore than it is today.🙏 --MASHAUNIX 13:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

You must edit in whatever you think is vital, keeping in mind this is a broad overview only. The more specifics there are, the longer it gets. Since this is a flagship kind of article for Christianity on Wikipedia, I would very much like to see it go FA if at all possible, and length is an issue for that. Please do add whatever you think is essential to understanding this history in proper perspective, but please also note that there are any number of significant events that only have one or two sentences. Entire movements barely have a paragraph. I am not an Eastern scholar, so having someone that knows more of that area go over every mention of the East would be extremely helpful, but please, I beg you, keep it as short as possible. Try to cut as much as you add! I completely support your efforts and thank you up front. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
MASHAUNIX This is now moot as the article has been moved to History of western Christianity. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:46, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
There were objections to the move and I have now reverted it. It should not be moved until there is a requested-move discussion. SilverLocust 💬 03:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
MASHAUN I have attempted to make this article less western-focused. I have not completed the Late Middle Ages in the East yet, and next week RL will prevent me doing much here, but I will get back to this. In the meantime, I would be grateful if you would look over what's been added and see if there are any major topics missing. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Jenhawk777, I have tried to create a short section on the state of Christianity in Northern Africa in the 12th and 13th century. I hope it is short enough but feel free to shorten it if you can. I think especially the Sanneh source can be also used for the further centuries. PontiffSulivahn (talk) 18:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
PontiffSulivahn I am grateful for the participation, but the paragraph has some problems. Right now it reads: Whereas Christianity continued in the Christian Ethiopian kingdom and with the Copts of Egypt, the indigenous Christian popoulation of Northern Africa had hugely decreased by the 12th century when they were joined by newly arrived Christians from Europe. These consisted in captives or slaves, merchants and soldiers which even the puritanical Almohads tolerated due to their economic and military value.[412] In order to take provide pastoral care for these Christians, the popes and the mendicant orders sent friars to Egypt, Tunesia and especially Morocco, though occasionally the friars also engaged in proselytism which was met with hostility.
  • First off, you know you must only write what the sources actually say and cite them accordingly. the article by Lower, on pages 613 - 614, is your first reference. Those pages never mention Ethiopia or the Copts of Egypt. I can find no reference anywhere in Lower's article to either one. The claim is also factually contradicted by your other source on page 16. That has to go. It's OR.
  • You are right that this part is not mention in Lower but in Sanneh. I would not read page 16 as contradiction, the page explains what was going on with the Copts in Egypt and also mentions that Egypt tried to block "Christian Ethiopia" from establishing contact with the outside world. This is why I decided to put a half-sentence on the continuity of Christianity in Egypt and Ethiopia. I have therefore included another citation to that half-sentence.PontiffSulivahn
  • The connection made within the sentence - "had hugely decreased by the 12th century when" - makes it seem that the newly arrived Christians caused the decrease in the indigenous population. Perhaps that's unintentional, but that causality isn't in the article either. On page 613 it specifically states that what happened to North Africans is "a historical puzzle with many missing pieces" - scholars don't know the cause - so that's more OR. The article speaks of three periods of exodus when "North African Christianity dwindled and disappeared over the late antique and medieval periods," and one of those has some "chronological overlap" with new arrivals in the 13th century, but nowhere does it say European arrivals caused the decline of the indigenous population. That too its OR and must go. If you didn't mean to say that, clarify what you did mean to say.
  • I think in this case I have misexpressed myself. I refer to the sentence Lower write on page 614: "In fact, though, there was considerable chronological overlap between the arrival of these European Christians and the gradual disappearance of the indigenous communities." Therefore I wrote that "the indigenous Christians had hugely decreased by the 12th century when they were joined by newly arrived Christians from Europe." As I am not a native speaker, my rephrasing might have shown a bad causal effect, so I am happy with any correction :)PontiffSulivahn
  • The next sentence is confusing: were all the new Christians slaves, merchants and soldiers? Did they all come from Europe? Well, no, that's not what the article says. Where did they come from then? That needs clarifying at least.
  • Maybe Lower would have been the clearer citation as on page 614 he mentions the three groups very distinctively: captives & deported Christians, primarily from Spain and also including Mozarabic Christians, soldiers and mercenaries from Catalonia, Provence and the Italian maritime republic. Sanneh mentions on page 15 the merchants, the soldiers serving in the bodyguards and then Mozarabs. In case you can read German, I also suggest Die beziehungen der paepste zu den islamischen und mongolischen herrschern im 13 jahrhundert anhand ihres briefwechsels (The relation of the popes towards the Islamic and Mongolian rulers in the 13th century according to their letters) by Karl Luprian and here you can read again on page 19 that in the Maghreb (Northern Africa) one could find primarily Christians of foreign origin, namely merchants, mercenaries and slaves although in the inner parts of the country Christianised Berber tribes remained.PontiffSulivahn
  • Who were the puritanical Almohads? That's not explained, and I can't see how that could possibly be considered an appropriate adjective to apply to Moslems. It's not in the source. That makes it more OR.
  • What economic and military value could slaves and merchants have? The reasons for the Pope's support should be mentioned and isn't.
  • Sanneh mentions on page 15 that Muslim rulers tolerated Christian for the lucrative trade that they brought and also mentions how Christians served in their bodyguards. Lower, whose article deals with the Christian soldiers in 13th century Magreb and how they sparked missions and papal interest to the region, mentions that as well and goes into more detail. Page 619 mentions how caliph al-Ma'mum put more trust into Christian mercenaries and "the Almohad's dynasty growing reliance on the military support of Christian mercenaries". Page 629 mentions how also the subsequent dynasties, the Hafsids, Marinids and Zayyanids, continued to employ Christian mercenaries. The whole article is basically about how the importance of the mercenaries became a source of leverage of the popes to promote Christianity in North Africa (page 620).PontiffSulivahn
  • The Sanneh citation page numbers do discuss the mendicants, but not as it is conveyed here. Francis spoke to the Sultan apparently without producing hostility. It was the mission to Tunis that was met that way, and the 5 that went to Morocco were martyred. That seems worth a mention to my mind.
  • The thing here is that the appearance of the three aforementioned groups in North Africa triggered the need to provide pastoral care as every Christian community would need a priest to administer rites (Lower, p. 615). This was the primary reason for the missions. Then, the Franciscans sent the above mentioned missions to Egypt, Morocco and Tunis to also Christianise local Muslims and pope Honorius III made this official papal policy in his bull Vineae Domini custodes. This was, as mentioned by Sanneh p.15 forbidden and you find the same in Joseph O'Callaghan's Reconquest and Crusade in Medieval Spain p. 118 that also states that proselytisation was contrary to Islamic law. The proselytisation was then met with violence and martyrdom as you mention. Therefore I phrased the sentence in the way I did, but I am happy for better ways.PontiffSulivahn
  • Lower's article is on the Muslim use of Christian mercenaries to fight other Christians, and nowhere is that even mentioned in this paragraph. It's actually an interesting topic, but when it comes down to it, it might be one of those details that isn't significant enough to include. At any rate, it can't stay as it is. It would set off all kinds of alarm bells at FAC and get the nomination quick-failed for OR. Repair or remove, please. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
  • I have not found any mention in the article how Christian mercenaries were deployed to fight other Christians. As mentioned above, it discusses how the mercenaries became an important impetus in the efforts to promote Christianity in North Africa. Nevertheless, the article together with Sanneh offers a short overview on what was going on at the time in former Christian North Africa: local Christianity diminishing, European Christians arriving, this triggering new missions by the mendicants and interest by the popes, typically to provide pastoral care for them, but occasionally also to proselytise. Additionally the short overview on Egypt and Ethiopia. I will try again, but feel free to edit it to make it shorter and so that the nomination works out :)PontiffSulivahn
Just so you know, I have now reverted the edit for the above reasons. If you fix the problems, it can be reinserted. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

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
Passed. Generalissima (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
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

 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.
  • 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.)
    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)


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.
  • 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.

(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?

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".

  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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."
  • "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?
  • 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)
  • "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.
  • 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: [7]
    • 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)
  • "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.
  • 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)

Late antiquity to Early Medieval Christianity (313 – 600)

  • 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.
  • "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)


  • 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)
  • 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.
  • "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.
  • "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."

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)
  • "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?
    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)
  • 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.
  • 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?
  • "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.
    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)
  • "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)
  • 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)
  • "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)
  • 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'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"
    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?
  • 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.
  • 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)
  • "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.
    {{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)
  • "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.
  • 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)
  • 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)

Christianity since 1945

I'd put a summary of trends in modern Christianity instead of having a subsection header right after the section header.

  • "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.
  • 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.
  • "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.)

@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: [8]; [9]
2a02:c7c:4671:6300:dd2f:ea0c:376:ba69 Please stop. I will be compelled to report this to [[10]] otherwise. Since you are already partially blocked, that would not lead to good things for you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
I 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 [11], you may want to partially block from this article too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
I only see those 2 edits from that /32 range since the beginning of the year. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Well, I don't get to decide that! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

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)

Closed Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:32, 12 June 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)

Brief addition in the persecution section.

Hello @Jenhawk777. Although the recent revert of brief mention of anti-Christian bias in the film industry is no biggie, could you clarify which aspects you believe appeared unneutral? Did you felt that the instances were too few to be worth mentioning here and hence WP:Undue? StarkReport (talk) 01:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello StarkReport I am glad for your participation and want to thank you for coming here with a disagreement rather than just edit warring. It's a breath of fresh air.
So, let's take a look at what was added. Additionally, some individuals have pointed out anti-Christian bias in the entertainment industry. Some people, such as actor Rainn Wilson, who is not a Christian himself, have stated that Hollywood has often expressed anti-Christian bias. First, what makes Rainn Wilson an authority on what is accepted in Hollywood, or an authority on biases, or even an authority on what qualifies as anti-Christian sentiment? This makes it seem as if not being a Christian makes him an authority on anti-Christian bias - how? Does he practice it himself? How does he identify it? What qualifications does he have to do so, by what standard does he do so, using what definition? IndieWire is not a high quality source, it's a gossip rag that prints personal opinions as if they were facts. They aren't.
Similarly, actor Matthew McConaughey has mentioned that he has observed Christians in Hollywood concealing their faith to protect their careers. How many? How does he know that? That could have many explanations, and unless McConaughey has surveyed them all to be sure his interpretation is theirs, one has to allow for other possible explanations: personal privacy has to be a factor for some. A person's faith is one of our most intimate relationships. Maybe these quiet people just don't want their most intimate relationships splashed about and ridiculed in the media. It's a personal choice that is most likely made for multiple reasons - not just the one McConaughey says.
I don't know how many have kept their faith private, but I do know that many have spoken out as well. There are no numbers or percentages on either method here. There are no referenced surveys or statistics or really any facts of any kind.
This is clearly advocacy. If you wish, I will be happy to go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution with you, but I am absolutely sure they will say the same thing. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Per text, [12] i.e. comments by random actors, and sources used, IMO this clearly fails WP:PROPORTION. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
That too. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Hmm, in hindsight, I agree. I think I may have been too WP:BOLD in expanding the section without the requisite sources, but as I said, "no biggie." Thanks. StarkReport (talk) 02:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Well, that was gracious. Thank you. Anytime. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

MOS:NOTSEEALSO

"As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body."

Jenhawk, I will weed this section a bit. I see some likely duplicates, like Jesus. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Done, afaict. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

A thousand blessings upon you and yours! I can't say thank you enough - but thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

FA

This article has now been nominated for featured article status. Hopefully a reviewer will pick it up before too long, though its length will no doubt be an inhibitor. Please comment if anyone wants to do so. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

FA closed in about 6 hours after three negative comments. I understand taking criticisms seriously, but I don't understand accepting comments uncritically without fact checking. I worked on this for over two years, carefully documented everything, and it failed with not a single comment being checked for accuracy. Several comments indicated they didn't even bother to read a whole section before questioning it since answers were in the text. Not a one checked what the sources said. But it was all simply accepted. I wasn't allowed to "fix" anything. I wasn't even allowed to respond. I'm deeply disappointed in how this was handled, but I'm not embarrassed by the work I did. They don't like it, but this is what current scholarship looks like, and there is only going to be more of it. But I'm done. I'm going offline for awhile. Someone else can pick this up - or not. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Version of 3 may 2023, to check how this article was before. See Talk:History of Christianity/Archive 4#Remarkable article (2 august 2020) versus Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Christianity/archive1 (october 2024). User:Joshua Jonathan|Joshua Jonathan]] - Let's talk! 19:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Article structure and contents

Jenhawk777, let me put it more bluntly: this article could be structured in a more coherent way, with proper thematic groupings. Your recent edits to the section on "Jewish-Hellenistic background" is an example: what do 1st and 3rd century persecutions of Christians have to do with this Jewish-Hellenistic background? At the speed you are editing, it's impossible to give meaningfull input to correct such jumping back and forth between topics. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
You added it here, with the edit-summary

I am trying to follow, and I support that "Jewish-Hellenist background" is a good addition. Thank you. I may have gotten a bit overwhelmed by the citations being in a non-sfn form. Please do explain how to restructure in a more coherent way. If that means changing from years to labels, that's fine. Sections can be split. Whatever you think, I'm sure it will be good. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

removed some off topic: this is not a history of Judaism - it's just too much and it makes some unsupported claims; references need to be sfn form

That's a misleading edit-summary, and too much for one edit; do it in pieces, incremental. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I've been meaning to take a proper look at this article since its GA nom, and have started to dig in and make minor and moderate changes where I can. @Jenhawk777, please feel free to ask about anything I'm doing: I understand how much you care about this being the best article it can be. Remsense ‥ 论 08:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
One thing I notice can be emblematised by the lead: generally, ideal article leads are three or four thematic paragraphs. There's a heightened tendency to have single-sentence paragraphs here and throughout, which I think speaks a bit to more abstract structural difficulties. Remsense ‥ 论 08:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
How about if I remove the last paragraph in the lead? I thought it went to notability, but others saw it as biased. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Remsense ‥ 论
OOPs! copy error! All you have done is great! But we are adding length so fast I can't keep up!Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Joshua JonathanHaving looked over what you reinserted, I still say it is way too much for this kind of broad overview article. The discussion of period labels for one. It's interesting and applicable, but it has too much detail and goes off-topic. You have added so much, and some of it is really good, but I guarantee that if it is all left in, the next nomination will have editors like User talk:AirshipJungleman29 failing it for length that includes too much detail. He has drummed into me that, in a broad overview article, detail has to go. I left out too much in the heresy section, that's a fair criticism, but these additions go way off point in several places. This is not a history of Judaism, nor is it a history of the Bible. Choose carefully what is directly pertinent to history of Christianity only. Not all of this is. Please edit your edits accordingly. And do fix the refs. There is no time constraint. Take your time. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:41, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
No problem to shorten passages, but I've first focused on structure. A conventional structure of subsequent periods is clearer, despite the criticisms that can be raised against it - shoehorsing complicated matters in a simplistic 'table' of periods. But for an overview-article, it's more convenient. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Joshua Jonathan There is a lot of repetition of content from other sections - a restatement in different words but same ideas - in the Apostolic and Anti-Nicene sections. These sections contain too much minute detail for an article of this type. For the rest, I really like the additions to church structure and variant Christianities. I like the changes to the biblical canon and, really, I like it all, although Art might be omitted in the name of being a bit more concise. All in all, it's added another thousand words, but the coverage is much more comprehensive and complete. Some of it needs to be trimmed, but overall, I really like it. It is in fact better, and I'm grateful. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:37, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Apostolic Age

Joshua Jonathan Going over the Apostolic Age, I find some sweeping claims, some errors and repetitions and off topic content that I think that will get this failed again.

  • The whole first paragraph is a rabbit-hole that doesn't add anything of significance to the actual topic. They are not main points. It should be cut. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
  • The first sentence of the second paragraph is a repetition of the first sentence in Jewish-Hellenist background. It should be cut. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
  • The early Christian groups were strictly Jewish, is a mistake that should be cut. Even Judaism was never 100% Jewish, and in Acts, Peter was the one who converted the first Gentile to Christianity, not Paul. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
  • How they described themselves is interesting, but how does it qualify as important enough to be included in an overview? It should be cut in the name of being concise. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
  • ...started his mission among the Gentiles is incorrect. Acts says Paul always started by visiting synagogues first in every town he went into. It should be cut. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Because of this inclusion of Gentiles, early Christianity changed its character and gradually grew apart from Judaism during the first two centuries of the Christian Era is in direct contradiction to the list of causes referenced in Jewish-Hellenist background. It's a sweeping claim, one of those that gets blasted by reviewers, and I don't think there is a contemporary scholar that makes that claim any more. It's a nineteenth century theory. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:20, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
  • The fourth-century church fathers Eusebius and Epiphanius of Salamis cite a tradition that before the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 the Jerusalem Christians had been warned to flee to Pella in the region of the Decapolis across the Jordan River. Also interesting to me and you but it is connected to nothing. It just pops in out of the blue making a reader wonder, "so what?" It should either be cut or explained, but I vote for cut. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
  • The next sentence, the first of the last paragraph, is good but out of place. It belongs in the New Testament section. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
  • The last sentence is a repetition of what's in growth. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

That leaves almost nothing in this section, which seems appropriate. To speak of the Apostolic Age separately from origins and background is misleading and artificial. The whole section should be cut. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Regarding cutting "Apostolic Age": it is a periodisation used in the literature, but is could also be subsumed under "First century," or, as you suggest, "Early Christianity."Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
It is a periodization. We should pick one - either Early Christianity (origins to Constantine) or Apostolic and ante-nicene, but not both. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:34, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! I figured out how to keep it all in deference to you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:33, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Kept and  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Relevance of GA- and FA-status

I'll go over the details later, but personally, I'm not interested in raising articles to GA or FA status; to me, they look like vanity-projects. There are two GA-articles which are clearly on my mind; Adi Shankara acquired GA-status, while lacking the most basic information about the hagiographic nature of his "biographies"; and India has a number of plain errors in the lead, intentionally placed there by the main editor, despite objections from multiple editors. So, GA-status says very little to me. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:42, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

It isn't about us. It's about the article. This article needs to be Wikipedia's highest quality because of its importance. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:31, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Ante-Nicene period

  • If the heading Ante-Nicene is removed, there are no problems with periodization since it all falls under the time frame listed as "Early". If you leave Ante-Nicene, which is generally recognized as after 100, there are some problems. It makes it look like church structure didn't develop until then, yet scholars agree the NT was written in the first century and church structure is in the NT. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Under variant Christianities, I would like to see this with strong unifying characteristics which were lacking in the apostolic period. verified and sourced please. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
  • They had different interpretations of the Bible, particularly regarding theological doctrines such as the divinity of Jesus and the nature of the Trinity. is problematic at best. First, there is no Bible as such. Second, this is not a good description of Arianism - which is in the next Age section on developing orthodoxy. This is not a good sentence. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Many of the variations which existed during this time defy neat categorizations, because various forms of Christianity interacted in a complex fashion in order to form the dynamic character of Christianity which existed during this era. is a completely pointless and very wordy sentence. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
  • This is a good sentence: The Post-Apostolic period was diverse both in terms of beliefs and practices. In addition to the broad spectrum of general branches of Christianity, there was constant change and diversity that variably resulted in both internecine conflicts and syncretic adoption. and accurate. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Under Proto-Orthodox writings, the content makes it sound as if all the early church fathers who wrote were elites and there is simply no possible way to know that. This is at best unsourced and at worst OR. This section has too much unnecessary detail as well. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
  • why is this sentence necessary? here was no empire-wide persecution of Christians until the reign of Decius in the 3rd century.

Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Late Antiquity

  • moving on to Late Antiquity, In late antiquity, the conversion of Constantine had a decisive influence on the development of Christianity. is a sweeping statement that will be hard to back up with contemporary scholarship.

Did he contribute? Absolutely. Was it decisive? Probably not, since it was already established in the Third century before Constantine. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Christianity and paganism - why change polytheism to paganism, a controversial and disrespectful term? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Divergence from Judaism this heading is now changed to something that is not discussed at all. That will get a fail vote right out the gate.Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Why is this - Developing orthodoxy - a better more descriptive heading? This section doesn't focus on orthodoxy, it focuses on heresy. Monasticism isn't about monasticism of this time period, it's about the invention of the first modern style hospital. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

That's all I can do tonight. I hope for your cooperation in these, and that you know I am grateful for your work. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

They are  Done now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:10, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Edit-speed

Good morning (evening, night, wherever you are; I just woke up after too little sleep (a burden of growing old...)); I haven't read the latest comments yet (I will), but as a side-note, Jenhawk777: with the speed you are editing and commenting, you make it pretty hard for others to keep up with you. It wouldn't surprise if, for that reason, the editors whose comments would have been helpfull simply gave up and left you alone, trusting that your edits are good enough. Unfortunately, as we've noticed now, there are a few structural elements, or patterns, which would have benefitted from sustained feedback. Since this is not the case, you have de facto come to WP:OWN the page, without your intention. But it may be worth to keep in mind: a collaborative project is probably a better project, but it means that sometimes you'll just have to sit on your hands and wait, for those other smart ones (yeah, Wikipedia offers the mixed blessing of being with other smartest kids off the class, who all usually out-smart all the others around them) to show up. Regards, and I will respond later; first try to catch some more sleep. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:10, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan. I've never had anyone fuss at me for being too fast in responding before. I always try to be sure and respond within 24 hours, on anything, on every comment made to me. Check every GA or peer review I've had. I feel bad when I take a whole day to respond! I don't want anyone thinking I'm ignoring them. You started editing two days ago and have gone through the entire article already, so that's pretty speedy yourself, and by my standards, puts me behind already. As the Wikipedia Gods are my witness, I am just trying to keep up with you and Remsense. I am still a participant in this collaboration - or am I?
Are you saying that any disagreement immediately runs you off? I love collaboration. I thrive on it. I define it as a back and forth mutual exchange. I don't define collaboration as me being required to sit and accept everything you do as unquestionable. I don't own the page and don't want to. I was thrilled to see help show up. I needed it. But I haven't abandoned it either. You seem to have assumed I am a kid in need of being told to sit down and keep quiet while the grown ups clean up my mess. I daresay I am older than you. So what? Source your claims. If your sources are better than mine, we'll go with yours happily. Otherwise, don't expect me to be awed into submission. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
No, I'm not saying that disagreement runs me off, but there is a limit to the amount of discussion one can keep up with. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! Agreed. Since this is a problem for you, I went ahead and made the changes myself that I discussed here. I kept the periodization. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:35, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Middle Ages

Joshua Jonathan This reorganization is good. I originally had it this way, but combined so I could shorten it. The church in confrontation is a category in the Cambridge History, but I like the way you combined things here instead. Some of the content is now out of its proper timeline however. I can move those. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Plus, I have already been reprimanded in one of the peer reviews for "corruption" being biased, and for having a section on renaissance as being off topic. Those should both go probably. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
You have added back in the many links to "further info" and so on that others took out as duplicating links at the end. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:02, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
I can hardly believe you have gone through the whole article! You are amazing! And I agree and support nearly everything - which is probably saying something about two wiki-editors! Thank you thank you! I clearly needed the help in overall organization - not my strong suit - and you left my content - and I am so impressed I could weep! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:24, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
We are up to almost 2000 more words than it had. We need to cut some. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:29, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Not the whole article; I stopped at "Early Modern times", but probably will pick that up later. And yes, I also edit a lot, and fast, and that did put-off other editors. But I also check sources thoroughly, when needed (three books on Hinduism at the table now, for one piece of into at Bhagavad Gita), and that takes time to do it good and fair. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:04, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
I am not put off by your speed. I am not put off by thorough sourcing. I respect both. I too sometimes take a week researching to get a sentence. I wasn't able to finish my PhD due to health problems, but I am conscious of trying to do Master's level research at all times. I was too focused on word count this time. It created problems. I'm good at thorough. I'm not as good at concise. You are clearly the same. We need someone who is good at concise to collaborate. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:26, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_Christianity/Archive_5&oldid=1252698985"