Talk:History of Christianity
A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the History of Christianity article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
History of Christianity has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Other talk page banners | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
|||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present. |
With gratitude[edit]
I would especially like to thank SanctumRosarium for their persistence and aid of the best kind. Thanx to your timely assistance, all that is left now is checking images for alt descriptions and copyright info, and going over all the references for any w/o page #s. I note that there are a few of those left, and if there is some good reason, it should be posted. At least I think that's possible! I'll check! If not, we will have to find other sources. This is one of those truly tedious detail types of work that I hate but is so necessary for the quality editors expect of an FA article. If you are willing to continue with me to the end, I think - I hope - we will see the benefits of our work. Thank you again! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- 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[edit]
Good Article review details
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Reviewer: Generalissima (talk · contribs) 19:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
For silly personal reasons, I like to go through the GA criteria in reverse order. 6: Illustrated[edit]6A: All images have alt-text, perfect. Going through, all are properly licensed. (Most are public domain in any case, and those that are not are all in CC or similar free licenses.) The alt text on the multiple image template was slightly mislabeled, but I corrected this. - G
6B:[edit]The images are of good quality and placement, are relevant to the sections where they are included. Couple nitpicks:
Got to go, but I'll try to get back to this tonight. - G
5: Stable[edit]Yep! No evidence of edit wars here. - G 4: Neutral[edit]Having read through it, I haven't noticed any areas where NPOV is violated. You have made a good summary of current scholarly thought on Christian history. - G
3: Broad in its coverage[edit]A: There are certainly nitpicks I could make if this were at a FA-comprehensiveness level, but for GA breadth this is excellent work. Good use of summary style to cover some very complicated and varied history. The only real quibble I have is I think the separation of Christianity form Judaism is a bit brushed over in the first section, and I think it would be important to spend a couple sentences defining Jewish Christians and what specific factors led to Christianity seeing itself as non-Jewish beyond just "doctrinal differences". It's probally also important to mention that sects like the Nazarenes and the Ebionites continued to identify as Jewish Christians for some time after the "gentilefication" of Christianity. - G
B: As mentioned above, very good distillation. At ~12,000 words, it is certainly a long article, but falls within the general upper-bounds of article length. I would be unsure how to shorten this beyond this point without a loss of information. - G 2: Verifiable with no original research[edit]A: Well-organized footnote section using SFNs. Sources are in a standardized citation style, and have ISBNs and links where available. - G B: Every paragraph (honestly, almost every sentence) has inline citations. - G C / D: Earwig repeatedly timed out when I tried to load the page, but considering the intensity of the summary style, I feel it is unlikely to give us any suprising revelations! To check for any OR, I did a spot check of some random cites which I had access to. Most were accurate; I certainly did not see anything resembling copyvio. There were, however, some I was a little confused by. (although I might be missing context or info on these.)
1: Well-written[edit]I will work on this more tomorrow, but some preliminary prose quibbles. - G
(Proper prose review begin) Lede[edit]I don't think you need strictly need most of the citations here, since it's all discussed in the body of the article with the same set of sources. Generally, per MOS:LEADCITE, it's best to avoid citations in the lede whenever possible. Generally pretty well-written lede! I would find a way to mention that Christianity additionally spread to areas outside of the Roman Empire in the paragraph about its grassroots spread, since it is a common misconception that Rome was the first state to adopt it. I'd also probably say the "general acceptance of tolerance as a policy", since not all Christian religious movements following the end of the wars of religion were tolerant to others. The end of the lede has a couple areas I feel might be clunky. Has it become the world's largest religion in contemporary times, or simply maintained this status? I would also rephrase "from West to East and from the North to the global South"; aren't the areas where Christianity growing in the East within the global south? More to come. Generalissima (talk) 05:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Origins to 312[edit]
Limited them to what? Study what is probable? Incorporate within general historiographies what is probable?
Everything in "Beginnings" is solid.
Ain't he an Apostle? He's not one of the Twelve, but he's usually called one. I'd change "and" to "including".
Late antiquity to Early Medieval Christianity (313 – 600)[edit]
Early to High Middle Ages (600 – 1100)[edit]
The rise and fall of Christendom (1100 – 1500)[edit]
"the searchers found the works of Aristotle and Euclid and more. What had been lost to the West after the collapse of the empire, was found, and the future would be forever changed." This section needs quite a bit of work, its tone feels more like a news article than an encyclopedia.
Getting a bit tired, so I will try to finish the prose review tomorrow. Generalissima (talk) 07:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC) Okie dokie, apologies for being gone for a bit. Let's finish this! Generalissima (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
1500 – 1750[edit]
1750 – 1945[edit]
Christianity since 1945[edit]I'd put a summary of trends in modern Christianity instead of having a subsection header right after the section header.
@Jenhawk777: Okay, that's all for now! Once you do more revisions I'll look over the whole article and see if I can do any copy editing touch-ups or if there are any more phrasing issues that need to be touched up. Thank you so much for your hard work - the finish line is in sight, I feel. :3 Generalissima (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
protection for this article[edit]
Multiple acts of vandalism as demonstrated in recent edits at 20:19, 23 February 2024, by 2a01:5a8:30d:4a77:ec8d:21a1:41f8:de32 talk; 20:17, 23 February 2024, by 2a01:5a8:30d:4a77:ec8d:21a1:41f8:de32 talk; and at 20:15, 23 February 2024, by 2a01:5a8:30d:4a77:ec8d:21a1:41f8:de32 talk
indicate to me that this page needs protection. Do others agree? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- 2a02:c7c:4671:6300:dd2f:ea0c:376:ba69 Please stop. I will be compelled to report this to [[6]] otherwise. Since you are already partially blocked, that would not lead to good things for you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- I've requested semi-protection at RPP. Can't hurt. Remsense诉 21:56, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Apparently there is not enough disruption. I did not go back and collect all previous ones, but if this continues, I will. Thank you Pbritti and Remsense for trying. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Ohnoitsjamie, per [7], you may want to partially block from this article too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- I only see those 2 edits from that /32 range since the beginning of the year. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Well, I don't get to decide that! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
GA Reassessment[edit]
History of Christianity[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result: No consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
After receiving GA from Generalissima I asked for a peer review to take this article to FA. In that review, Borsoka had a problem with sources that, in his view, were not general enough to reflect consensus. I have added more general sources, and have used multiple references to find and demonstrate majority views, but in his view this article, still, not only doesn't deserve FA, it doesn't even deserve a GA and should be reassessed accordingly. I am cooperating and asking for the community to weigh in. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Just for the records, I mentioned more than one problems. 2c: It probably contains original research because I found at least two sentences after a quick review that were not verified by the allegedly cited source. Furthermore, the article is not based on works about the general history of Christianty, but on several books and studies about specific aspects of church history. 3a: The article fails to address major aspects of the topic because it mainly focuses on the history of Western Christianty. 3a: In some cases, the article goes into unnecessary details. Borsoka (talk) 09:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Please be specific. Which sentences do you think are not properly cited, and what major topics are omitted and what details remain. I've explained that this article covers each era by the geography of where Christianity was primarily centered in that era.Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Read my peer review. Borsoka (talk) 13:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think I have fixed everything you mentioned there. I am still researching and adding more on the East one section at a time, but I am doing that. I meant, is there something else? Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- Read my peer review. Borsoka (talk) 13:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- Note that per the GA criteria, "The "broad in its coverage" criterion is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles. It allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
- Personally, I do feel that the article is rather weak on its coverage of non-Western Christianity. Take e.g. Orthodoxy, which is mentioned in only four paragraphs across the whole article, and nothing between 1054 and the modern era. Similarly, Oriental Orthodoxy is mentioned once in prose and the Coptic traditions not at all. I think the assertion above that "this article covers each era by the geography of where Christianity was primarily centered in that era" is perhaps subconsciously biased; what it should read is "this article covers each era by the geography of where developments in the Christianity we see today were primarily centered".
- The "Early Middle Ages (600–1100)" section is especially teleological: it deals near-exclusively with Western Europe (including the Crusades, viewed exclusively through a "Frankish" lens), which is difficult to justify. The sole paragraph dealing with Byzantium, beginning "By the end of the first millennium..." is inexcusably vague and dismissive.
- That said, bearing in mind the GA criterion above, which allows "significantly weaker" broadness than that expected from featured articles, I think this article is acceptable at GA. Western-biased, yes, but that's not unusual for Wikipedia, and it's not terrible in the later sections. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Please be specific. Which sentences do you think are not properly cited, and what major topics are omitted and what details remain. I've explained that this article covers each era by the geography of where Christianity was primarily centered in that era.Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Discussion of featured criteria issues
|
---|
|
- Thank you for the quote. My problem is that this is not a "shorter article", but a large article which covers almost exclusively Western Christianity. I think it should be quickly delisted. Borsoka (talk) 13:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- I feel that it comes under "overviews of large topics". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:42, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think the text would not allow us to present the history of Germany, France and England in an article about the history of Europe. Borsoka (talk) 02:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- I don't understand this.Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think the text would not allow us to present the history of Germany, France and England in an article about the history of Europe. Borsoka (talk) 02:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- Adding Eastern Christianity across the board will take time. It would be a demonstration of good faith to acknowledge that I am doing that and have done the rest of what you have asked as well. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- Why not move that material out and this page to History of western Christianity...? There seems to be a consensus that that seems to be what it actually is... ——Serial 19:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- There is no History of Western Christianity article as such - but there could be. There is Western Christianity that contains a short history section. So are you suggesting a sub-article that expands the history section? That's probably doable. It would be a lot of work but that might actually resolve the conflict here. It would also make it possible to keep the size down.
- There's actually an awful lot in this article on the East - I guess that could be merged into Eastern Christianity as well - if it isn't already there. I wouldn't mind doing all this if others agree it's the best approach. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- Why not move that material out and this page to History of western Christianity...? There seems to be a consensus that that seems to be what it actually is... ——Serial 19:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- I feel that it comes under "overviews of large topics". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:42, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the quote. My problem is that this is not a "shorter article", but a large article which covers almost exclusively Western Christianity. I think it should be quickly delisted. Borsoka (talk) 13:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- Does this end the reassessment? Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- So a general History of Christianity just doesn't exist anymore? What about the interwikis? I think a move like this really needs a consensus beforehand. Skyshiftertalk 23:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I too think this is a rather strange move. I get maybe there is a lot of detail in the west and east parts that merits its own attention, but there should be an overall history of Christianity page. As noted during the recent DYK run, it also needs a bit more balance in my view, the relative coverage of Christianity in the United States compared with Africa and Latin America is not proportionate. — Amakuru (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- I certainly don't see where SN54129 got the idea there was a consensus for the move, so
I'll move it back per WP:RMUM and start an RMnope, Amakuru has already asked to do that at WP:RM. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)- I have reverted the move. SilverLocust 💬 03:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Dagnabbit!! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you SilverLocust for doing the work that restoration required. This article makes a better "History of Western Christianity" I thought and an overview article could easily be recreated from a synopsis of both the western and eastern articles. But if it's consensus to leave it, I will accept the decision of the community.
- Now back to the GA reassessment I guess. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Jenhawk777: My revert was at the request of the others. I am mostly indifferent about whether it is moved/split, but I agree with Skyshifter, Amakuru, and AirshipJungleman29 that the move needs a discussion beforehand — either by way of a requested move or proposed split. SilverLocust 💬 00:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Well, I appreciate that, but it does seem as if many are willing to make demands about what this article should be without being willing to do the work. When you reverted, you did the work of adding back the refs and so on, so I thank you for that. Since there is disagreement over the move, we should probably deal with one issue at a time, and since the GA issue came first, we should probably address that first. So far, there is one yes and one no. I originally posted this request for reassessment because of that no. They give these reasons:
- 2c) First, it says two citations that cited the wrong chapter are "original research". I cited the author/chapter after the right one, but the rest was correct, even the page numbers. That's not OR, it's just an error. At any rate, that has been fixed.
- 3a) The "no" voter says the article needs more general histories. Those have been added. The reasoning given is that only general histories lead to an understanding of majority views, but I don't think that's true. They are only one person's perspective on a very broad history, and they probably aren't experts in every aspect. By using multiple books and articles on specific aspects of history written by experts, it is possible to get multiple points of view on the same events. The "common" view can be found two ways: when multiple sources say the same things - or when one of those specialists report on what's happening in the field. There are plenty of sources of both kinds used here, and I can assure everyone that the majority view is what is in the text.
- 3a) The complaint that the article has a western bias is fair and is being addressed. It is just taking some time for additional research.
- "In some cases, the article goes into unnecessary details". For reviewers on this page, there are two complaints about not enough detail on some topics and one complaint about too much detail without saying where. One way or the other, I am working, with help, to make the article as concise as possible and still be complete in its coverage.
- None of these should prevent this article from being seen as deserving its GA. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Well, I appreciate that, but it does seem as if many are willing to make demands about what this article should be without being willing to do the work. When you reverted, you did the work of adding back the refs and so on, so I thank you for that. Since there is disagreement over the move, we should probably deal with one issue at a time, and since the GA issue came first, we should probably address that first. So far, there is one yes and one no. I originally posted this request for reassessment because of that no. They give these reasons:
- @Jenhawk777: My revert was at the request of the others. I am mostly indifferent about whether it is moved/split, but I agree with Skyshifter, Amakuru, and AirshipJungleman29 that the move needs a discussion beforehand — either by way of a requested move or proposed split. SilverLocust 💬 00:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- I have reverted the move. SilverLocust 💬 03:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- So a general History of Christianity just doesn't exist anymore? What about the interwikis? I think a move like this really needs a consensus beforehand. Skyshiftertalk 23:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- My concern is that after a short reading I found highly debatable statements: (1) In what would become Eastern Central Europe, Christianization and political centralization went hand in hand in creating the nation-states of Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia, Poland, Hungary, and Russia. Many of the nation-states listed came into being in the 20th and 21th centuries. (2) [In the Byzantine Empire] The eleventh century was a period of relative peace and prosperity, and Christianity was the ‘glue' of the empire. After around 1050, the Byzantine Empire lost large territories to the Seljuk Turks. 3. Bulgarians are mentioned as living in Asia, Alanians in the lands now forming Iran. I think you should do your homework, and complete this article before demanding new and new reviews from other editors. Alternatively, you may want to complete an article about a shorter period of the history of Christianity, and achieve its promotion as GA and FA. Borsoka (talk) 04:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Borsoka, Thank you. You are right. I should have waited until all the new material was in, checked and polished before asking anyone anything. I rushed because this is still standing open. I expected to come back and continue to add and move things around, because I thought others would be willing to help. Now you have.
- The nations listed had their roots/precursors in the Middle Ages, but that is unclear in how it is stated. Thank you for pointing that out. I have now changed it.
- That "The eleventh century was a period of relative peace and prosperity," is not incorrect, it is just not a detailed discussion of "relative". If losing territory qualifies as the absence of peace and prosperity, then Byzantium never had any after Justinian, and we all know that is simply not true.
- You are right again that Bulgaria would more properly be listed under Europe - except that category wasn't there. Since it's kind of borderline, it can be described as connecting to the Asian continent, and at the time, I had no better place to put it, so I just squeezed it in. I have now changed the section title and moved Bulgaria so it is now with the rest of southeastern Europe - which wasn't there before but is now.
- I have added material on the East in every age including creating the entirely new section. Have I adequately addressed the issue of "Western bias"?
- Have I adequately addressed all the issues you raised in the peer review? You have been the most critical - not complaining, just noting - but that is why I need an answer from you directly on whether or not I have adequately addressed those issues. If not, I need to know what hasn't been done. I know it's asking a lot, but this article is complex and needs all the input from multiple editors that it can get. I appreciate that you want the article to be the best it can. I share that desire and believe you are well able to help with that. You have, so please let me know. I do need your help and I am grateful for it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Let me add that I have not yet completed the East in the Late Middle Ages. I thought I would have it done by the time you read this, but I am not satisfied with it - mostly because I am now reluctant to put in anything that isn't already perfect - so I am not publishing it yet. You can still answer about the rest of it though, and I will have this last bit in the next couple of days - RL is interfering right now, but I'll get it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, I stop replying your queries because we obviously live in paralel worlds: in your world, the loss of more than half of Byzantine territory is the sign of a period of relative peace, in my world it is not; in your world, the Byzantine Empire was continuosly losing territories, in my world, the empire was expanding under the first Macedonian emperors, and later under the Komneni; in your world, Bulgaria is located on the borders of Asia and Europe, for me, it is a clearly European country, etc. My opinion has not changed: the article has never reached the level of a GA. Borsoka (talk) 04:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- The direct quote from Jonathan Harris' "Byzantium and the Crusades" is this:
One consequence of Byzantine military success is that, especially after 1018, many parts of the empire enjoyed a period of relative peace and prosperity as the threat of foreign invasion, ever-present in previous centuries, now diminished. The frontier districts, particularly newly incorporated Bulgaria, Syria and Armenia remained vulnerable to raids from neighboring nomads, so many urban centers such as Adrianople, Philippopolis, Antioch and Theodosiopolis retained their military function and garrisons. In the interior provinces on the other hand, particularly in what is now Greece and western Turkey, towns were flourishing as centers of industry and commerce. Archaeological excavations reveal that areas of Corinth and Athens, which had been deserted for centuries, had now been reoccupied and built over, and important industries had begun to grow up. ... In general therefore Byzantium was probably a more prosperous and settled society in the mid-eleventh century than the fragmented and localized countries of Western Europe.
- Constantine the 5th's reforms brought about a revival that lasted until 1204 and the fourth crusade. From the tenth century on, Byzantium projected wealth. This is in Paul Magdalino's, "Medieval Constantinople: Built Environment and Urban Development". In Angeliki E. Laiou's "The Economic History of Byzantium (Volume 2)"; in W. Treadgold's "A History of the Byzantine State and Society"; and any other history you check.
- This is not an error on my part.
- It does seem we are not living in the same world. For me, it is fair and reasonable - an act of good faith - to let things go once they've been addressed. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- In the "Cambridge History of Christianity", volume 2, Bundy says on page 133: "The adoption of Christianity as the ‘glue of empire’ within Byzantium had serious repercussions for Persian Christians."
- The
Macedonian emperors
are political and off topic for this article. - However, I have to say I am surprised you would mention them, since they prove my point and do not support your parallel world. Byzantine Empire under the Macedonian dynasty says
...revival took place in the late 9th, 10th, and early 11th centuries. ... The cities of the empire expanded, and affluence spread across the provinces because of the newfound security. The population rose, and production increased, stimulating new demand for trade.
That's exactly what Harris - and all the others - say. It's what I said. later under Komneni
I did say I have not done the late Middle Ages yet.- None of these are legit complaints, except for one, Bulgaria is in Europe, which it is now. The GA criteria says that
You are expected to respond to the reviewer's suggestions to improve the article to GA quality in a timely manner
. It does not say that if anyone has any suggestions for improvement, that immediately sinks the nomination. This article meets the 6 criteria. You'll have to do better than this to prove otherwise. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- The direct quote from Jonathan Harris' "Byzantium and the Crusades" is this:
- Sorry, I stop replying your queries because we obviously live in paralel worlds: in your world, the loss of more than half of Byzantine territory is the sign of a period of relative peace, in my world it is not; in your world, the Byzantine Empire was continuosly losing territories, in my world, the empire was expanding under the first Macedonian emperors, and later under the Komneni; in your world, Bulgaria is located on the borders of Asia and Europe, for me, it is a clearly European country, etc. My opinion has not changed: the article has never reached the level of a GA. Borsoka (talk) 04:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Let me add that I have not yet completed the East in the Late Middle Ages. I thought I would have it done by the time you read this, but I am not satisfied with it - mostly because I am now reluctant to put in anything that isn't already perfect - so I am not publishing it yet. You can still answer about the rest of it though, and I will have this last bit in the next couple of days - RL is interfering right now, but I'll get it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
New peer review[edit]
Please add any and all comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/History of Christianity/archive2 Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- My first comment is a defense of Matthews and Platt The Western Humanities as a most excellent source. This article references history, but it must also use culture, politics, sociology, the arts and philosophy to provide both context and explanation. This is critically important to understanding the history of any religion simply because it is fact that religion influences culture and culture influences religion.
- There is no better source - anywhere - that provides the kind of comprehensive view of all of that than this college textbook. It is a history, a history of all the humanities as they reflected and influenced one another. I have tested every statement on the history of religion, used from this textbook, in this article, and there are no inaccuracies. Perhaps that is why this book has been reprinted - 6 times? - since it was first published. It is not limited to being a history of art as some have claimed. It is the highest quality history of the humanities, and that makes all the difference. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- The Cambridge History of Christianity is referenced 40 times through nearly as many individual authors. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- 39 now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Have reduced content to below 13,000 words! Still working at reduction in size. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- 39 now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- The Cambridge History of Christianity is referenced 40 times through nearly as many individual authors. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- I got all radical and moved everything out of "Eastern Christianity" into its corresponding times. I think it's easier to follow this way. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- It has been recommended that it's time to put this article up for FAC. Any opinions on this would be appreciated. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Question[edit]
When something in one section of an article is mentioned in another section, should it be referenced somehow? How? The investiture controversy is mentioned in the early Middle Ages but not actually discussed until the high Middle Ages. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- Requests for peer review
- Wikipedia good articles
- History good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- Wikipedia Did you know articles that are good articles
- GA-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-4 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in History
- GA-Class level-4 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-4 vital articles in History
- GA-Class vital articles in History
- GA-Class Christianity articles
- Top-importance Christianity articles
- GA-Class Christian theology articles
- Top-importance Christian theology articles
- Christian theology work group articles
- GA-Class Christian History articles
- Top-importance Christian History articles
- Christian History articles
- WikiProject Christianity articles
- GA-Class Catholicism articles
- High-importance Catholicism articles
- WikiProject Catholicism articles
- GA-Class Eastern Orthodoxy articles
- High-importance Eastern Orthodoxy articles
- WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy articles
- GA-Class Oriental Orthodoxy articles
- High-importance Oriental Orthodoxy articles
- WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy articles
- GA-Class history articles
- High-importance history articles
- WikiProject History articles
- GA-Class Religion articles
- Top-importance Religion articles
- WikiProject Religion articles
- Wikipedia articles that use Oxford spelling
- Wikipedia articles that use British English