Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cross Temple, Fangshan/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 14 April 2024 [1].

Cross Temple, Fangshan[edit]

Nominator(s): Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the only surviving site of the Church of the East in China. I think I have exhausted the research material I can find to ensure it is comprehensive and well-researched, and I am pretty sure the images involved are in the public domain, either because they are user contributions from the Commons, or because they were published before 1928. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I might be able to borrow Qianzhi Zhu's 中国景教 [Nestorianism in China] next week. Might add tiny bits and pieces to the text. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Borrowed, checked and reviewed. Nothing much to add–can confirm that it is very much comprehensive on the subject matter (yippee!) Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A heads-up for all reviewers @Kusma @AirshipJungleman29 @Remsense: I have something from Mar 21 to Mar 25; can at most devote 30 mins per day for Wiki stuff. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 20:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generalissima's comments[edit]

Reserving my spot for a prose review! Love more Chinese history FACs. :3 Generalissima (talk) 17:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Generalissima, this is into time out warning territory, so if you are still intending to review the next day or two would be a good time to start. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild, Generalissima is currently blocked (on her own request). It seems unlikely that she will return before 19 March. —Kusma (talk) 10:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generalissima pinging again to see if you're free. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Kusma[edit]

Planning to review. —Kusma (talk) 11:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • An interesting article about an exciting topic, thank you for this. Unfortunately I am not totally convinced by the present organisation of the article. As I understand it, it is about a historical site in Beijing (the modern municipality, not the historical city proper) that has been Buddhist and Christian at unclear points in its history. The article body currently starts with a description of two steles instead of setting out the historical background and explaining where we are and what is going on there. I understand that this is difficult to sort out because there are differing theories, but I don't think the current "try to be as chronological as possible" is working well. I think I'd prefer to read some background on the history of the Church of the East in China separately from the history of the site instead of interweaving it. As I understand it, there was a Tang dynasty Nestorian Church, but we do not know for sure that the Cross Temple site was connected to it. Then the description of the Buddhist history of the site could be done without interspersing it with notes about the more general history of Nestorianism.
  • It is not fully clear to me when and how the article uses Chinese characters. Most of the time it is when there is no link to an article so it helps future researchers for disambiguation, but it is not always done (Tang Li, Niu Ruiji). But 寶相花紋 seems unnecessary?
  • Most of the characters are traditional Chinese (no problem with that), with some reasonable exceptions like the modern day location 车厂村. It may be good to mark the simplified ones that need to be used. Why is 古刹十字禅林 in simplified, when it is a pre-simplification inscription? The quote from Xu 1992, p. 185 (a book with a title in simplified) is written at least partially in traditional Chinese.

I may look in more detail later, but I think it is worth discussing the organisational issues first (maybe you can convince me that I'm wrong). —Kusma (talk) 21:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see your comments. I am having a hectic week. Will reply in more detail later next week, probably after Wednesday.
  • My defense for the current structure of the article is that I am going to inform the reader about the history of the site anyways, and if I supply them with the history of the Church of the East in China, they are more prepared, and it is more cohesive.
  • The Chinese characters–will fix when I have time. My rule of thumb is to provide Chinese characters when the word is a proper noun and the reader would benefit much more if they look up the Chinese word on Google.
Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 23:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. But let's have a look at one paragraph, perhaps I can explain better what I mean.
"Nestorian Christianity was first recorded in Tang China during the 7th century, and some scholars suggested that the temple may have belonged to the Church of the East in China around this time."
What is "Nestorian Christianity"? Is it the same as "Church of the East in China"?
"The Japanese scholar P. Y. Saeki speculated that believers fleeing from Chang'an to Youzhou and Liaodong during the 9th-century Huichang persecution of Buddhism, which also affected the Church of the East, began using the temple."
I am not sure we need the nationalities of the scholars here. Where are Chang'an, Youzhou and Liaodong in relation to Beijing? How does the persecution of Buddhism affect non-Buddhists?
"Tang Xiaofeng additionally points to inscriptions on the Liao stele as an indication that Christian crosses were present at the temple prior to the Liao dynasty. In addition, Tang claims that another text written by Li Zhongxuan [zh] in 987 indicated a Nestorian presence in Youzhou."
You are changing tense. I prefer present tense for what the experts say, but you should be consistent. Where is Youzhou, and what does the presence of Nestorians in Youzhou have to do with the Cross Temple?
"However, British sinologist Arthur Christopher Moule believed that there was insufficient evidence to show that the Church of the East existed in Beijing before the 13th century."
So they might not have reached Beijing, but are we sure there was a presence of the Church of the East somewhere in China? Where?
I think it would be easier to explain separately what Nestorians are and what "Church of the East in China" means, when they came to China, what is known for sure about their spread, and then explain how the Cross Temple fits into the picture as part of the theory that there were Tang Dynasty Nestorians in Beijing. After reading your paragraph, I am no longer sure whether there were any Nestorians in China at all during the Tang dynasty. —Kusma (talk) 14:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Here we go.
  • What is "Nestorian Christianity"? Is it the same as "Church of the East in China"? Sorry I didn't make this clear enough. To me "Nestorian Church" is basically another way to say the "Church of the East"–I use the two terms interchangeably, though there are scholars advocating only using the term "Church of the East" due to the negative connotations of the word "Nestorian" (as in, the Nestorian "heresy"). What is your opinion–should I stick to one usage ("Church of the East in China") throughout the entire article? It might be a bit too wordy and might affect the prose, but I can sure try.
    I don't mind having both terms, but it needs to be much more clear that they mean the same thing. But if the term "Nestorians" is out of fashion with recent sources (I have no idea and did not check) you may wish to avoid it. —Kusma (talk) 16:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chang'an, Youzhou and Liaodong: I will update these this weekend. Basically Chang'an is modern day Xi'an, which is 900 km to the south-west of Beijing. Youzhou is the province / state that Beijing is located in, and Liaodong refers to the Liaodong Peninsula, which is 500 km to the east of Beijing. I will indicate their relations to Beijing.
Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 22:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would be easier to explain separately what Nestorians are and what "Church of the East in China" means, when they came to China, what is known for sure about their spread, and then explain how the Cross Temple fits into the picture as part of the theory that there were Tang Dynasty Nestorians in Beijing. My only concern to this is that the temple was used by Christians and Buddhists. If I provide too much background information to its Christian history, will the article still be balanced? But from another perspective, almost all scholarship on the temple focuses on its Christian history, so I guess I could put up some more context.
Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 22:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TheLonelyPather, have you finished addressing Kusma's comments? If so, could you ping them? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Gog the Mild and thanks for the reminder. I have not addressed Kusma's comments in detail yet. Kusma is welcome to respond to these thoughts of mine, but I am not demanding an immediate response from them in any sense. I am still busy and I Will reply in more detail later next week, probably after Wednesday. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild Actually since this is in time-out warning territory, I am going to address Kusma's comments in detail right now. Thanks for sending out the warning. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kusma Chinese characters fixed. The usage of Chinese characters is now limited to
  • Lesser-known Chinese place names (e.g. 车厂村);
  • Names of individuals and institutions who do not have an en-wiki article (e.g. 德景, 崇福司). "吴梦麟" is in simplified characters because he was active during the PRC;
  • Proper names of the temple (e.g. 崇聖院).
Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kusma I also wrote a separate paragraph to provide general context on Christianity during the Tang Dynasty. I put it before the academic speculations. Hope this is clearer now. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 00:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that makes it a bit easier to follow. It would still be good to have the identification of Nestorian Church = Church of the East also in the body (you added a paragraph about Nestorianism in China, which is then followed by a mention of the Church of the East that makes it look like that is a different thing), and to prominently link to Church of the East (and perhaps not link to Nestorianism). —Kusma (talk) 10:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will think about it in more detail. I will think about it really hard. The situation might demand one small paragraph after the lede and before everything to clarify that "Nestorianism" = "Church of the East" (in the scope of this article) and acknowledge some people would prefer CotE over Nestorianism. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 00:23, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing prose/content review.

  • Early history: Who is Tang Li? Do you know his name in characters?
  • 10th century: do any of the historians offer theories which of 丙子 and "tenth year of the reign of Emperor Yuan" is correct or what kind of mistakes were made while recording the stele?
  • Translate 崇聖院?
  • 13th–14th centuries: "Nestorian Christianity began spreading throughout the area" it may have spread before, so it is not clear this is the beginning. A few hundred years have passed; is this the same Nestorian Christianity as a few hundred years before?
  • "During the Yuan" please make this comprehensible to readers who do not know that Mongols=Yuan dynasty.
  • Translate 崇福司? ("Department of Supreme Blessing"?? I don't have a Classical Chinese dictionary with me right now).
  • Is Rabban Sauma the same as Bar Sauma?
  • Tense is mixed between past and present for what the various scholars say or said.
  • 15th–16th centuries: it would be more important to know when Matteo Ricci was in China than when he lived. Do we know this from Ricci's own writings?
  • I think the fact that the inscriptions were altered during this time should be mentioned in the opening paragraph about the stone steles: while the steles are from the Liao and the Yuan dynasty, the inscriptions were altered during the Ming dynasty.
  • 20th–21st centuries: I find it hard to believe that there are zero records of the site during the Qing dynasty. If that is true, I would expect someone to have remarked on it so you could state it explicitly.
  • "Around 1911, the Buddhist monks sold the temple and the surrounding lands." do we know who they sold it to?
  • "Reginald Johnston first rediscovered the site during the summer of 1919" drop "first" I think. Did he "rediscover" the Buddhist site or the Nestorian connection?
  • Current state: "The Cross Temple is the only surviving Nestorian site in China" wow, I wouldn't expect that this counts as "surviving". So of all other sites there is not even a trace?
  • Chechang Village (车厂村), Fangshan: maybe mention again where this is in relation to modern Beijing?
  • Stone steles: "The Yuan stele features a cross at its top, but it is not likely made by the Nestorians" is this clear enough from the sources to be stated in wikivoice instead of attributed as research opinion?
  • Generally it is a bit duplicative to discuss the steles here again, and I think the details about Ming dynasty changes might be more useful to the reader earlier on.
  • Give a quick intro to the Xi'an Stele so we understand why somebody would copy it and put the copy in this particular location.
  • Carved stone blocks: I wonder whether it is worth mentioning that Peiping is Beijing.
  • Description: not sure this is a great subheader, or that it is needed
  • "F. C. Burkitt found the same text, with the addition of the phrase "the living cross", in one of the Syriac manuscripts in the British Museum" so what? If it is a quote from the Bible, wouldn't we expect to find this in a lot of places?
  • Are Erkehün Mongols? Previous Nestorians were all Han?
  • See also section: Mentioning the Daqin Pagoda here as a possible Nestorian site contradicts the article's unqualified statement of "only surviving Nestorian site in China".
  • Not convinced that the "Other West Asian religious sites in China" are worth the space here; generally, consider how much it is worth duplicating parts of Template:Christianity in China.
  • Footnotes: a) How widely used are the alternate English names? If they are reasonably common, they should be in the body.
  • e) Romanization of Syriac: what romanization is this, and what is the code for the pronunciation? (It isn't IPA so it isn't clear).
  • g) better explain Erkehün in body, or just not use that word.
  • Citations: I would suggest to translate the Chinese quotes; they are of little use to most readers otherwise.
  • Qian 2021, Qiu 2002, Halbertsma 2007 are not used.
  • Neither is the Chinese translation of Moule, and there is no obvious reason to do so?
  • Further reading: why do you not cite this book if you recommend it? Publisher 文物出版社 should be transliterated.

Done reading. It looks like pretty good research and well written overall, but some explanations here and there would help a lot, and some other clarifications may be necessary. —Kusma (talk) 16:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Message received. Will reply soon. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tang Li: done. (Please note Tang Li is a "she".)
  • theory on the mistake of the Liao stele: done.
  • 崇聖院: translated. I didn't find an official English translation.
  • 13th–14th centuries: "Nestorian Christianity began spreading throughout the area" it may have spread before, so it is not clear this is the beginning. A few hundred years have passed; is this the same Nestorian Christianity as a few hundred years before? Yes.
  • Mongols is Yuan dynasty: clarified.
  • 崇福司: translated.
  • Is Rabban Sauma the same as Bar Sauma? Yes. This article will use Rabban Sauma.
That's it for the day. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @Kusma: before I proceed to work on the smaller details of the article, can we please decide on its structure? I took your advice and made a draft (please see User:TheLonelyPather/sandbox).
Basically, this draft adds a substantial "Historical terminology and context" that talks about the terminology of "Nestorian" vs "Church of the East" and supplies general historical facts about Nestorian Christianity in China (when did they come / thrive / go). I reserve the specific history of Nestorian Christianity near Beijing to the body of the article.
I also removed the paragraph about the two steles. I agree that it overlaps with stuff later. If we can agree on this new structure it would be great. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 20:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheLonelyPather, I think the new structure is a lot better. Your terminology and context section is perhaps a bit too long while the lead section is a bit too short, but generally I think the right way forward is to get the terminology and context clear from the start. —Kusma (talk) 10:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Just moved the new structure to the main article. I also shortened the terminology & context section for a bit. I wish to leave the lede to be the last thing to fix–after we figure everything out in the body. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 01:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 15th–16th centuries: it would be more important to know when Matteo Ricci was in China than when he lived. Do we know this from Ricci's own writings? Gotcha, now it says "Matteo Ricci (1552–1610, active in China 1582–1610)". The information in the article comes from Ricci's own writings, but I don't have access to the original text. I cited a journal which quoted Ricci.
  • I think the fact that the inscriptions were altered during this time should be mentioned in the opening paragraph about the stone steles This opinion differs from what AJ says down there: If all we know of the history of the site derives from the steles, perhaps it would be best to discuss them before discussing the history? Let's give more thoughts to it.
  • 20th–21st centuries: I find it hard to believe that there are zero records of the site during the Qing dynasty. If that is true, I would expect someone to have remarked on it so you could state it explicitly. Information added.
  • "Around 1911, the Buddhist monks sold the temple and the surrounding lands." do we know who they sold it to? No.
  • "Reginald Johnston first rediscovered the site during the summer of 1919" drop "first" I think. Did he "rediscover" the Buddhist site or the Nestorian connection? "first" dropped. He rediscovered the site after it was sold and likely fell into oblivion.
I also restructured the history part even further and renamed the sections. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 12:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current state: "The Cross Temple is the only surviving Nestorian site in China" wow, I wouldn't expect that this counts as "surviving". So of all other sites there is not even a trace? Fixed wording. Also added a footnote concerning the Daqin Pagoda (there is controversy on whether it is a Church of the East site and it is inconclusive).
Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 13:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chechang Village (车厂村), Fangshan: maybe mention again where this is in relation to modern Beijing? Done.
  • Stone steles: "The Yuan stele features a cross at its top, but it is not likely made by the Nestorians" is this clear enough from the sources to be stated in wikivoice instead of attributed as research opinion? Checked sources, this view comes from Wang Xiaojing -- other sources didn't venture to think about the origin of the cross on the Yuan stele.
  • Generally it is a bit duplicative to discuss the steles here again, and I think the details about Ming dynasty changes might be more useful to the reader earlier on. The initial stele paragraph was removed.
  • Give a quick intro to the Xi'an Stele so we understand why somebody would copy it and put the copy in this particular location. Done.
  • Carved stone blocks: I wonder whether it is worth mentioning that Peiping is Beijing. It's trivial in my opinion.
  • Description: not sure this is a great subheader, or that it is needed Done.
  • "F. C. Burkitt found the same text, with the addition of the phrase "the living cross", in one of the Syriac manuscripts in the British Museum" so what? If it is a quote from the Bible, wouldn't we expect to find this in a lot of places? The point I'm trying to convey here is that, by showing this connection, we find that the Nestorian Christians in China were doing similar things and reading similar stuff with the Nestorian Christians in the Middle East. The paragraph that that sentence comes from talks about the general connections of the stone blocks with other Christian artifacts in the world.
Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 17:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About the Syriac manuscripts: I don't think your point really comes across. Can you cite someone who makes a similar observation? —Kusma (talk) 10:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are Erkehün Mongols? Previous Nestorians were all Han? Erkehün / Yelikewen (in Pinyin romanisation) is what the Mongols called the Christians. I agree that it is unnecessary to put it there and I reworded it.
  • See also section: reworked.
  • Not convinced that the "Other West Asian religious sites in China" are worth the space here; generally, consider how much it is worth duplicating parts of Template:Christianity in China. I would say it's needed–Template:Christianity in China doesn't cover Islam, Manichaeism, and Zoroastrianism.
  • Footnotes: a) How widely used are the alternate English names? If they are reasonably common, they should be in the body. These alternate English names are not reasonably common. "Cross Temple" is prevalent in English literature and is a direct translation of the Chinese name "十字寺".
  • e) Romanization of Syriac: what romanization is this, and what is the code for the pronunciation? (It isn't IPA so it isn't clear). I honestly have no idea. It is supplied by the author of the journal article. The only thing that is certain is that it's syriac, so I use the code "syc".
  • g) better explain Erkehün in body, or just not use that word. Erkehün is no longer used in the body.
  • Citations: I would suggest to translate the Chinese quotes Done.
  • Removed some unused books and sources.
  • Further reading: why do you not cite this book if you recommend it? Publisher 文物出版社 should be transliterated. I don't have access to this book, but this book is on the Christian sites in Beijing, and so it greatly relates to our subject.
@Kusma Those are some great suggestions! Looking forward to your input. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 00:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A few further comments:
  • Do not use "&" in subsection headings, replace by "and".
  • I am on the fence about the parenthetical (Christian use) and (Buddhist use) in headings; can this be made nicer?
  • I don't think "Han-Chinese" or "Ming-era" should be hyphenated.
  • Qian 2021 and Halbertsma 2007 are still not cited.
—Kusma (talk) 11:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"&" corrected to and. "Qian 2021" and "Halbertsma 2007" are removed from citations. "Han-Chinese" and "Ming-era" corrected.
If you feel not so sure about "(Christian use)" or "(Buddhist use)", may I suggest something like "Buddhist use during the Liao dynasty"? My concern is that it would be too long. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 11:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kusma alternate suggestion: maybe I can drop the parentheses and just use "Liao dynasty", "Yuan dynasty", etc.? Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think "Buddhist use during the Liao dynasty" is better than "Liao dynasty (Buddhist use)". "Liao dynasty: Buddhist use" would also be an improvement. Further comments:
  • There are still a few places where the tense feels off, but I am not a native speaker so I will suggest you find someone else to read it :)
  • The Shanmen building should be described in "Modern rediscovery and development", not in "Current state".
  • The description of the carved stone blocks could perhaps be moved earlier. It is only in the third paragraph that we learn how large they are.
  • Peiping Commission for the Preservation of Antiquities has characters inline, while Peiping Museum of History has them in a footnote. The identity Peiping=Beijing is not made explicitly, although this is no more obvious than Chang'an=Xi'an.
Lots of things look nice now, but I am still unconvinced about the Syriac manuscripts (see above). —Kusma (talk) 17:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Shanmen moved, description of the carved stone blocks moved, Peiping and Chang'an clarified. As for the Syriac manuscripts, I clarified it a bit more: Burkitt did not just find the same text, but found the same text surrounding the cross, i.e. the same pattern. I added some more information on "Ps 34:6 + cross" combination appearing in different places. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, my points about organisation and necessary background knowledge have been addressed. I will leave issues like tense to the native speakers among the reviewers. —Kusma (talk) 12:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airship[edit]

Will leave comments by next week. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Airship, this is into time out warning territory, so if you are still intending to review the next day or two would be a good time to start. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
will do. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 05:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As always, these are suggestions, not demands; feel free to refuse with justification. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Church of the East was not Nestorian; that was an accusation levelled by its enemies. Whether the name "Nestorian" should be described to use the Church of the East at all is up for debate, but to say explicitly in the lead "the Church of the East, a Nestorian branch of Christianity" is factually wrong.
  • The lead needs some work. I recommend two paragraphs of roughly equal length: the first clearly establishing what, where, and when, and then discussing major aspects of the history, current state, and relics. At the moment it is rather vague ("During different periods" what/when? "Originally built" when? Yuan dynasty touched on before the Tang is odd. etc.) and the relics are not discussed in proportion to the attention given to them in the article (WP:LEADWEIGHT).
  • I may be an idiot, but I can't see the cross carved into the top of the infobox stele.
  • If all we know of the history of the site derives from the steles, perhaps it would be best to discuss them before discussing the history?
  • I would make the "Current state" section a subsection of "History".

I would prefer to get structural changes out of the way before making detailed comments on prose; I see Kusma has made some comments as well on the organisation. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @AirshipJungleman29!
  • The Church of the East was not Nestorian; that was an accusation levelled by its enemies. You are right, and that is a nuance that I missed. I hope that the new "Context and terminology" section explains the nuance better.
  • The lead needs some work... As mentioned above (replying to Kusma), I wish to leave the lede to the last. I hope to solidify the body paragraphs, so I will have a better idea how to write the lede.
  • I can't see the cross carved into the top of the infobox stele. It's hard to see without zooming into the image. I have removed the related words in the caption. If you look at the picture in the "Stone steles" section it is more visible.
  • If all we know of the history of the site derives from the steles, perhaps it would be best to discuss them before discussing the history? This is something that I will deliberate more upon. On one hand I need to let the reader know that the history is mostly derived from the (slightly erroneous) steles, on the other hand if I put it in the front it will overlap with the description of the steles later.
  • I would make the "Current state" section a subsection of "History". Not so sure about it. This section goes over the arrangement / content of the site, i.e. what's there and where are the things placed. I think it's quite independent from the history of the site.
I am also mindful of Netley Abbey#Present day–another FA article of church ruins has a similar section, although that section is not ideal.
That's it for the day. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 01:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29, I wrote a draft lede:
The Cross Temple (Chinese: 十字寺; pinyin: Shízì sì) is a former place of worship in Fangshan, Beijing. It is the only discovered site of the Church of the East (sometimes known as Nestorian Christians) in China. There is no current academic consensus on whether Christians used the temple during the Tang dynasty: it was used by Buddhists during the Liao dynasty, by Christians during the Yuan dynasty, and it returned to Buddhist use since the Ming dynasty, before being sold in 1911. It was rediscovered in 1919, destructed in the 1950s, and re-established as a national-level protected site in 2006.
Today, the site features two ancient steles, as well as groundwork and the bases of several pillars. The steles are from the Liao and Yuan dynasties, but their inscriptions are tampered during the Ming dynasty. During the early 20th century, two stone blocks featuring carved crosses were also discovered at the site, with one of them containing a syriac inscription. They are now on display at the Nanjing Museum.
Kindly let me know what you think. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 00:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi AirshipJungleman29, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks for reminding me Gog. More comments to follow shortly. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lead/infobox
  • looks better. Couple of things:
  • "Scholars debate the periodisation of when the Cross Temple was used by Nestorians." is a bit of a nothingburger, considering you immediately explain the debate. You could easily remove the sentence and add a "scholars" after the "some" in the next line.
  • This sentence has been scrapped. Now it reads Some scholars suggested that the Cross Temple may have belonged to the Church of the East in China during the Tang dynasty (618–907).
  • "Possibly 317" is a bit odd considering 317 isn't mentioned in the lead at all. Would suggest adding it after "as a Buddhist temple".
  • Done.
  • "The site's buildings were demolished during the late 1950s" you could mention the Cultural Revolution.
  • Double-checked sources. Changed to Cultural Revolution.
History
  • Again, "There are some controversies on the usage of "Nestorian" to refer to the Church of the East." is a nothingburger sentence, and could be removed.
  • Right. I moved that entire section into a footnote. Now it begins with The use of the term "Nestorian" to refer to the Church of the East is controversial. I need an "opening sentence" to convey the purpose of the paragraph.
  • No need to specify e pluribus unum in "Certain scholars, such as Peter Hofrichter [de], refuse"; just say "Some scholars refuse..."
  • Done.
  • Not entirely convinced that a modern priest of a CotE denomination is the best citation for using "Nestorian"; one of the many independent academic sources who continue to use the term is preferable.
  • I think there is a differentiation between "academic sources using the term" vs "sources advocating for the use of the term". Some academic sources use the term without batting an eye. The CotE article is published on a reliable journal and gives an argument on why the term may be used.
  • You may want to expand a little on the Xi'an Stele.
  • Expanded, in the "Context of early Chinese Christianity" section.
  • "The missionaries" Are these are the ones that came with Alopen?
  • Yes, but no longer important. Newest version doesn't mention them.
  • "The Church of the East in China survived until 845... Nestorian Christianity in Tang China fell into decline afterwards. 1) unnecessary WP:ELEGVAR 2) there sems to be a contradiction here.
  • I have reworded the entire history section.
  • You use both Yelikewen and "Yelikewen". Both are incorrect: the {{transl}} template should be used, per MOS:LANG ({{lang}} can also be used, but {{transl}} is easier. Same for "Jingjiao" and other words.
  • Right. Just updated the article. I feel like "Jingjiao" and "Yelikewen" does not fall into the scope of the article–ended up not using either of them.
  • "no longer proclaimed themselves to be" "proclaimed" is too grandiose, methinks
  • Corrected.
  • "during Jin and Tang periods" is a definite article needed here?
  • Yes, added.
  • "around the Tang dynasty" do you mean during?
  • Yes, corrected.
  • "Huichang persecution, began using the temple" unnecessary comma
  • Fixed.
  • The "Early history of the Cross Temple" subsection could be combined with the "Liao dynasty: Buddhist use" as they both largely derive from the Liao stele, with its lack of clarity. In any case, the "of the Cross Temple" is unnecessary.
  • Changed to "Early history: Buddhist use". I would disagree to combine it with the Liao section (will break the timeline-ness).
  • I think "capture" is more suitable for a city than "conquer"; you can link to Battle of Zhongdu.
  • Changed.
  • "the retreat of Sauma" retreat? not sure that's the correct word.
  • Merriam-Webster gives one of the definitions of "retreat" as a period of group withdrawal for prayer, meditation, study, or instruction under a director. I think it's a good use describing a place where Rabban Sauma likely hid and practiced his faith. Changed to "hermitage".
  • "In her 2011 book East Syriac Christianity in Mongol-Yuan China" why is the book name relevant here?
  • Not relevant, fixed.
  • "During the reign of Emperor Yingzong of Ming (1436–1449), some Nestorians were still present in Fangshan: a record shows that some Nestorian monks visited the Yunju Temple, which is also in Fangshan, around the year 1437." Is "some Nestorians were still present in Fangshan" supported by anything else than the second half of the sentence? if not, it can be removed, as it adds nothing.
  • Right, removed.
  • There's no need to link "Jewish person".
  • Removed link.
  • "there was a Shanmen entry. The Shanmen entry was followed by" the duplication is unnecessary
  • Reworded.
  • "To the right of the courtyard, there was a kitchen and a dormitory for the monks. To the left of the courtyard, there was another dormitory building." sentences can easily be combined for simplicity.
  • Combined.
  • "three statues of Buddha" it's conventional to use a "the" before "Buddha".
  • Fixed.
  • "the walls around the Cross Temple site" could just be "the site's walls".
  • Reworded.
Current state
  • "The Cross Temple is the only discovered site of the Church of the East in China" considering note e, would it be best to say "the only undisputed site"?
  • I reworded it to Some scholars consider the Cross Temple to be the only discovered site of the Church of the East in China. Most other sources don't mention if it is the only discovered site, or the only site in existence. I have modified the related information from the lede.
  • "there are some hardly noticeable marks of the Shanmen building" I don't think this is grammatically correct, but I can't put my finger on what's wrong.
  • Any new ideas on how to make it ... less wrong? I can reword it to the marks of the Shanmen building are hardly noticeable.
Relics
  • "During the early 21st century, both were repaired and re-raised." do we have precise years?
  • No. Wang 2018 gave that the steles were repaired and re-raised "several years ago".
  • I see that you have expanded on the Xi'an Stele in this section; this seems like the wrong place, as this subsection should only be for the relics of the Cross Temple, and related context can go in the "Context and terminology" section.
  • Right. Moved to the "context" section.
  • " Tang and Zhang claimed it is on display at the Beijing Stone Carving Art Museum." "claimed" why past tense? Similarly for "The scholar Niu Ruiji claimed that".
  • As discussed with Kusma above, I decided to stick with past tense for this article when it comes to scholarly opinions. @AirshipJungleman29: Is that correct or acceptable? This is a genuine question–I did not major in history or English. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 22:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "H. I. Harding, second secretary of the English mission in Beijing" when?
  • I'll get the book and double check. The time when Harding was the 2nd secretary in Beijing is irrelevant to this article–I believe you're more interested in when Harding published the fact that Johnston rediscovered the site? I am not positive that the original The New China Review article (in 1919) would say anything about it.
  • I got the book and double-checked. It is 1919.
  • "often showed an adoration of the cross and images" "showed an adoration" is ungrammatical.
  • Fixed.

Nice work. Please respond to the above comments using WP:THREADed discussion, TheLonelyPather; it makes it much easier to cross-reference previous suggestions. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Received, thank you. Tomorrow will be a busy day. Will get through the bulk of this in the next few days, but not ruling out the possibility of early April. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 23:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All comments responded to. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 22:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do think there is a slight bit of MOS:OVERSECTION in the history section, but that does not prevent me from giving my Support. Excellent work. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! It's good to have a Mongol expert on a borderline Mongolian topic. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 19:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remsense[edit]

I've just re-reconfirmed it's not a priori improper to participate in FAC for an article I did the GA review for, so I am reserving my spot here, will write up my thoughts ASAP. Remsense诉 19:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Thanks for joining! Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 20:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remsense you still intending to review? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Within 24 hours, apologies. Remsense诉 01:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changes since my GA review:
  • Generally, there is a significant improvement in the friendliness of prose for a general audience, specifically regarding technical and historiographic aspects.
  • The elaboration on the historical context for the Church of the East in China is also well done.
Further nits for me to pick:
  • Some copy-editing and language tagging I hope no one minds that I've taken the initiative in doing myself among the new material.
More in a little bit, but I wanted to post something following my initial sesh. Remsense诉 16:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Remsense, just checking to see if there will indeed me more to follow. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! Tonight, my bad. Remsense诉 18:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think, regardless of what decision is made for Chinese text inline or footnoted, after my several waves of tweaks and deliberation I'm ready to say this article meets the featured article criteria. Remsense诉 20:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review[edit]

File:十字寺遗址内石碑.jpg, File:十字寺遗址内石碑 (cropped).jpg and File:十字寺遗址文保碑 (cropped).jpg need a copyright tag to indicate the status of the statue/plate. File:Yuan dynasty stone with cross and Syriac inscription from Church of the East site in Fangshan District near Beijing (then called Khanbaliq or Dadu).jpg maybe too but I figure it's kinda obvious that the stone isn't in copyright. File:Rubbing of a Nestorian Cross at the Shih-tzu-ssu 2.jpg and the other rubbing seem to have broken source links.

Source-wise, reviewing this version: Why do some sources have quotes? Is "China Culture Daily" a reliable source for cultural/historical information? Is "The Nestorian Documents and Relics in China" and "Research on Chinese Christianity, Book I: Chinese Christianity during the Tang and Song dynasties" a reliable source? Are "Saeki, P. Y. " and "Saeki, Yoshiro" the same person? In light of this I am not sure that " A study of the history of Nestorian Christianity in China and its literature in Chinese: together with a new English translation of the Dunhuang Nestorian documents" is very reliable.

  1. 2 First mention needs a bit of rephrasing as it's quite similar to the source. Second mention it seems like the source says that it doesn't mean "temple of the cross" I have rephrased this part. Also I believe the source intends to mean "temple of the cross", as Marsone puts it:the present author defends that the correct meaning of the name of the temple should be the "Temple of the Cross". Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 4 Can I have a copy of this page?
    Got it, where does it translate "luminous religion"? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It does not. I must have been mistaken from some other sources, but I have removed references to the "luminous religion" in the latest version. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. 6 OK
  4. 12 Can I have a copy of this page?
    Don't think I got this one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are we talking about Tang 2004, p. 98? I am not using Tang 2004 anymore–please see the comment below. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 15:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. 13 Can I have a copy of this page? 12, 13 are from Tang Li's A study of the history of Nestorian Christianity in China and its literature in Chinese, which I swapped for Standaert's Handbook of Christianity in China. I take that I won't need to send you anything from Tang, but please let me know if you need anything from Standaert. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. 14 Can I have a copy of this page? Similar to Tang 2004 above, I have updated the article and removed Zhu 1993 from the the sources. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 09:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. 18 OK
  8. 21 Can I have a copy of this page?
    Going by the DeepL translation, fine. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  9. 22 Can I have a copy of this page?
    At least some of this is supported by the DeepL translation, but I am not really sure. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    pp. 317, 318 are the transcriptions of the stele inscriptions. p. 319 is Wang's analysis. The part regarding the sexagenary cycle is 其二，落款“辽应历十年丙子岁四月”，应历十年（960）应为庚申年，非丙子年，距应历十年最近的丙子年为保宁八年（976）。碑文中提及辽应历二年（952 年，应为壬子）戊辰岁（应为968 年）、应历八年（958 年，应为戊午）甲戌岁（应为974 年），应历十年丙子岁（应为保宁八年）三个年份的干支虽误，但年号和干支纪年的相隔年数相一致。 Anyone who knows Chinese is free to confirm this bit. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 16:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I guess. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  10. 33 Can I have a copy of this page?
    Going by the DeepL translation, fine. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  11. 40 Can I have a copy of this page?
    Going by the DeepL translation, fine for at least part of the text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  12. 48 Can I have a copy of this page?
    Afraid I can't find "gingko" here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see the 10th line of Tang 2011a: 平台前左右通道两侧各植一颗直径超过18 尺的银杏树，枝繁叶茂，右雌左雄. "银杏" is the Chinese word for gingko. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  13. 49 Can I have a copy of this page?
    Assuming that "recently" means "21st century", OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  14. 50 Can I have a copy of this page? I have swapped out Cao 2000. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  15. 59 Can I have a copy of this page?
    I am not sure if I can find the part about "stele-making". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wang 2018 p. 441, at the bottom: 由于景教在汉人中缺乏群众基础，这些景教徒不懂汉文，也不在汉人中传教，对汉人的立碑传统应当是隔膜的，因此不太可能采用汉人的碑刻形式。 Here "汉人的立碑传统" means "the stele-making tradition of Han Chinese". Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 15:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  16. 64 Can I have a copy of this page? Tang has been swapped out.Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  17. 66 OK, but is it Tang Li or Li Tang? It is always "Tang Li" in the "family name + first name" order. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  18. 71 Can I have a copy of this page?
    Can't find the measures. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see Xu 1992 p. 481, at the center-right of the page: 先介紹這兩塊石刻 [...] 兩石高寬尺寸相同，高68.5厘米，兩端面刻十字架，寬58.5厘米，厚14厘米，兩石相接全長116厘米。 These are the measurements. The OCD of the pdf isn't great, and your translation software might have not caught the characters. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 15:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  19. 72 Can I have a copy of this page?
    I corrected Niu 2007 to Niu 2006. I hope you are all right with it? Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  20. 78 It says "hope" not "trust". Changed. The "hope" translation is quoted from Moule, who quoted from Burkitt. I am happy to change it to Borbone's translation ("trust") which is much newer. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Received, thank you. I will get to you around the end of the month. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 13:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus How can I best send you a copy of a page? Through private email? I'm pretty sure I cannot upload screenshots / photos of pages to en-wiki or Commons. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, by email. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to attach files to the Wiki email interface but it won't let me. I just sent you an email. @Jo-Jo Eumerus it will be greatly appreciated if you can reply to that email, so I could reply to your address and send things as attachments. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus Sources sent. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus All comments responded to. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 16:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:十字寺遗址内石碑.jpg, File:十字寺遗址内石碑 (cropped).jpg and File:十字寺遗址文保碑 (cropped).jpg need a copyright tag to indicate the status of the statue/plate.
I tagged File:十字寺遗址内石碑.jpg and its derived image with PD-old-assumed. File:十字寺遗址文保碑 (cropped).jpg depicts a plate made by the Chinese government (it marks a decree to make the Cross Temple a site protected at the national level), so tagged with PD-PRC-exempt. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 21:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Rubbing of a Nestorian Cross at the Shih-tzu-ssu 2.jpg and the other rubbing seem to have broken source links. Rubbing links updated to original Smithsonian links. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 08:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jo-Jo Eumerus A little more on Tang Li's A study of the history of Nestorian Christianity in China and its literature in Chinese, which you questioned whether it is a RS. You said In light of this I am not sure that [the book] is very reliable. I looked into the book review you cited a bit further today. To quote:
On pp. 33–101, a useful survey of the history of the Church of the East from its origin in West Asia to its existence in China during the Yuan dynasty is given. The history of the Church in Persia up to the seventh century is described in some detail. The final section on the Nestorian expansion in Central Asia, however, is too brief, taking up a mere page and a half (pp. 75–76). The importance of the area to the mission to China and of the discoveries made near Turfan (especially at Bulayïq) of fragments of Nestorian texts in Old Turkish (Uighur) and Sogdian, including a version of the Gloria in Excelsis Deo, should in my opinion have been emphasized.
I agree with you that Tang's translations are not perfect. What I quoted in the Cross Temple article is mostly from the range pp. 33–101, to supplement a review of the history of the Church of the East in the article. The rest (pp. 18, 19, 29) are on the history of the Nestorian Stele.
The bottom line is, I think Tang is reliable when it comes to the general history of the Church of the East in China. I think I will be fine as long as I don't quote Tang's translations (and I have no need to do so in this article). Would love to hear what you think. Also, I will send you the relevant pages either in the next few days, or in the first week of April. Hope this timing is all right. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 23:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mm, not entirely sure myself if that addresses the reliability question. Anyone else? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you are still not satisfied by Tang, may I suggest N. Staedart's Handbook of Christianity in China (Vol. 1)? I have some favourable book reviews:
I can get this book in the next few days and update the citations. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 15:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus If you're not opposed to it, I am going to swap Tang with Standaert :) Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Swapped for the main "context" part. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 23:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now to the "China Culture Daily". To quote from the official description, it is run by China's Ministry of Culture and Tourism. I think that it is a RS when it comes to facts about historical sites in China (without any ideological bits). Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Nestorian Documents and Relics in China" and "Research on Chinese Christianity, Book I: Chinese Christianity during the Tang and Song dynasties" a reliable source? Are "Saeki, P. Y. " and "Saeki, Yoshiro" the same person? I do apologise-- I did not directly access "The Nestorian Documents and Relics in China" or "Research on Chinese Christianity, Book I: Chinese Christianity during the Tang and Song dynasties" in my research. They are cited by the papers that I read. Now I have reformatted the citations and removed these two from the references list. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 22:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do some sources have quotes? I put quotes so readers and reviewers can have an easier time checking. I am happy to remove them if you want to. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 16:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus Is there anything else you would like me to provide? Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 10:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File:十字寺遗址文保碑 (cropped).jpg still needs a copyright tag for the plaque. Otherwise, it should be it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha! Just added "PD-PRC-exempt". Thank you very much. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably all of it, unless you can provide the new sources you installed too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha, just sent you pages from Standaert 2001. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 09:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a typo on "Moule 2001, p. 96." as it's throwing a harv error. Checking Standaert 2001: #9 N/A #10 OKish although I wonder what "foreign support" means #11 I wonder if this can be rewritten so that it resembles the source text less #12 OK #13 OK #14 OK #15 OK but I wonder if this can be rewritten so that it resembles the source text less Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moule 2001 corrected to Moule 2011.
#9 is from the quote This leads to the conclusion that Nestorian settlements were relatively numerous during the Tang, [...] Nevertheless, Christian settlements were probably not extremely important.
#11, #15 reworded. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 11:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus added pp. 12–15 to #11 and sent you the pages. I think that's all of it. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 08:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like this is all. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo, should I take that to be a pass for both? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aye. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • "During different periods, it was used by either Buddhists or the Church of the East (sometimes known as Nestorian Christianity)." This is confusing. "either/or" implies doubt who was using the temple, which does not appear to be what you mean. Maybe "It was a Buddhist temple and a Church of the East (sometimes called a Nestorian Church) at different periods."
Lede fixed. Now it says Buddhists and early Chinese Christians used the temple independently during different periods in history.
  • This is verbose. How about "Buddhists and early Chinese Christians used the temple during different periods." Dudley Miles (talk) 12:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is better to avoid the use of foreign scripts in English Wikipedia (except in quotations). It is not helpful to readers.
I use foreign (Chinese, mostly) scripts for proper nouns of names of people, places and organisations. My defense is that due to the particular nature of the Chinese language (using character as basic units; multiple characters have the same pronunciation), it is not sufficient to provide the romanisation (pinyin) alone. For example, Yang Wei leads to almost a dozen Chinese names, each with different characters.
  • "Scholars debate the periodisation of when the Cross Temple was used by Nestorians." This is out of chronological order and superfluous as you mention queries on periodisation later in the paragraph. I suggest starting the paragraph "Originally built as a Buddhist temple in 317".
This sentence is gone in the current version.
  • Starting the history section with a sub-section headed 'Context and terminology' which is solely on Christian use relegates the early Buddhist use as unimportant. You should start the history at the beginning with the early Buddhist phase and could then have a heading for the next sub-section of "Context and terminology of Christian use".
  • "During its history, the Cross Temple was used by either Chinese Buddhists or Nestorian Christians in China". "During its history" is meaningless word salad. As above, "either/or" implies doubt rather than sequence. A less wordy alternative is "After the Buddhist period, the Cross Temple was a Nestorian church."
I will address the two points above as a whole. I tried placing the "Context and terminology" section after a few paragraphs early history. I find it difficult, in particular because there is not a clear-cut time that we can say "here the temple turned Christian for the first time". Another source of difficulty is that I need to state my reason of using the words "Nestorian" and "Church of the East" interchangeably in the article, and I think it is best to do it early.
Perhaps you could have a look at my attempt (in moving the "Context and terminology" subsection) in my sandbox? Happy to correct the wording "During its history, the Cross Temple was used by either Chinese Buddhists or Nestorian Christians in China" after we sort out the placement.
  • "refuse to refer to the historical Church of the East in China as "Nestorian", as the word implies a heretical connection to Nestorius". The word "heretical" implies the hostile view of an 'orthodox' Christian. Maybe "a connection to Nestorius, who they regard as a heretical thinker".
Wording changed.
  • "[...]" Why the square brackets?
To quote from MOS:Original Wording, Where there is good reason to change the wording, bracket the changed text; for example, "Ocyrhoe told him his fate" might be quoted as "Ocyrhoe told [her father] his fate". I feel like omission by ellipses would apply too, at least that's what I was taught.
  • Square brackets are only used with extra text. I do not remember seeing them used with ellipses and I think it is incorrect. Tim riley what do you say? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Different publishers have different house styles, and I have certainly seen [...] on many occasions. I don't know if our MoS addresses the point, but in general terms the practice doesn't strike me as erroneous. Tim riley talk 15:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "thriving China-Persia relations". Why did this help Christianity? This should be explained.
  • Thanks for the reminder. I will explain this part once I swap out Tang (2004) for a more reliable source. Will be done in the next few days. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just swapped out Tang for a more reliable source. This issue does not exist in the current version. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " built Nestorian monasteries in every province" You should specify every Tang province as their empire only covered part of modern China.
Done.
  • "enacted the Huichang persecution of Buddhism, which also affected the Christians". "enacted" is an odd word here. How about "[[Huichang persecution of Buddhism|persecuted foreign religions]]?
I agree that "enacted" could be changed–changed to "initiated". I am not sure about linking "Huichang persecution of Buddhism" under the guise of "persecuted foreign religions": the disappearance of the Church of the East in China was a by-product of a greater movement clearly targeted at Buddhism.
  • "leading to the annihilation of Nestorian Christianity in China". "annihilation" implies violent destruction. Maybe "disappearance".
Done.
  • "According to a Liao-era stele". Liao refers to several different periods. You should clarify the date.
Done.
  • "The scholar Wang Xiaojing proposed that the author of the Liao stele conflated the Jin with the Later Jin dynasty (936–947)." I do not know what you mean here.
Reworded.
  • "Names for the monastery during Jin and Tang periods is not known." This is ungrammatical and assumes that there were several names. Is this known?
We do not actually know the name (or names). Wording changed to singular.
  • "Tang Xiaofeng additionally pointed". Why "additionally"? You have not mentioned anything pointed to before.
Removed "additionally".
  • "However, the exact date of rebuilding was unclear". Presumably "is unclear. The date is still unknown?
Yes, still unknown. Changed to present tense.
  • "However, British sinologist Arthur Christopher Moule believed that there was insufficient evidence to show that the Church of the East existed in Beijing before the 13th century." You say above that it reached China in 635. Do you mean that it is questioned whether it reached Beijing before 13C? If so, you should clarify.
Clarified.
(There was a point-by-point response here. This bit is reorganised by TLP into Dudley's comments above.)
Regarding the information of early Christianity in China, I need to sort out whether a book I cited (namely, Tang 2004) is RS. If not, I shall find an RS soon, and that means I will need to change bits that give general context. Therefore I intend to keep those bits untouched at the moment until I get out of this little pseudo Wikibreak and return to my good ole' library. Thanks for the helpful suggestions! Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudley Miles All comments responded to. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the Liao dynasty (916–1125), The Cross Temple was called "Chongsheng Yuan" (崇聖院; 'Hall of the Honoured Saint'), when Buddhists rebuilt it during the reign of Emperor Muzong of Liao." This is a confusing wording and I am not sure how to clarify it. Also, the second "The" should not be capitalised.
  • Clarified and reworded. Thanks for pointing this out.
  • "Many scholars have considered that the Nestorian monk Rabban Sauma, a Uyghur born in Beijing during the Yuan,[27][28] may have some connection to the Cross Temple. Moule conjectured that the site was probably near Sauma's hermitage.[29] Shi Mingpei argues that the description of Rabban Sauma's hermitage is "extremely similar" to the Cross Temple and its surrounding terrain.[30] Tang Li asserted that Rabban Sauma came from the site in a 2011 book." This paragraph is confusing. You seem to be saying that the site of the hermitage is not known and that it may have been Cross Temple, but if so this should be spelled out.
  • Good point. Now spelled out and I think it flows better.
  • "inscriptions by Yifengtang')" Closing bracket but not opening bracket.
  • Resolved.
  • "According to P. Y. Saeki, the Scottish diplomat Reginald Johnston rediscovered the site during the summer of 1919." What does rediscovered mean here? Presumably the local people never lost it.
  • The Buddhist monks sold the temple in 1911, so no one used temple for a short period of time, and it was presumably in desolation. Thus Johnston "rediscovered" the site. How can I better phrase this point?
  • Understood. Changed. -TLP
  • "there was a Shanmen entry" A few words of explanation of "Shanmen" as well as the link would be helpful.
  • Done.
  • "The Cross Temple is the only discovered site of the Church of the East in China." "discovered" is an odd word here. Do you mean only known site?
  • I have reworded it to Some scholars consider the Cross Temple to be the only place of worship of the Church of the East discovered in China.
  • "It is located near Chechang Village (车厂村), Fangshan District, to the southwest of Beijing City." The 'Current state' section is not the right place for stating the temple's location. Perhaps you could add a short section at the beginning of the main text covering location, surrounding area and which kingdom it was in at different periods.
  • This might be among the very few objections I have. I think that the "Current state" section could be a place to state the temple's location (see St. Michael's Cathedral, Qingdao#Description). Maybe the "Current state" section can be renamed to "Description" or some sort–I am open to that.
I don't think the location is something to be worried about–it is near a small village, which is near a major city, and that should be enough. I added the surrounding area / township. The history section talks about "which kingdom it was in at different periods."
  • "A replica of the Xi'an Stele was added to the site during the early 21st century". The wording implies that you have mentioned this stele before. Maybe "A replica of a stele discovered near Xi'an was added to the site during the early 21st century"
  • I supplied the context of the Xi'an Stele in the "context" section. I think I will keep this wording (although I moved it to a different area)
  • "in one of the Syriac manuscripts in the British Museum". Manuscripts have been transferred to the British Library.
  • Thanks for catching this bit. I think either "British Museum" or "British Library" is irrelevant here, so now it reads with the addition of the phrase "the living cross", in one of the Add. 14459 Syriac gospel manuscripts. Moule in his original text explicitly spells out Add. 14459.
  • See also section. I would delete as not really relevant, but that is up to you.
  • I intend to make the see also section go "horizontal" across similar topics, not "vertical" as in staying the relevant subject (Church of the East in China). I think I'll keep it.
  • "It is notable that, according to records". "It is notable that" is verbiage. I would delete. "according to records" is vague verbiage. What records?
  • This is a verbatim translation of what is stated in the paper. I don't have the liberty to change wording.
  • If it is a quotation, you should put it in quotes and cite the source inline. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that it would be better to have separate main headings for citations and sources.
  • Sure!
  • There is an error message on the Nicolini-Zani, Matteo source saying that it is not used.
  • Fixed.
  • Putting the sources in columns looks clumsy. I think they would look better and be easier to read if they were in text without columns, but that is a personal preference.
  • Fixed.
  • In general, this is a good article, but there is far too much Chinese text for English Wikipedia. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding this point: will you find it more acceptable if I put most Chinese text into footnotes, rather than parentheses? Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments received. I am busy this weekend (bank holiday, Easter, you name it). Will get to work next week. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dudley Miles All comments addressed. I think we just need to sort out the Chinese text issue (maybe footnotes?). Many thanks for your careful comments. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While each of your individual points is very much worthwhile, I do not really agree on your summary—there's simply not a lot of English-language "turf" for a lot of these terms, and inclusion of Chinese-language text is necessary for disambiguation when there's not an article for a given topic. Remsense诉 15:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dudley, anything to add here? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am on holiday until 11 April. I hope it will be OK if I comment further when I get back. Dudley Miles (talk) 00:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "before being sold in 1911. It was rediscovered in 1919, damaged during the Cultural Revolution, and re-established". "rediscovered in 1919" is odd and superfluous. I would delete. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How about "It entered modern scholarship in 1919 and received international attention" instead of "IT was rediscovered in 1919"? Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 14:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I would personally cut the Chinese characters as not helpful to readers of English Wikipedia, but that is a personal opinion. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Cross_Temple,_Fangshan/archive1&oldid=1218971306"