Talk:History of Christian thought on persecution and tolerance/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: DocFreeman24 (talk · contribs) 14:24, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, I'm planning on reviewing this article and will complete my review in the next day or two! Thanks! DocFreeman24 (talk) 14:24, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am so grateful! Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 22, 2020 Comments[edit]

Hey @Jenhawk777:

I've finished my first pass through the article and here are my comments. For now, I'm going to put the GA review process on hold as (1) I think this article is close and (2) I'd like to give it another read through after you address the comments.

At the outset, I'd just like to say that this article is phenomenally well researched and you clearly have a tremendous grasp of the subject. I also want to praise all your hard work on this article, you've clearly spent a lot of time and energy on this and it shows. Very well done all around.

The good article criteria states that reviewers should focus on 6 elements to determine whether the article is a good article:

1. Is the article well written? Does it comply with the relevant portions of the Manual of Style? - This is where I think the article needs the most work. The content is 100% there to make this a good article. But several sections of this article really struggle with this element. At the end of this review, I've left my suggestions on how to improve this aspect of the article. The comments in bold are the ones that I felt I particularly strongly about (i.e., I really think they need to be addressed) and I'm happy to work with you to address nay of these issues if my comment doesn't make sense. Also, I hope none of my comments come off as harsh--I really think the article is a solid candidate for GA and I'm very impressed that you've done this much!

2. Is the article verifiable? Does it contain any original research? - I still need to look at the references more closely but I think the article is in good shape with respect to this question. I didn't see any original research and I haven't found any copyright violations using the various tools out there. So, assuming the other issues are addressed and my further review of the references doesn't turn up anything weird, I think this category is probably met for GA.

3. Is the article broad in its coverage? - I think I can safely say that this article is plenty broad in its coverage. I have some comments about the final few subsections (see below), which I think get a bit beyond the topic at hand. But in general, I think this category is probably met for GA as well.

4. Is the article neutral? - Similarly, I think the article presents the issues in a fairly neutral way such that this category is likely met for GA. Again, I have a few issues with the final subsections, which are references below. But I don't see this category as being an issue.

5. Is the article stable? - Looking at the edit history, I don't see anything with respect to this factor that would preclude GA review. As I mentioned above, very nicely done in your hard work on this article!

6. Is the article appropriately illustrated? - In general, I like the use of images in the article. This is just a personal note, but I'd love it if you could find a piece of public domain art to include that is relevant to the subject of the article (e.g., a renaissance or middle age painting about early Christians being persecuted). That said, I don't think the article necessary needs it to meet GA. It's just a personal preference. Also, as mentioned in my notes below, I didn't think the graphics related to the witches section was very useful or easy to read. Regardless, I don't see this category being an impediment to GA.

Again, let me say that I really admire the amount of time and work you've spent on this article and I really want to work with you to get it to GA. Feel free to ping me if you have any questions.

PS. I know the GA guidelines suggest that the on hold status should only last for 7 days but, as far as I am personally concerned, there's no need to address all of these things within 7 days, particularly given the holiday and the fact that I am going to be offline next weekend. So I'm happy to give it another read through whenever its ready--just ping me!

DocFreeman24's suggestions and notes while reading the article[edit]

Global Comments

  • Date formatting needs to be harmonized throughout the article in several respects.  
    • First, in several instances the article uses “[YEAR] CE,” while others are “CE [YEAR],” and others are just “[YEARS TO YEARS].”  Also in some instances there isn’t a space between the YEAR and the CE, so that should be corrected.  
    • Second, in some instances, the article uses AD instead of CE.  Per MOS:ERA, the article should use a uniform style to refer to these years.  
    • Third, the article should harmonize how it refers to centuries.  For example, the article in some places refers to “11th century” and in other place refers to it as “the eleventh century” and in other places refers to it as “1100s”.  Please try to harmonize these.
      • Using the control F I could not find a reference to 11th century, as far as I can tell they are all spelled out. I did change the 1100s to the twelfth century. If I missed spotting that 11th please let me know. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please make sure that all headings of the article conform to MOS:HEAD with regard to capitalization.  They generally follow sentence case, but some use title case and should be corrected.
  • Please try to harmonize the capitalization of “the Church”.  About halfway through article, it switches from lower case to upper case.  I would propose sticking with one throughout unless there’s a compelling reason to switch.
  • I find it a little odd that the article really doesn’t address the Protestant-Catholic conflicts at the center of the Thirty Years’ War.  My understanding (which admittedly, could be wrong) was that religious toleration among various Christian groups played a major role in that conflict.  So it seems a bit odd that the article doesn’t really address it.
    • I kept the topics as they were laid out in the original article and it didn't include the "Religious Wars". I am guessing that's because it is controversial whether or not they were actually caused by religion or were the result of secular state building. Most modern scholars are leaning toward the latter, though it's one of those cases where the new is overturning the old standard view. I can certainly add it, but that might put us over the top on length. Perhaps, if I can keep it short - maybe something like I said here - it would be appropriate to add. If you think so, I will. I can write it up tonight in my sandbox and input it if and when you get back to me. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Cool, and no worries if it doesn't make sense to include. It was just something that I remember learning about and was surprised to see that it wasn't included here.DocFreeman24 (talk) 23:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, I found it a little odd that the article does not address Christian attitudes towards the offshoots of Christianity that emerged in the 19th century, such as mormons, latter day saints, Christian scientists etc. I don't think it's necessarily required, but it seems like something that would make a lot of sense for this article, as these groups are highly relevant to how Christianity persecutes and tolerates.
    • Christianity has arguably not done real persecuting as such in the nineteenth century. Intolerance, exclusion, partiality, discrimination, favoritism, even "intense hostility" - don't qualify as actual persecution. I've been working on creating a standardized definition of persecution for WP but haven't completed it yet, but all the definitions I have found so far require a degree of suffering beyond these; persecution impairs the person's ability to function, causes physical harm and/or death. I am unaware of nineteenth century examples of those toward "offshoots", but if I am wrong, let me know and I can input them. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm, interesting. From reading the article, I guess I didn't get the sense that "persecution" was limited to acts of violence. The definition I felt like the article was using was something along the lines of "institutionalized discrimination or hatred." In any event, my understanding (which admittedly could be wrong) is that these offshoot groups have been the subject to violence due to their religious beliefs. I did some quick searching and found a few articles that may have some relevant discussion and sources on this such as Mormonism_and_violence#History_of_religious_violence_against_Mormons, Anti-Mormonism, and Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses. In any event, like I said, I don't think the article absolutely needs these additions to meet the GA criteria (after all, the criteria says that the coverage merely needs to be broad, not comprehensive) but it was just something that stuck out to me as something that would make sense to include.DocFreeman24 (talk) 23:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article uses scare quotes quite a bit.  I certainly don’t hate them but the MOS (MOS:SCAREQUOTES seems to suggests that scare quotes should be used carefully so perhaps trim a few of those down.
    • I have no idea what this is referring to, could you explain? Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's all good. I think I addressed some of them via minor edits as I went. Basically, it just felt like every sentence had a scare quote or two and it started to get distracting and detracted from the content. But this was a pretty minor nit and is fine as far as I'm concerned.DocFreeman24 (talk) 23:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a small nit that doesn’t necessarily need to be fixed but I wanted to flag so you were aware.  At various points in the article, the number of spaces following a period fluctuates from 1 to 2.  
    • I know. I like to double space after a period - it's a holdover from my training years ago - but the software often automatically corrects me. Single spacing should be reserved for other punctuation - that's how I was taught. I'll go through and see if I can find them all and standardize them. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

  • Please add a link to deicide where first mentioned.
  • The lead is too long and should probably be shortened by trimming a  sentence or two from each paragraph to make them slightly more high level.  I’ve proposed some cuts below but feel free to select different ones.
  • I would not reference RI Moore in the lead since it kind of throws off the summary (i.e., none of the other paragraphs reference particular individual scholars) and is fairly deep
  • I would avoid (or at least minimize) the use of the word “literati.”  It’s fairly wonky and context specific such that it’s not always clear who you are referring to.
    • Added a definition in the middle ages use and removed the later one and replaced it with intellectuals. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is the “it” being referred to there?  Please clarify.
    • Heresy, but moot now. The sentence should be clearer now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • “Despite that, the systematized government supported persecution of minorities invented in the West in the High Middle Ages for garnering power to the state has spread throughout the world. Sociology indicates tolerance and persecution are products of context and group identity more than ideology.”
    • I would delete this whole paragraph as I think its a pretty bold (and at least arguably unsupported) claim and starts to get away from the subject matter of the article.
      • It does actually summarize the modern section which refers to the direct quote from the source in the middle ages. So it is in the article twice and seems important to our modern world. We are working to understand terrorism and types of persecution that are on the rise and this is a significant part of that discussion. I shortened the rest and would really like to keep this unless you have very strong feelings about it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Got it. Let me know when you get to my comment on the final few paragraphs and maybe we can figure out a way forward on this. The discussion about modern thinking just felt very abstract and unmoored from the rest of the article. But my only goal is to help make the article the best it can be, I definitely don't want to impose my idiosyncratic views if they are not reasonable or outside of consensus. DocFreeman24 (talk) 23:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Background (Early Christian Thought)[edit]

  • “Christian thought in its first three centuries was in the process of defining what it meant to be a Christian, and in order to distinguish itself from paganism and Judaism, the twin concepts of orthodoxy and heterodoxy developed”.
    • I would suggest rewording to “In its first three centuries, Christian thought focused primarily on defining what it meant to be a ‘Christian.’  In order to distinguish itself from paganism and Judaism, early Christians developed the twin concepts of orthodoxy and heterodoxy.”
  • “There was an effort to reconcile the Jewish founding story, the Christian gospel of the Apostles, and the Greek tradition of knowing the divine through reason, but the substance of Christian orthodoxy was found in the increasingly homogenous canon of writings believed to be apostolic, that had circulated widely as such, and the patristic writings based on them.”
    • Suggested rework: “Early Christians made an effort to reconcile the Jewish founding story, the Christian gospel of the Apostles, and the Greek tradition of knowing the divine through reason, but the substance of Christian orthodoxy was increasingly found in the homogenous canon of writings believed to be apostolic, that had circulated widely as such, and the patristic writings based on them”
    • Also, I would suggest trying to use simpler words for “apostolic” and “patristic” as even I don’t really know what those words mean and I have a graduate degree and have been a part of the Christian community for 20 or so years :)
    • Hmmm. I generally try to avoid jargon, and thought these were universally understood words. I can define them but I don't see how I can avoid them altogether. Well, a compromise: I added a definition and removed patristic. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you! If these are universally understood words where you are, I want to live there :) DocFreeman24 (talk) 23:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • LOL! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • “Justo L. González traces three veins of Christian thought that began in the second century. Out of Carthage, Tertullian the lawyer wrote of Christianity as revelation of the Law of God. From the pluralistic city of Alexandria, Origen wrote of the commonalities between philosophy and theology, reason and revelation, seeing Christianity as the intellectual pursuit of trascendent Truth. In Asia Minor and Syria, Irenaeus saw Christianity as God working in human History through its pastoral work of reaching people with God's Love. These veins of thought have continued throughout Christian history, and have impacted attitudes toward and practices of tolerance and persecution.”
    • I would remove the capitalization from the italics as it is distracting.
  • “These veins of thought have continued throughout Christian history, and have impacted attitudes toward and practices of tolerance and persecution”
    • I would change “these” to ”each” and make the remainder of sentence singular to match.

Inclusivity, Exclusivity, and heresy

  • “Early Christian communities were highly inclusive in terms of social stratification and other social categories, much more so than were the Roman voluntary associations”
    • Please add “contemporary” before Roman voluntary associations.
      • It already says in existence at the time, which is basically what contemporary means. I have been corrected for using the term contemporary by FA reviewers who say its meaning is too undefined. In existence at the time is defined. I vote this one stays as it is if you are okay with that. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Totally fine by me! That's funny re the FA reviewer! Everyone has their own view I suppose :). DocFreeman24 (talk) 23:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please add a link from “Pauline” to [[St. Paul]].
  • “and it invents the concept of heresy at the same time.”
    • Proposed change to “yet invents the concept of heresy at the same time.”
  • “Tertullian (155–200 CE) was a Christian intellectual, a lawyer from Carthage in late second century Africa, who advocated for religious tolerance, but it was primarily an effort to convince pagan readers that Christianity should be allowed into the religious 'market-place' that John North says second century Rome had become.”
    • Suggested rework: “Tertullian (155–200 CE), a second-century Christian intellectual and lawyer from Carthage, advocated for religious tolerance, primarily in an effort to convince pagan readers that Christianity should be allowed into the religious 'market-place' that John North says second century Rome had become.”
    • Suggest changing “John North says” to “John North proposes”
  • “On the other hand, Stroumsa says Tertullian”
    • Suggest changing “says” to “argues”
  • “On the other hand, Stroumsa says Tertullian also knew co-existence meant competition, so he attempted to delegitimize that competition at the same time he advocated for tolerance.”
    • How did Tertullian delegitimize competing religions?  This point is suggested but not clear from reading.
  • “New Testament scholar Eric Osborn asserts that Justin Martyr, who saw Christianity as the fulfillment of his former Platonism:2 and is generally attributed with inventing the concept of heresy in Christian thought, does not simply write polemic.:6,174–178 He says Justin writes only to answer objections his friends are facing and to defend these friends from ill treatment and even death. He quotes Justin in a letter to the emperor as saying he is writing: "On behalf of those from every race of men who are unjustly hated and ill-treated, being one of them myself.":6”
    • I don’t understand this paragraph and what it is purporting to add.  I would suggest eliminating as it doesn’t add much to the remainder of this section.

Supersessionism and deicide

  • Deicide is repeated in both this subsection header and the subsequent subsection header.  I would suggest either removing it from the first or eliminating the second.
  • “The third form is a perspective on the Bible.”
    • I would reword this to make it clearer what you’re saying.  The point here is that the third form argues that the New Testament supersedes the Old Testament.
    • Of course I can't use the word supersedes to define supersedes. I reworked this some. See if it's clearer to you.Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • “There is no agreement on when supersessionism began.”
    • I would change “began” to “emerged” as that sounds more natural to me.
      • Emerged from what? I don't find a source that says that. I vote against this one. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • “Supersessionism's alternative is chiliasm, also known as Millennialism, and it was the traditional and more universally held view of the first two centuries.”
    • I would encourage you to find a way to explain what chilliasm/millenialism is here or somewhere nearby.  You reference it in the preceding paragraph but I was left wondering what exactly this is.
  • "the 'emancipation of reason' from the Bible."
    • Could you please explain what this phrase means?  It feels very academic and I really don't understand what it is trying to convey.

Constantine

  • Please harmonize “Salzman et al” to match how you refer to other scholars throughout.  I think this is the only instance in which you use “et al”

I will be back to finish tomorrow. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth Century Christian Thought

  • “In the East, there was the Arian controversy with its debate of Trinitarian formulas which lasted 56 years.”
    • Can you clarify what the “East” refers to here?  Is it the Eastern Roman Empire?
  • “wrote Discourses Against the Jews which is almost pure polemic, using replacement theology (also known as supersessionism) that he either derived independently or from the second century writings of Melito”
    • Suggested rework: “wrote Discourses Against the Jews which is almost a pure polemic in advocating for supersessionism.”  The fact that it is derived independently or based on the writings of someone else is an unnecessary detail.
      • Okay, I removed the end but left in replacement theology because supersessionism was not how it was referred to at the time. Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's fine. It's just confusing to the reader to
  • “Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity(OHLA)”
    • Drop the abbreviation as you don’t use it anywhere else in the article.

Massacre of Verden

  • “By contemporary definition, religious persecution does not include political actions like war, and though it was war when this event occurred, the Massacre of Verden violates modern concepts of the fair treatment of prisoners, therefore it is often seen as an event of persecution. “
    • Suggested rework: “While contemporary definitions of religious persecution typically do not include actions taken during war, the Massacre of Verden represents an important event in the Early Middle Ages.”
      • Well, I am not just discussing important events, they have to have something to do with persecution for them to be included here. How about a compromise? See if that's okay. Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crusades

  • “Darius von Güttner-Sporzyński explains that scholars continue to debate crusading and its impact so scholarship in this field is continually undergoing revision and reconsideration.:96 From their beginning, the crusades have been seen from different points of view.:1”
    • Swap the order of these sentences please.
  • “By 1935, Carl Erdmann published Die Entstehung des Kreuzzugsgedankens (The Origin of the Idea of Crusade), changing the direction of crusader studies more than any other single work by stressing that the crusades were essentially defensive.”
    • Would add to the end something to the effect that conveys that “defensive” = “not persecution”.
      • It's done, but it seems dangerously close to synth. Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you. I'm not trying to lead to synth, but just trying to more clearly convey the point that is being made as it didn't seem clear why the discussion related to persecution as originally worded.DocFreeman24 (talk) 04:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • “At the opposite end is the view voiced by Steven Runciman in 1951 in the conclusion of his crusade history that the "Holy War was nothing more than a long act of intolerance."
    • Would suggest deleting “in the conclusion of his crusade history” as it makes the sentence clunky and unnecessarily long.
      • I took it out of the sentence and put in the reference instead in case someone wants to find it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • “Hugh S. Pyper says the crusades witness to "a powerful sense in Christian thought of the time of the importance of the concreteness of Jesus' human existence and to a willingness to undergo appalling suffering, as well as to inflict it, in his cause. The city [of Jerusalem's] importance is reflected in the fact that early medieval maps place [Jerusalem] at the center of the world." :33”
    • I believe this is a sentence fragment?  Please address.
      • Neither of these are fragments. "Witness" is a verb and reflected is a verb and they are complete sentences. Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm sorry, I still don't understand. How do the crusades witness (i.e., see) something? And what is the purpose of the "to" there in that formulation? I really don't think this is a correct usage of the word. Perhaps you mean they bear witness? Even that is a bit awkward, though I could probably live with it. Alternatively you could consider saying that the crusades "reflect 'a powerful sense in Christian thought . . .'"? DocFreeman24 (talk) 04:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Background (High Middle Ages)

  • “ In the High Middle Ages, the religion that had begun by decrying the power of law (Romans 7:1) developed the most complex religious law the world has ever seen, a system in which equity and universality were largely overlooked.:382”
    • I would delete the claim that Christianity/the Catholic Church created “the most complex religious law the world has ever seen” as that seems both untrue and also lacks support.  Perhaps simply change to “a highly complex religious law”
      • If you look here: [[1]] which should be page 382, you will see the source says: "In this way a religion which began with absolutely no equivalent to Islamic Shari'a was in possession, fifteen centuries later, of the most complex religious law the world has ever seen, a system however in which equity remained underdeveloped." It seems important even without referencing Islam. Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • The fact remains that this is a highly subjective claim (e.g., what does it mean for a system of law to be the "most complex religious law the world has ever seen"?). At most, the article could state that this author or source argues for that proposition. But it really doesn't not seem appropriate for wikivoice as it is a highly subjective judgment call. DocFreeman24 (talk) 04:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't think it is subjective. The complexity of law is an old concept. In this law article on page 2 and moving over to 3, the author says legal complexity is an ancient concern, and he goes on to give a good working definition of it.[2] This one [3] says "Legal complexity is defined here in terms of the amount of information that must be collected and processed in order for lawyers to evaluate a case and litigation to proceed." There are dozens of these, all discussing legal complexity. It's a real deal. I don't know exactly how the author of the text in Christian Thought defined it, but since this article isn't on legal complexity, I don't think I need to do so. The point is about Christian thought being weighed down by complex laws. That seems like a critically important point for understanding the era - and the thought. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:44, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • DocFreeman24 I would offer a compromise, but I don't see one that doesn't water down the point that is being made there. If you have one, I will take it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • Jenhawk777 Thanks for the responses on this. I appreciate your point but I think the issue is about the comparative nature of the statement, saying that something is the most complex legal system is quite a claim! You could play out this same debate with respect to any claim of complexity (e.g., that a particular style of art was the most complex, that a particular area of science is the most complex, etc. etc.), and it would be impossible (or at least extremely difficult) to prove or disprove. I think the compromise here is to say that the source states that it is the most complex religious law the world had ever seen and I've made that edit in the article, but if that is a problem for you, ping me and let's see if we can figure something else out. I have no issues with stating that some scholars or a particular source has said this. But I just don't think it's something that can be said in Wikivoice like it's an objective fact given its broad comparative scope and the arguably subjective judgments underlying it. DocFreeman24 (talk) 02:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • “There was no single thread of Christian thought throughout most of the Middle Ages.:396”
    • I would personally delete this sentence as it doesn’t really flow in this section but that’s just me.

Mendicant orders

  • “They conceived themselves as fighting for Truth against heterodoxy and heresy.”
    • I would remove the capitalization of “truth”.
  • “there is agreement that the Order of the Hermits of St. Augustine supported the more legal line of Christian thought”
    • I would recommend changing “the more legal line” to “a more legalistic line” as that sounds better, at least to me.
      • Legal and legalistic don't mean the same things. Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then I guess I am confused. What about the line of Christian thought was "more legal" (i.e., authorized by law)? Legalistic seemed like what you are trying to convey there but if there is something else you are trying to state then would you please clarify?DocFreeman24 (talk) 04:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • The legal line of thought includes the use of law to centralize power into the popes. They kept making new canon law. The Augustinians were all about laws that supported centralizing the power of the church into the pope following the example and method of the secular kings. I can't think of a way to say that that doesn't add a paragraph! If you can I will be grateful. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • I made an edit to this sentence that I'm hopeful will resolve this issue but feel free to tweak it if you think its not accurate/supported. DocFreeman24 (talk) 00:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heresy

  • Please harmonize the references to Robert Moore so they are uniform throughout the article.  In some instances, the article refers to him as “R.I. Moore” while in others it refers to him as “Robert Moore.”  As a reader it was not immediately clear to me that the article was referring to the same person.

Albigensian Crusade

  • “This Cistercian preaching of exclusivity is important to the history of Christian thought and the persecution which followed.:intro “
    • Why was it important?  Please clarify.
    • Removed sentence, adding more won't really add to the point.Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Massacre at Beziers

  • “How much this reflects Christian thought is heavily debated.”
    • I would delete this sentence as it really doesn’t add much and seems odd as a sentence standing alone outside of a paragraph.  The preceding paragraphs clearly convey that the extent to which the church was involved in this crusade is a hotly debated issue and not one that is clearly settled.


New persecution of minorities

  • "(like contemporary homeless vets).“
    • I would cut this as it just doesn’t really feel appropriate in this article since its a comparison between wildly different societies separated by hundreds of years.
  • “before it reappeared here in the eleventh century.”
    • Would suggest rewording to: “before reappearing again in the eleventh century.”
  • “as injunctions which specifically prohibited homosexual intercourse.”
    • Would suggest rewording to: “as injunctions against homosexual intercourse.”
  • “ to rule that men who engaged in it”
    • Would suggest rewording to: “to rule that men who engaged in homosexual activity”
  • Would propose replacing “extirpate” with a more accessible word/phrase such as “root out” or “eliminate.”
  • “Garnering power by taking power”
    • This is an odd phrase to me.  I would simplify to something like “the centralization of power in new nation-states”
      • The point is that taking power from others not only led to persecution, it's that persecution was the tool of the state that allowed that power to be taken. The state made some powerless in order to make themselves more powerful. It's like there was a pie with a limited amount of power, and in order to have more for themselves, some got no pie at all. It's something that is still going on, and it's a really, really important concept. Perhaps you would like a rephrase that communicates this better, but this is not easy to boil down. Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for clarifying! I think you reworked it in the article and it reads better now! DocFreeman24 (talk) 04:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • “They created a new rhetoric of exclusion”
  • Would suggest changing “they” to “Christians.”
    • That would be an error. It wasn't primarily the Christians who did this, it was the secular rulers who were building secular states - the Christians just kind of went along and supported them. Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, perhaps the confusion arises from the fact that the sentence is combining the abstract notion of "Christian thought" with real-world individuals ("intellectuals") in a manner that seems sort of difficult to follow. Perhaps it can simply be reworded to say something like "intellectuals, repurposing century-old ideas of Christian thought and the power of nascent nation-states, developed a new rhetoric of exclusion" or something like that (I am not wedded to that at all, simply trying to, well, simplify). DocFreeman24 (talk) 04:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was the leaders - kings --and their sycophantic support groups, the clerks, courtiers, and intellectuals - and the clerics - who spurred this on. Let me think on it a bit and see if there is a good way to clarify that. I will go back to the source and read some more and see how he explains it. I'm not sure I've done a good job of transmission. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:44, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

        • DocFreeman24 So. "They" refers to the people mentioned in the previous sentence. Per the comment on papal monarchy in "next section comments", I have now added a whole paragraph that hopefully fully explains. If not, we'll try again. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • “This contributed to "deliberate and socially sanctioned violence ...directed, through established governmental, judicial and social institutions, against groups of people defined by general characteristics such as race, religion or way of life. Membership in such groups in itself came to be regarded as justifying these attacks."
    • Please add a source for this quote.
  • “Police forces were invented at this time creating new enforcement capabilities. There were new funds to pay them through the development of general taxation, gold coins and banking.”
    • No sources are cited for these sentences and they seem problematic to me as my understanding is that police (at least as we use that term in common speech today) did not exist until at least the 1600s.
  • I feel like the block quote at the end of this section doesn’t really add a whole lot but that may just be me.
    • I have reworked this paragraph, added refs and hopefully dealt with all your objections. Tell me if you want more. Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for addressing the police issue, it looks good now! I still don't feel like the block quote fits there with that paragraph or really adds anything to the article however. It sticks out to me as a reader. But if you feel strongly about it meriting inclusion, I'll let it go :) DocFreeman24 (talk) 04:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I get what you're saying. Perhaps it could be moved to the modern section? Could that even work? Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:44, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I will return later.Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Next section of comments[edit]

Trial of the Talmud

  • “ the polemic between the two faiths sunk to new depths.”
    • I’m not sure that’s the correct use of “polemic”.  Perhaps change to “relations between the two faiths sunk to new depths.”
      • A polemic is a written attack, which is what this refers to. The writings of the two faiths, to and about each other, which we have extant copies of, became really vitriolic at this time. This is when some of the really nasty stuff about Jesus and Mary was added to the Talmud. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • DocFreeman24 Is that sufficient? Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Jenhawk777 I still don't see it but I changed it at least be plural as the singular "polemic" doesn't make sense here (i.e., its not like there was only one attack, which is why I thought "relations" or "dialogues" was a better word).DocFreeman24 (talk) 01:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • “As feudal lords were losing power,”
    • Would suggest rewording to “As feudal lords lost power,”

Historical Background (Late Middle Ages)

  • “During the "calamitous" fourteenth century”
    • I’d remove the scare quotes around calamitous as that seems like a pretty safe proposition to me :)
      • Ahh! Scare quotes! Got it! The quotation marks are there because that's a quote from History of the western humanities, but I can see how one word can look like a scare quote. It's entirely likely that at some point, someone will come along and ding me for too close a paraphrase if I just remove them, so instead I have extended the quote. I hate to start a paragraph with a quote, and the calamitous is in fact quoted within the quote, that's how it's written, but it's better to have the whole quote than to look like scare quotes. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • “the papal monarchial idea”
    • This is an odd phrase to me.  Do you mean “papal-monarch relationship”?  Or something else?  I would revise to be clearer.
      • It means "pope as monarch." During the fourteenth century, the kings in France and England were successful at centralizing power in their nations, and many other countries wanted to imitate them and their governing style. Other countries weren't alone in that: the church wanted to imitate the secular kings as well. The primary success of the fourteenth century popes was in centralizing the power of the church into the pope and making him similar to a secular king. The church owned papal states which were ruled by the pope and no other king. Popes in this century reorganized the Financial system. The poor had previously been allowed to offer their tithes 'in kind' in goods and services instead of cash, but these popes revamped the system to only accept cash money instead. These popes had property, a steady cash flow, and almost as much power as any king, governing as the secular powers governed: with "royal secretaries, efficient treasuries, national judiciaries, and representative assemblies". The pope became a monarch, and the church became secular, but the popes were so greedy, worldly and politically corrupt that pious Christians became disgusted. I can add any of this if you think it would actually help. It's a bit of a side track. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Reform

  • “He confessed, after torture and threat of excommunication, to the charge, and was defrocked and sentenced to life in prison, in chains, in solitary confinement, and to receive nothing but bread and water.”
    • I would suggest rewording to “After torture and threat of excommunication, he confessed to the charge [of what? Please clarify] and was defrocked and sentenced to life in prison, in chains, in solitary confinement, and to receive nothing but bread and water.”

Modern Inquisitions

  • “the rise of the Felipes in Portugal”
    • Felipe is Spanish for Philip. The House of Habsburg, known as the Philippine Dynasty, was ruled by Philip the first, second and third consecutively, from 1581 to 1640. The dynasty began with the acclamation of Philip II of Spain as Philip I of Portugal in 1580. These Philips were zealous supporters who were actively involved in the inquisitions. Prosecutions increased under them. [4] Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
** Can you link to something here that provides context for who the “Felipes in Portugal” are?  I searched and I couldn’t quite figure out who these people are and why they would have contributed to the inquisition.
  • “Where the medieval Inquisition had focused on popular misconceptions which resulted in the disturbance of public order,”
    • Can you clarify this?  What do you mean when you say it focused on “popular misconceptions”?

Northern (Baltic) Crusades

  • “was the result of the German Empire's long tradition”
    • Should this be Holy Roman Empire here instead?  When I read the German empire, I understand it as referring to the 19th and 20th century entities so it was a bit confusing.

Forced conversion and Christian thought

  • “The Wendish crusade, one of the Northern crusades, offers clues to new developments in Christian thought, resulting from these campaigns, concerning forced conversion.”
    • I would suggest reworking this to “The Wendish crusade offers insights into new developments in Christian thought, particularly with respect to forced conversions.”
  • “Dominican friars helped ideologically justify it by portraying the pagans as possessed by evil spirits and needing conquest, persecution and force to free them, and then peacefully convert them”
    • I would suggest reworking this to “Dominican friars helped justify these forced conversions by portraying pagans as possessed by evil spirits, thus justifying the use of force to free them and then ‘peacefully’ convert them.”
      • Okay, sorry, the repetition of justify and justifying seems even more awkward to me. Compromise again. How about I divide it into two sentences? Does that work for you? Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional toleration and segregation

  • “For example, at the cost of discrimination, Frankfurt's Jews also flourished between 1543 and 1613.”
    • Would suggest reworking to: “While Frankfurt’s Jews flourished between 1453 and 1613, their success came despite significant discrimination.”
  • “"Officially, the medieval Catholic church never advocated the expulsion of all the Jews from Christendom, or repudiated Augustine's doctrine of Jewish witness... Still, late medieval Christendom frequently ignored its mandates…””
    • This quote is confusing to me.  I would suggest paraphrasing what you think it is saying instead of quoting directly.
      • It seems quite straightforward to me. Augustine's doctrine was previously discussed. Do you feel it needs further explanation here too? Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reading it again, I think it's actually ok and I take your point :). Nothing to do here further! DocFreeman24 (talk) 01:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Early Reformation (1500-1600)

  • “By the eighteenth century,”
    • I would suggest rephrasing to “By the end of the 1600s”.  My thinking is that (1) this follows the date formatting using the header such that the reader can understand more easily and (2) makes it clear you’re not jumping ahead.  When I read that phrase, I thought “Wait, I understood this section to be about the 16th century, why are we jumping ahead 200 years?”  So I think it would help clarify things.
      • Under global comments you said harmonize how it refers to centuries. so I can't do that, but I can do something. See if that's an improvement. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the discussion of the thinkers in Basle, I would include a year somewhere that helps orient the reader.  Right now, the reader can’t tell where this gathering takes place in time relative to other happenings in the Reformation.
  • “One of the leading secular skeptics”
    • I would suggest reworking this to “One of the leading skeptics of greater tolerance”

The English Protestant Call for Toleration

  • “particularly in the chapter "The Origins of Religious Toleration”,”
    • I would cut this as you really don’t need it in the text.
      • This may be the only nearly complete section leftover from the original article. Done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • “Their collective witness demanded”
    • “Collective witness” is kind of a weird phrase.  Maybe change to something simpler like “Collectively, their voices demonstrated a demand” instead.

Witches (1450-1750)

  • I would remove or significantly retool the graphic in this section.  The red text on grey background is hard to read and the text itself is difficult to understand, as is the significance of what is being displayed.
  • “It is often characterized as a difficult text.”
    • I would delete this as I don’t think you need it.
  • “and trials were mostly civil trials.”
    • Why is this significant and what does this mean?  Please flesh out or clarify.
      • The three possible causes? people, church, reality? the main pressure to prosecute witches came from the common people, and trials were mostly civil trials. Those go together. I made an addition to make that clearer. See if it actually does! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • “As a professor, Spee sought to expose the flawed arguments and methods used by the Dominican witch-hunters, and any authority who allowed it, all the way up to and including the emperor, through sarcasm, ridicule and piercing logic and thereby put an end to it.”
    • I would suggest reworking to “As a professor, Spee sought to expose the flawed arguments and methods used by the Dominican witch-hunters along with any authority who allowed it, including the emperor.  Spee’s primary method for doing so was sarcasm, ridicule and piercing logic, which were often successful in frustrating the witch-hunters’ efforts.”
      • Done, and this "which were often successful in frustrating the witch-hunters’ efforts." is removed as an addition by someone else that is not supported in the source. He did not have immediate effect. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic Policy

  • “Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) wrote: "The quality of exemplarity which the honest admission of past faults can exert on attitudes within the Church and civil society should also be noted, for it gives rise to a renewed obedience to the Truth and to respect for the dignity and the rights of others, ... recalling individuals and groups of people to an honest and fruitful examination of conscience with a view to reconciliation."”
    • This quote seems out of place and unnecessary to this article.
      • It's a leftover from the original article. I left whatever I could because so much of it was completely unusable. But I agree. It will also remove it from the copy right detector. :-) Done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Protestant Christian Thought + Contemporary Global Persecution and Sociology + Sociology

  • These sections need to either be deleted or substantially reworked in my humble opinion.  They make extremely broad claims about very controversial topics and give undue weight to a number of things that seem to be well beyond the scope of the article.  While I appreciate that the article approaches them in a fairly academic way, they seem to give undue weight to certain issues while ignoring others.  They also editorialize a fair amount and get away from the sort of content I think a reader would expect to see in an encyclopedia.  To the extent you want to retain anything here, I would recommend trimming down to something like this:

November 30, 2020 Comments[edit]

Hey Jenhawk777,

I think this article is looking excellent. I read through it again just now and I have just a few issues with the final few sections that, once resolved, should mean that it is good to go. Let me know what you think of each of these. And if you have any issues with the edits I made while reading, feel free to flag those too, though hopefully none were too controversial.

Modern Era - Protest Christian Thought

“Modern discussions of the Kingdom of God have been influenced by the contemporary view of the eschatological Jesus. For many modern Christians this represents over-preoccupation with the "church," however, even those theologians of hope and liberation still speak of God as the one true, personal and active, ruler of His kingdom.:371”

  • This is really quite dense. Can you please simplify it or explain further to make it more accessible?
  • This is something someone else has come along and added since this article was nominated 5 months ago. It's not something I would write, it uses the term modern, there are several reasons to doubt its veracity, I say just delete it.
  • Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

“Bruce L. McCormack says that is why the neo-orthodoxy of the twentieth century remains popular in the "post-modern" twenty-first century. Though Karl Barth advocates "Christocentrism," it is inherently an inclusive kind of exclusivity as, in his view, every human is among the elect.:67”

  • Similarly, this is really technical. Can you please flesh out/explain a bit more so a lay reader can understand what the point being made is here?

Contemporary global persecution and sociology

Subject to what you think, I think the block quote would fit better at the very start of this section (i.e., as a quote to contextualize the subsequent discussion of contemporary persecution).

“In contemporary society, persecution is not just religious; persecutions of minorities for religion/non-religion, race/ethnicity, gender and other human characteristics such as homosexuality and albinism, are currently taking place around the world as well.:xii-xiv”

  • I’d delete this. I have no doubt it is true, but it really has nothing to do with the subject of the article and the point is already better made (i.e., in a way that is relevant to the article) in the preceding paragraphs.
DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 05:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sociology

Initially, this is a duplicative subheading. But more importantly, much of this section is well beyond the scope of the article. The discussion of what tolerance and persecution are in an abstract sense, while certainly noble and well-sourced, really isn’t what this article is about. This article is about the history of Christian thought on these topics. And unless there is some way to tie these broader statements about sociology back to that central issue, I really struggle to see why these statements warrant inclusion here (though I'm confident they could fit well in Toleration or some other related article). I would recommend deleting everything in this section except the following (which I would merge into the preceding section on contemporary global persecution and drop the "sociology" portion of the header):

Contemporary persecution is also, often, part of a larger conflict involving emerging states and established states in the process of redefining their national identity.:xii,xiiiFor example, the U.S. Department of State identified 1.4 million Christians in Iraq in 1991 when the Gulf War began. (Christianity in Iraq dates from the Apostolic era in what was then Persia.) By 2010, the number of Christians dropped to 700,000 and it is currently estimated there are between 200,000 and 450,000 Christians left in Iraq.:135 During that period, actions against Christians included the burning and bombing of churches, the bombing of Christian owned businesses and homes, kidnapping, murder, demands for protection money, and anti-Christian rhetoric in the media with those responsible saying they wanted to rid the country of its Christians.:135–138
Serbia has been Christian since the Christianization of Serbs by Clement of Ohrid and Saint Naum in the ninth century. Within the rest of a relatively peaceful Serbia, the province of Kosovo was a site of ethnic and religious tensions for a long time. In the 1990s, it drew attention for frequent discrimination and acts of violence toward Albanians: 90 percent of Kosovo's Albanian population is Muslim. Eventually, Kosovo erupted in a full-scale ethnic cleansing resulting in armed intervention by the United Nations in 1999. Serbs attacked Albanian villages, killed and brutalized inhabitants, burned down houses and forced them to leave. By the end of 1998, approximately 3000 Islamic Albanians had been killed and more than 300,000 expelled. By the end of the "action," around 800,000 of the roughly two million Albanians, fled.
    • Hmm, I can't say I agree. I offer a compromise. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for all your hard work on this. It really shows and I think you've truly made this a "good article." DocFreeman24 (talk) 02:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thank you Doc. I deeply appreciate you volunteering for this. I was beginning to despair that no one would ever pick it up, so I am genuinely grateful for that and for you specifically and the excellent job you have done with it. Thank you again and again. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References Issues[edit]

Sorry, I also just spotted a few references/citation issues that should be fixed prior to GA. Could you please address the following:

  • FN 34 - Looks like a reference named "Anderson" is missing. Can you either fix the cite or find an alternative source to support the claims?
  • FN 126 - Looks like something is up with this one? Maybe just need to delete or fix the "Template:" formatting?
  • FN 151 - Looks like link is dead. Can you please fix? Also, it'd probably be nice to find a better source but not necessary by any means.
    • I can't find what you are referring to here. This is a book, it's only link is through its isbn which works and goes to the correct book. Could it have been 150? It wasn't properly formatted, so I fixed it, but it's link isn't broken so I don't know if this is what you meant. Let me know if I didn't get the right one! Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FNs 199 & 200 - Looks like these citations need to be formatted. Can you please do so?
    • I think you meant 198 and 199, but one is gone now, due to the edit of the section, and the other is fixed.Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Something like this always happens when I start moving stuff around. Thank you for catching these! Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, tremendous job with this and thank you for all your hard work! DocFreeman24 (talk) 04:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_Christian_thought_on_persecution_and_tolerance/GA1&oldid=991666726"