Wikipedia:Peer review/Diocletianic Persecution/archive2

Diocletianic Persecution

Previous peer review

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hey-oh! Back again for a good round of hard-core peer-on-peer reviewing. I am expecting some peer reviews to drop in hot and heavy! Do not spare me any of your fierce rhetoric, caustic judgments, or painful grammatical correctives. I am ready for all of them, those things. Yes.

Ealdgyth told me to do this one thing (obtain some comparative information on the position of similar religious minorities (soothsayers, magicians, et al.)), but I didn't do that thing, and I'm feeling kind of naughty for having said I'd do it. I'm still planning on doing it! Just not yet. Is that okay? If it's not, then, hey, withdrawn. Otherwise, I'd enjoy some of the aforementioned peer-on-peer reviewing. I'd love to see you kids give the prose a good once-over!

Hugs and kisses from our very own Geuiwogbil (Talk) 05:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

llywrch comments

A couple of points:

• First, I have a serious problem with the comment towards the beginning, "In the first two centuries of its existence, Christianity and its practitioners were loathed by the people at large." I feel the word "loathing" oversimplifies a very complex & imperfectly understood situation. Yes, one can find numerous examples of attacks on early Christians during those years, but there is also evidence that individuals converted & apostated without suffering any especial prejudice -- or hostility. Also, an objective reading of the acta of the early martyrs (for example, the Scillitan Martyrs) results in surprise, on the one hand, of how far the authorities went to permit the accused to avoid being punished, while, on the other, the accused went to secure their own executions. About the only contemporary source for the general public's dislike of Christians is Tertullian -- who frequently employed the rhetorical tropes of sarcasm & hyperbole in his work -- who cannot be completely trusted. Lastly, "loathing" implies that Christians were subjected to worse treatment than Jews & African-Americans in living memory -- routine discrimination, mob violence & lynching -- which would have snuffed out this religion long before the end of the second century. A better -- & easily justifiable -- word would be "mistrusted" or "unpopular". Either word would be understandable when one considers the general population's reaction to a new religion practiced by people who are usually strangers.
  • Replaced with "unpopular". Geuiwogbil (Talk) 19:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
• In the "Legacy" section, there is no mention of Donatism; it is buried in the section about North Africa in "Regional Variations". Donatism, the belief that the traditores could not be restored to communion by forgiveness, but needed to be rebaptized, IIRC, was not limited to North Africa but has been attested elsewhere in the Empire (in particular, Egypt); it is just that in North Africa it took firm root. Further, & most importantly, its presence there fueled the irreconcilable internal conflict which weakened the local Imperial authority -- & led to the Vandals successfully gaining control of the province. These factors are greatly played down by not discussing them in the "Legacy" section.
  • Ah! I'm so embarrassed that I forgot to put that there! I'm not sure the material I added meets your needs; I neglect to mention the geopolitical effects of the Donatist schism, as you do. I can put that on my "to do" list if you'd like. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 19:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Hope these comments help. -- llywrch (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC) (responding) The addition looks good. If you can insert more detail on the geopolitical effects without disrupting the flow of the article, that'd be good. And there's no need to be apologetic about mistakes: this is a subject with lots of primary & secondary literature, & its easy to miss some details. While looking at the footnotes, I did find two new things to pick at:

• At note 233, you make a citation to Mommsen's Chronica Minora, but do not provide more detailed information in the primary source section. (Since it's an edition of a text, although it's the work of a someone removed from the event it is properly considered a primary source.) Looking at the context, however, I think the best solution would be to drop this citation. You are providing a source for John Curran's opinion here; the text he is commenting on is not relevant, & citing Chronica Minora only confuses the reader. (Besides, I would expect Curran has a citation to this source, so the interested reader will look there for it.)
  • Done. I do like to cite the works that historians are relying on, especially when they're making explicit reference to textual details. I think, though, that in this case I modified Curran's citation because Barnes, in his review of Curran's book, noted that Curran's citation here was inaccurate. Given the dispute, cutting the citation is probably for the best. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 17:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
• A similar issue is at notes 223 & 226 above it: you cite Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, but do not provide bibliographical information about this massive tome (IIRC, it is a series of volumes, & still being worked on). In one case, you mention it only because Barnes translates the relevant inscription. I'm not entirely confident how to handle this, so you should either consult a standard style book (like the The MLA Style Manual), or ask at WP:MoS & see if you can get a response from one of the more sensible people there. (Although based on my recent experience with the regulars there, I'd consult the printed style guides first, & only ask there as a last resort.) -- llywrch (talk) 17:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I'll probably supply bibliographic information for this set instead of removing the citations. It shouldn't be too difficult to get the details on the single volume we're using. I'll check the CMoS on citation style. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 18:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)