Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Christianity/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

History of Christianity

edit

History of Christianity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As of 20 December 2024, 06:20 (UTC), this page is active and open for discussion. An FAC coordinator will be responsible for closing the nomination.
Toolbox
Nominator(s): Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the history of Christianity. Every section has been revised. "Those who dare to engage in work that is broad-ranging enough to be categorized, perhaps, as world history, do so with fear that their work may be castigated for lacking specialist knowledge or be lampooned as a random collection of trivial generalizations." (Hyun Jin Kim, The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe, page 2) I willingly face these fears, again, because every criticism received improves an article that is of utmost importance and should be among Wikipedia's best. Please help. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airship

edit

Holy mother of MOS:OVERSECTION! 109 section headings for the prose is a bit much, my friend. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see what you're saying, but I am wondering if it's avoidable. Is there another article on Wikipedia covering 2000 years of history of much of the world impacting art, culture, economics, politics and religion that I could read to get a better idea of how to cut that down? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~ AirshipJungleman29 The Cambridge History has 274 sections. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Cambridge History also has something like three million words, according to a back-of-the-envelope calculation, not thirteen thousand. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, and I think I read them all. Boiling down 3 million to 14,000 involved leaving a lot out completely, covering some things inadequately, and still ending up with a very long article. Two commenters below are negative because they think there should be more content. Can you think of a way to summarize 3 million words - that the authors say still isn't everything - that doesn't end up as long as this one? I am happy to cut whatever you suggest. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
History of philosophy might be a useful comparison. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the recommendation. It's an excellent article with a little under 12,000 words and a third of the sections this one has, but it only covers one topic. This article has many connected topics. I entirely left out most philosophy and theology so I could include some discussion of the intersection with politics, economics, art, and culture that seemed like turning points in history. What more should be left out? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~ AirshipJungleman29 I am struggling with this. I tried to focus on main points and leave out extraneous detail, but there are just so frigging many main points! I didn't expect this to pass again, but I am here to get the kind of quality help that can get it passed eventually. It's already been peer-reviewed twice, and GA-reviewed, and FA reviewed before as well. I am trying to incorporate everything everyone says, including you, but I am really struggling to make it shorter. Help. Please help. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A while ago, I gave an analysis of a problematic section and how to reduce it to focus on the main points. You seem to have taken the opposite approach; there is now probably more content on polytheism than there was before. It sounds quite obvious, but this is not very helpful.

I have some time tonight, so let's go through a few sections and see what you can work on. Starting from the beginning.

  • "Early Christianity begins" three words into the prose and there are already two problems. Why is "Early Christianity" bolded? The comment points to WP:R#PLA, but that is nonsensical. People searching "Early Christianity" will go to the article Early Christianity. ???? Then, why are we in the present tense? These are basic errors that we really shouldn't have to go through at FAC, and mean that reviewers won't even bother to address more complex issues.
  • "Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure." If there's a historical consensus, you don't have to state it. What's wrong with "Jesus was a historical figure"? You can combine it with another sentence if you think it's short.
  • Though if you combine it, it shouldn't be with any of "His crucifixion is well attested. He was a complex figure, whom many see as a sage, a holy man, a prophet, a seer, or a visionary" because there isn't much need for either of these sentences in their current form. If you keep one, it should be the first, but you could simply say "Jesus and his crucifixion are historically attested."
  • "Jesus saw his identity and mission, and that of his followers, in light of the coming kingdom of God and the prophetic tradition of Israel" this sounds good and academic but what does it actually mean? It links "Jesus", "identity and mission", "followers", "kingdom of God", and "prophetic tradition of Israel" without really saying anything about any of them.
    • It does! It is connected to the previous sentence. Jesus has been reinterpreted as a sage, etc, instead of a messiah, for about 200 years now. It is only right to acknowledge all the views with the last one the most current. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I took it out anyway. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His followers believed he was the Son of God, the Christ, a title in Greek for the Hebrew term mashiach (Messiah) meaning 'the anointed one', who had been raised from the dead and exalted by God." aaaaarrgh! we have no time to wander about with etymologies and the like! stay on topic! What did his followers believe? He was the Son of God/Christ who was raised from the dead and ... the uneducated reader is wondering what the hell "exalted by God" means. Find a way to explain it simply in five words or less.
  • "As Frances Young has written, "The incarnation is what turns Jesus into the foundation of Christianity"." Really? That's great! Now, what the hell is an incarnation when it's at home?
  • "The Christian church established these as its founding doctrines, with baptism and the celebration of the Eucharist meal (Jesus's Last Supper) as its two primary rituals." Notwithstanding that we're not really sure what "these" means (see last couple of points), this is a good sentence. The mention of the Last Supper does however remind you that the events of his life have received no more than a vague handwave. If we scroll down we find that Constantine's activities are described in greater detail than Jesus's.
    • Yes, but that's on purpose. One of the ongoing controversies is over whether or not Jesus intended to start a new church. Since this is a history of that church, that means Jesus himself is almost a nominal figure. Worshipping Him may be seen as central, but what he did or said isn't central to the aftermath. I would really rather not go down the theological rabbit-hole of more about Jesus. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Christianity initially emerged in the Roman province of Judea during the first-century" why? see absence of details on Jesus's activities.
  • "It was both impacted by and impacted the geographical, cultural and socio-economic context in which it first developed" This is the case with nearly everything in human history.
  • "In the Roman Empire around the ancient Mediterranean, elites (2–5 % of the population) controlled the means of economic production, had a virtual monopoly on literacy, and most of the political power. Life for peasants was not easy, and hunger was common. 'Religion' in this context did not exist separately from politics or the family household. Very interesting context, as you would expect from a chapter on "The Mediterranean Context of Early Christianity". Can you guess what I'm going to say next?
  • The following paragraph ... I mean, where to start, Jen. You have 127 words with four citations at the end, WP:V through the floor.
    You throw in a host of ecclesiastical words that you haven't come close to introducing meaningfully. Reminder, this is a broad-context article. You should be writing WP:ONEDOWN—in this case for primary school level. I have no clue what "Any liturgical role would still have been linked to the substantial character of the eucharistic meal" is supposed to mean!
    Some sentences are quite far away from yielding anything even vaguely in the realm of explanation ("The owner of the house was patron and host. Voluntary associations known as collegia served as a model." What does patron and host mean? What's a "voluntary association"/collegia? How is it a model for the owner of the house?)

I'm not going to oppose, because this nomination is not going to pass, but I'm sorry to say that this honestly seems worse than the last time I saw it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • You're right of course. I fall into jargon too easily. I will work on simplifying it. I know it isn't going to pass, but comments like yours really do help. You are wonderful and I am grateful and glad to know you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe

edit

While the work that's gone into the article is commendable, I don't feel like most of my concerns from the last FAC were addressed in a satisfactory way. For example:

  • "Global religion" that I queried turns out to be direct quote, so thanks for following the source, but I'm still wondering whether it's one person's opinion or a widely held view (or do other scholars use this terminology at all?)
  • The "Challenges" section is untenable, because it rests on an implicit POV of what Christianity is and what challenges it. For example, most Pentecostals would probably disagree that they are outside the Christian mainstream or a "challenge" to christianity. I think this section has to be fundamentally rethought of and split apart with any information to be kept split out to other areas just generally talking about developments.
  • Prose needs work—too many quotations in some areas, I found a few grammar errors elsewhere. (t · c) buidhe 03:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry buidhe, I did think I had addressed your concerns in this last rewrite.
    • Scholars do use the term "Global": Daughrity, Dyron B. The changing world of Christianity: the global history of a borderless religion. Peter Lang, 2010 and Jenkins, Philip. "The next Christendom: The coming of global Christianity." Religious Educator: Perspectives on the Restored Gospel 8.3 (2007): 28 and Mortensen, Viggo. "What is happening to global Christianity?." Dialog 43.1 (2004): 20-27 are a few examples.
    • Pentecostals do not disagree that they are outside the Christian mainstream. They always have been, have always seen themselves that way, and tend to think of themselves as challenging the establishment accordingly. This article by a Pentecostal refers to Pentecostalism as being on the "extreme periphery": Foster, William D. "Leadership from the extreme periphery to the mainstream? A reflection on the critical journey and how traditioning might offer a Pentecostal denomination a rediscovery of ancient paths." Journal of Pentecostal and Charismatic Christianity (2024): 1-25 In this article: Freeman, Dena. "The Pentecostal ethic and the spirit of development." Pentecostalism and development: Churches, NGOs and social change in Africa. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2012. 1-38 Pentecostalism is compared with mainstream Christianity with the claim that it challenges traditional power structures better than mainstream Christianity. They are indeed on the edge, and at the forefront, and their theology presents some powerful challenges to the traditional Reformation views found in most mainstream denominations: Gelpi, Donald L. "The theological challenge of charismatic spirituality." Pneuma 14.1 (1992): 185-197.
    • The section can easily be changed to developments if you prefer, but that heading will apply to almost everything, which would seem to add to confusion in my mind.
    • Please point out any grammar errors. I have been using Grammerly throughout, in addition to my "Brief English Handbook". This is written in British English rather than American - could that be the problem? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:59, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Johnbod

edit
  • I can't see myself reviewing all 293,778 bytes! It's faaarrr too long. Would a split before the Reformation help?
  • Inevitably, with a subject this large, much of the coverage is pretty skimpy, but the section on "Art" in "Early Middle Ages (476–842)" is downright rubbish. The first of the two paras is:
Dedicated monks merged the Germanic practice of painting small objects and the classical tradition of fine metalwork to create "illuminated" psalters, collections of the Psalms, the gospels, and copies of the Bible. First using geometric designs, foliage, mythical animals, and biblical characters, the illustrations became more realistic in the Carolingian Renaissance.[1]
- yes, no links at all, where there should be several.
"the Germanic practice of painting small objects and the classical tradition of fine metalwork" is completely the wrong way round. It should say something like: "illuminated manuscripts merged Late Antique traditions of book illustration with Germanic and Celtic decorative styles expressed in metalwork, and no doubt more perishable media." The rest of it isn't good either. The sequence of illuminated books produced developed from Gospel Books (early) through psalters, Bibles (mostly Romanesque), then books of hours (C14th on). In the period the section says it covers it was nearly all gospel books. The reference is very unspecialized too.
  1. ^ Matthews & Platt 1998, pp. 202–203.
Fixed. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The next para is about Byzantine iconoclasm, but fails to link to our long article on exactly that. When the coverage is necessarily very brief, it is especially important to use links to our more detailed articles.
  • In the same section, do we have much evidence of liturgical plays this early?
  • The para on the Investiture Controversy also doesn't link to that very full article (nor use that standard term).
  • You say "The cult of chivalry evolved between the thirteenth and fifteenth centuries and ... Our article, more conventionally, begins "Chivalry, or the chivalric language, is an informal and varying code of conduct developed in Europe between 1170 and 1220..." By the 15th century it was hanging on in some courts, but arguably not a strong force.
  • The pictures are rather odd. Too many Victorian illustrations, and many in odd locations compared to the chronology.
  • There's a section called "Late Antique art and literature (c.350-500)" but it actually has nothing on what was arguably the formative period of Christian art, nor links to our articles. Just a bit on the pagan revival.
  • In all these arts areas, links to articles on specific works, in which Wikipedia is very rich, help to diffuse the vague fog of generalizations hanging around the article.
  • I think a lot of further work is needed. Johnbod (talk) 04:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Johnbod I am really interested in your comments. It isn't necessary for every commenter to read everything. You're fine.
      • On illumination, I changed it - loosely - to what you said, but I need a citation for it. I have rechecked a half dozen sources and can find support for the adoption of classical styles early, but not the rest of what you said. Do you have a source?
    Just about any specialized source will say this, but I'll pull out a couple for you. Johnbod (talk) 17:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fixed.
      • Van Engen speaks of mystery plays being used before the Carolingian era on page 549 here: [1]
      • Fixed.
      • The latter date of 1220 is the thirteenth century, and our article says it lasted into the fifteenth century with a revival in the fourteenth, so the statement is not incorrect. It can be more exact if you prefer.
      • Images are certainly movable and removable. Which ones don't you like?
      • Late Antique Art & Lit has five paragraphs. What would you like to see added? People here are already complaining about this article's length.
    Including me. I don't think it has a chance of being FA without drastic shortening, and a split must be the best route. Johnbod (talk) 09:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Raising the question of why it hasn't been done already, when it is part of the FA criteria? The fact that you wrote paras on illuminated manuscripts, the Investiture Controversy and Byzantine iconoclasm without linking to any of them suggests to me you aren't very familiar with WP's extensive medieval content, in which case adding links properly will be a lot of work. Johnbod (talk) 09:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right, I am not familiar with WP's medieval content. This is such an extensive topic that I am not an expert in all its aspects. I am here at least partly because I need collaboration from someone who is. Your comments have already helped, so thank you.
    There were extensive links in every section, and peer review objected and removed them because there were so many in the "See Also" section. I can put back whatever you suggest. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added links to each art section. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am adding back all main links, but it's 2 in the morning and I have to get up at 7 so I will finish tomorrow. Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Main article and see also links have been added back. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Johnbod I know it's long. What kind of split would you recommend? It would leave Wikipedia with no parent article on this topic. Would that be a good thing? I will cooperate if that's the consensus. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said at the top ("Would a split before the Reformation help?") the start of the Reformation would seem to be the obvious place. Otherwise you would have to follow User:Biz below, & condense what you have here by probably at least 50%. I don't agree with this, and can't imagine such a further condensed version would pass FAC. The article is already at or beyond the maximum level of summary to meet the "comprehensive" criterion imo. You could perhaps split it 3 or more ways. In fact there is already Christianity in the modern era (terrible title, not the original one) which "concerns the Christian religion from the beginning of the 15th century to the end of World War II", and Christianity in the Middle Ages ("from the fall of the Western Roman Empire (c. 476)" to 1500). It's arguable this here is a WP:FORK of them, though I think the authorship is very different. Both have pretty different coverage to here! Johnbod (talk) 17:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Johnbod I added two sentences to Late Antique art. Does that work? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF

edit

Some stray thoughts here, rather than a comprehensive view

  • "By the eighteenth-century, the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), followed by Methodists, Presbyterians and Baptists, began to campaign, write, and spread pamphlets against the trade and slavery itself" - I think the claim needs to be softened here as there was substantial opposition to abolitionism in some of these denominations, see for instance the Southern Baptists and the Methodist Episcopal Church, South
  • I find it very hard to believe that seven sentences regarding the Native American boarding schools is due weight for this topic when discussing the history of Christianity as a whole
  • "By 2025, Pentecostals are expected to constitute one-third of the nearly three billion Christians worldwide making it the largest branch of Protestantism and the fastest-growing religious movement in global Christianity" - I'm not a fan of the sourcing here - the sources are from 2006 and 2014. Surely there are better numbers regarding
  • Why is Pentecostalism discussed in a challenges section, alongside authoritarian persecution and secularization?

I don't think this article is quite there yet; the last several hundred years of history in here feels much more like a collection of assorted facts in an almost WP:PROSELINE feel, compounded by the use of tiny sections. Hog Farm Talk 16:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm Thank you so much for this.
  • Fixed, I hope.
  • It is one of the topics that is no doubt inadequately covered. However, I considered leaving it out entirely. It was a Federal program, not a specifically Christian one, and could, therefore, be seen as peripheral to Christian History. I am waffling on this one. What do you suggest?
  • I'll look.
  • Pentecostalism is a challenge to traditional mainstream reformation-based Christianity in both its theology and practices, particularly in the development of the Prosperity gospel.
  • I don't disagree. What sections do you think should be combined? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd leave out the Native American boarding schools material entirely. In the vast sweep of all of the history of Christianity, this isn't really a factor at all. It's certain excessive weight to give it the current amount of coverage, and I really don't think this is significant to the history of Christianity as a whole. Hog Farm Talk 19:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Thank you, that is extremely helpful. I didn't expect this to pass again, but I was hoping for the kind of quality input I am getting here that would help it get there eventually. Thank you, thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wouldn't the information about Pentecostals seem to belong better in the Diversity and Commonality section? That section is more about various differing views within the Church, as is Pentecostalism, while the challenges section is focused on external pressures on the Church. The current grouping can be read to almost exclude Pentecostalism from Christendom. Hog Farm Talk 19:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, sure. Done. Thank you again! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not having any luck so far finding more recent numbers for Pentecostals. I'm still looking. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Biz feedback

edit

I think the editor proposing this article has done a great job. That said, I don't think a satisfactory review can be achieved unless someone validates the sources as that's where the real issues that matter come out. Absent of doing that and of the topics I know well, I think there is a lot of detail that could be condensed without losing the overall narrative. In the spirit of giving actionable feedback, here are some initial thoughts to help improve the article.

  1. length: it's 13,790 readable prose size. Getting it down 3k words puts this at best in class standard. I think this is achievable.
    • Biz Thank you so much for taking the time and showing up here. Cutting this that much is not something I know how to do. If you do, please do so. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)\[reply]
      • The two sections between 313 and 842 consists of 4, 569 words and could be one section. One idea is making Christianity as the Roman state religion as the main article, which could collapse 1/2-2/3 of these many headings as well. There is no need to distinguish Byzantium's Christian history as different until Western Europe forms, so it could be "Roman state" and "other" for that time period.
      • As I've said, to do a proper review, the sources need to be read and this is not something I have capacity to do now. You just need someone detached from the content to reduce, and if's not another editor, an LLM is perfectly suited for use cases like this to help inspire. As this is meant to be a broad narrative you don't need to explain things and can just link. By making the content more dense with a simpler narrative, you make the history more accessible. Word count and number of sources per sentence are a good way to measure your progress on this. Biz (talk) 19:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Polytheism: I don't think this section is needed for this article. Bits of it can be used but it should be 1-2 sentences. It comes across as justifying Christianity and that is not needed.
    • I followed the Cambridge History of Christianity to identify major topics for each era and polytheism is necessary in this time period. This represents a big shift in scholarship as well and leaving it out would be problematic. That said, much of it can be moved to a note, but it's too central to be omitted entirely. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Theodosian Law Code: as above, not relevant to this topic. At least in the way it's written.
  4. A lot of sentences are single-sourced, which reflects how this article could be condensed further. There are a lot of facts being shared that could be summarised into a theme that ultimately communicate one idea per paragraph. While there is nothing wrong with single source sentences, we want FA's to have more than one source to show strong evidence. Doing this also acts as a filter of what to include (ie, if only one source covers it, is it really necessary?)
    • Multiple sources isn't actually an FA requirement. If you could give me an example of what you mean about one idea per paragraph, (which I think is there), maybe I could figure out how to make this more concise.Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For example, this paragraph:
    The New Testament canon was eventually settled based on common usage. By the fourth-century, unanimity was reached in the Latin Church on which texts should be included. A list of accepted books was established by the Council of Rome in 382, followed by those of Hippo in 393 and Carthage in 397. For Christians, these became the New Testament, and the Hebrew Scriptures became the Old Testament. By the fifth-century, the Eastern Churches, with a few exceptions, had come to accept the Book of Revelation—and thus had come into harmony with the canon
    Without reading the sources, this could be said with a lot less words. This detail belongs in other articles, like New Testament. By writing it like this: Over a period of two centuries during the 4-5th centuries, the New Testament canon was eventually settled.
    ...you still communicate the essential point for the narrative and can also remove a heading. By including all those sources, a reader can find out the detail and by linking to other articles they can also read detail as well but for the person wanting a general narrative that's all that matters. The call out of Latin church is also not appropriate, as at that time it was all considered the one church, so avoiding the detail eliminates NPOV issues like this.
    Now this is not answering your request of one idea per paragraph -- rather, it's one paragraph reduced to one sentence. But with a paragraph, let's say it's 3+ sentences. There needs to be a sentence that communicates the core idea ("New Testament was settled"). There can be 1 or more sentences which expand on the idea. In this case, I don't think you need more but you could expand on the point about how old testment and new became a point of difference with Judaism which supports the main point. Finally, there needs to be a sentence which links to the next paragraph. In this case, the first sentence of the next paragraph or similar like "Despite this collaboration between the churches, differences starting emerging". With those three sentences, you communicate a core idea of Christianity and let different topics flow in this case the churches worked together on things and then they didn't, a major sub-narrative of this entire article.
    Here's an example replacement:
    Over two centuries in the 4th and 5th centuries, the New Testament canon was settled, formalising Christian scripture. This process distinguished Christian texts from the Hebrew Scriptures, which became known as the Old Testament. However, despite cooperation among churches, differences began to emerge.
    Doing this reduces words (91 to 50), reduces headings (two: New Testament Canon + East and West), captures the subtleties without explicitly sayiing it (ie, differences with the Book of Revelation, debates with the churches) and creates more flow. Biz (talk) 00:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The article employs both a time-narrative and theme-narrative which I like. But there are some themes that span periods and might be better to put them as their own section as they are disjointed (ie, east and west has a complex history the first 1000 years). I'm sure there are other themes as large as this but it would changing the article so the history has a lighter and more general narrative (with many less sections) and more specific narratives on major issues that span multiple eras.
    • I tried organizing by theme, but there is almost no continuity from one era to the next. What could be followed from one era to the next - missions, Papal development, interactions with the state, the Eastern churches - are about it, and they are there in their time frame. Uf you think taking them out would shorten anything, I can try it, but that's a major rewrite and an unusual approach to history. I did originally have a separate section on the East, but that left the rest of the article so heavily western that I just didn't like it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I think the high level time periods could be Jesus to Dicoletian; Constantine to Pope Gregory I or Charlamagne which denotes the start of western Christianity. Run two parallel histories of west and east until Martin Luther where protestantism gets added as a third theme.
  7. This is more a reflection of the scholarship but the article is narrated as western Christianity's history, and in the second millennia, protestant history. It certainly make a solid attempt to give balanced coverage (and the lead does that well), but it comes across as token but more could be done. For example For Eastern Orthodox church leaders, the French Revolution meant Enlightenment ideas were too dangerous to embrace could be expanded. More could be written about the Rum Millet, where the Orthodox church was forced to operate under for 500 years. The Russian effort in freeing Orthodox Christians under Ottoman control, the Greek enlightenment rejecting the church (and the conflict itself), and the eventual Greek revolution that threw off the Ottoman porte. There is no mention of the Crimean war which started due to a dispute over a church in the Holy Land and had the East and West battle, a modern culmination of the east and west divide. There is no mention of palamism, a major feature with Orthodoxy and which was gradually adopted over several centuries. The evolution and development of Orthodox churches that run independently in each nation, and related the recent schism within the Orthodox Church due to Ukraine and Russia's conflicts with the west. The attempts at ecumenism with Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Going back my point about themes, this is like a history within the history and Eastern Christianity deserves its own section, especially after 1453 where it runs independently.
    • There is less source material on the East. This asks for more, and more can always be said, but cutting down content at the same time is not something I am good at. Palamism is not mentioned because no theology is mentioned, just as no philosophy is mentioned. It's an omission Ii agree. The Crimean war could be added, but then so could some others. Adding. Not subtracting. Argh. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I think more could be done covering the western church's cannon and its development, which led to its major contribution to modern legal systems
  9. Some of the sources are not of a quality that I think are FA level. For example, Kolbana who writes in the Cambridge history is excellent, but Lorenzetti who wrote a good history of the Filioque on study.com is not at the same standard and degrades the status the article could have
    • This is true. Lorenzetti is not at the same level as Kolbaba. But she is one of three references on one sentence, and the other two are Kolbaba and Meyendorff, so does it really matter? Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have disagreed with much of this, but I don't want you to think I'm ungrateful. This isn't going to succeed no matter what I do here, but I was hoping for some substantive criticism, and you tried to do just that for me, and I thank you. And if you can help make it shorter, please do! I am not good at that. Thanx again for showing up for me. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Biz (talk) 09:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Borsoka: oppose

edit
  • When reading the article my main concern was, that it is not a coherent text, but a collection of small articles without any visible connection between them, each bearing a section title. For instance, section "Early Christian art" refers to early church fathers without any reference to them in previous sections, section "Augustine and the Jews (395–398)" refers to Augustine's rejection of violence against Jews although in previous sections we are informed about Jesus's and his disciplines' Jewish background, the spread of Christianity in the Jewish diaspora, etc.
    • Borsoka I always appreciate your comments. Thank you. That doesn't mean I always understand them. If I understand correctly, you are saying there is too little explanation, but adding more content doesn't seem like a viable choice here, so how about if I change fathers to leaders? It means the same thing and doesn't require explaining. As for Augustine, I hoped the opening sentence - Jews and Christians were both religious minorities, claiming the same inheritance, competing in a direct and sometimes violent clash. was adequate to set the stage. What do you say? A single coherent narrative isn't really possible. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • You obviously do not understand what I mean: there is no explanation for the rift between the two religions.
  • The article should be primarily based on general works about the universal history of Christianity. Instead, the article is verified by dozens (nearly a hundred) works on specific aspects of Christian history, theology, etc. This approach indicates me that the nominator is struggling to present their own interpretation of the history of Christianity.
    • This seems both unfair and inaccurate. These are the general histories I used: I referenced The Cambridge History of Christianity 45 times, and The Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity 6 times, the Early Christian World 12 times, both volumes, which I actually bought. I used The Oxford Encyclopedia of African Thought, A History of Spain, The History of the Renaissance World: From the Rediscovery of Aristotle to the Conquest of Constantinople, The Cambridge History of the Bible, A Concise History of the Catholic Church, The Cambridge Ancient History XIII: The Late Empire, A.D. 337–425., The rise of Western Christendom: triumph and diversity, A.D. 200–1000 (Third, revised ed.), History of the Later Roman Empire. Vol. 2: From the Death of Theodosius I to the Death of Justinian , The Mediterranean world in late Antiquity: AD 395–700. , Byzantine Christianity: A Very Brief History, The Early Christian Church. Vol. 1, The Northern Crusades, Handbook of Global Contemporary Christianity, The Cambridge History of Judaism, Volume 2: The Hellenistic Age., A History of Medieval Heresy and Inquisition, A Short Introduction to the History of Christianity, A History of Orthodox, Islamic, and Western Christian Political Values., The Encyclopedia of Christianity. Vol. 3., History of Religions, The Oxford Illustrated History of the Crusades, The Story of Christianity, Christianity in Ancient Rome: The First Three Centuries, A History of Byzantium (2nd ed.), Introducing Early Christianity: A Topical Survey of Its Life, Beliefs Practices, Christian Community in History. Vol. 1, Byzantium and the Crusades., The Oxford Companion to Christian Thought, The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians (Repr. ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Roman Law, A History of Christianity in Africa: From antiquity to the present, The Lost History of Christianity: The Thousand-Year Golden Age of the Church in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia — and How It Died., The Later Middle Ages, Medieval Civilization 400–1500, The Oxford Handbook of Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe and Colonial America, A History of the Church in the Middle Ages , The Reformation: A History, A History of Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years, The Routledge Companion to the Christian Church, Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes , The Oxford Handbook of Social Relations in the Roman World, Europe in the High Middle Ages 1150–1300 (3rd ed.), The Blackwell Companion to Eastern Christianity, A Short History of the Middle Ages. Vol. 1, The Wiley Blackwell Companion to World Christianity, History of the Christian Church, The Penguin History of the Church: Western Society and the Church in the Middle Ages (Repr. ed.), The Routledge Handbook of East, Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 500–1300, History of the Middle Ages 300–1500. , A Short History of the Papacy in the Middle Ages (2nd ed.), Handbook of European History 1400-1600: Late Middle Ages, Renaissance and Reformation, The New Cambridge Medieval History. Vol. 5, c.1198–c.1300, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament, The Routledge History of Medieval Christianity: 1050–1500 (Illustrated ed.), and finally The First Thousand Years: A Global History of Christianity. I used journal articles for specifics, to be sure of the latest scholarship, and to supplement these general histories. For you to say This approach indicates me that the nominator is struggling to present their own interpretation of the history of Christianity. is just wrong - and unkind.Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • For me, your list verifies my statement. The article is not based primarily on books specialised on the universal history of Christianity.
  • Quite obviously debatable statements abound in the article: "In 397, Saint Ninian brought Christianity to Scotland.", a reference to the Christianisation of Romania in the early 11th century.
  • No, I am not.
  • As during my last review, I suggest that the nominator should edit articles on shorter periods, before returning to this article. Borsoka (talk) 03:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • You and others did, but I don't really care about tucking multiple FA's under my belt. I care about this article. This article matters. I didn't realize how significant this topic was until I started reading the hundred histories listed above, but now I do know. This is one of the most important articles on history on Wikipedia, and everyone should be doing all they can to help improve it imo. We should be helping each other instead of making baseless accusations. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you whenever want to achieve this article's promotion you need to understand the details of the history of Christianity. We are all here to improve WP. That is why I do not edit articles about bridges, football teams, flowers, Buddhism, volcanoes, etc. Borsoka (talk) 05:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/History_of_Christianity/archive2&oldid=1264062184"