Talk:Christianization of the Roman Empire as diffusion of innovation

Impression
The first thing I'm reminded of when reading this draft is dominionist apologetics (reconstructionism): free market fundamentalism married with supersessionism, claims that if Christanity grew it was necessarily because it was better than other ideologies or perhaps holier and blessed, etc. With a minimization of the political and historical implications (like the concentration of power, the rejection of other theologies and deities, the practice of iconoclasm, enforcement of the regime, etc.) I saw such aguments rising from the 70s Christian Right that hopes to implement modern theocracies and also claims that the US was founded as a Christian state (revisionism of the constitution). I'm not suggesting that this is necessarily the intention of the author. But there are some sources about this ideology, it would be possible to put these concepts in context with such, perhaps. — Paleo Neonate  – 01:49, 20 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I am getting pretty sick and tired of being accused of bias by people whose own belief bias fails to be held in check. If you can find a place where the article makes any such comparison or qualitative evaluation, please locate that for me. If there is anything factually incorrect in this article, please locate that for me as well - and bring a current source that shows that. Otherwise, please do not come here making vague, false allegations about craziness like the Christian Right. This article reflects current scholarship. It isn't my fault that undermines what went before or that you don't like it. My advice is adapt - and stop taking it out on me. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:25, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "claims that the US was founded as a Christian state" I do not see how the Christianization of the United States is particularly relevant here. Do you have suggestions on improvements? Dimadick (talk) 05:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Dimadick There is no claim anywhere in the article that the US was founded as a Christian state. What do you think needs to be done about something that isn't there? Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "the practice of iconoclasm, enforcement of the regime, etc.) I saw such aguments rising from the 70s Christian Right that hopes to implement modern theocracies and also claims that the US was founded as a Christian state (revisionism of the constitution)."
 * These are not even in the article? Cactus Ronin (talk) 14:52, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 22 May 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Procedural close / no support for this move (t · c)  buidhe  03:29, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Christianization of the Roman Empire as diffusion of innovation → Christianization of the Roman Empire – As this article was intended to replace the other one, there is no need for the other words in the title, per WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE. (t · c)  buidhe  05:37, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment. Not sure this article should exist. Reads like an argumentative essay and thoroughly OR.  Is this someone's high school paper? Walrasiad (talk) 06:32, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Im not surprised if there are OR issues. Redirect to Christianization of the Roman Empire and restore the content of that article is also an option. (t · c)  buidhe  09:15, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * * Ouch!  buidhe  I believe everything here is an accurate paraphrase or a direct quote. It is all well referenced and thoroughly researched. If there is any OR that I am blind to, please help identify that. I don't think there is, but I am not claiming to be perfect. If the original article is restored, it still needs extensive editing and a link to this one as a sub-topic. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:35, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Merge the article instead. Super   Ψ   Dro  09:41, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Whether this article constitutes original research or merely a summary of one school of scholarly investigation, it's focused on a particular point of view—not the process as a whole.  The proposed move would simply replace the general topic with that point of view, and I can see no circumstance under which that would be appropriate.  The main topic needs to include all mainstream views, including those that may once have been widely held, but are no longer (and in many cases, which views are widely held, or obsolete, itself depends on one's point of view).  It shouldn't be arguing for or against a particular view; that's the purpose of subtopics, like this one.  As for the idea of merger, it may be appropriate to merge some material from one article to the other, but first impressions suggest that this article is much too substantial to be covered thoroughly as a subsection of the main one.  If there are potential issues with NPOV or OR, that's a strong argument against the proposed move.  P Aculeius (talk) 13:14, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * But it is not even summarizing a school of thought. It doesn't present the works of the scholars themselves. The tone is entirely argumentative, setting out a particular thesis, and gathering only the evidence that supports it. There's no discussion of the school, or criticisms of it. This is not an encyclopedic article, it seems like someone just uploaded their research paper. Walrasiad (talk) 14:11, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I only skimmed the article to see whether it would be logical to move it to the main topic—which it clearly wouldn't. You raise some important issues, but how an article deals with its subject is really separate from a move discussion.  The proposal is essentially to replace the main topic with the contents of this one.  If this article has major problems with PoV, or isn't encyclopedic—and that could be a high threshold to prove, since the article could presumably be improved by doing what you suggest, presenting the works of the scholars and discussing the concept's reception in scholarly circles, along with any criticisms—that's just more of a reason not to move it to the title of the main topic.  P Aculeius (talk) 22:20, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment –
 * Super This article cannot be merged as it is a rewrite of the original CRE and therefore duplicates much of what was in it. That original article was the result of another merger, and was very long. As this one is also quite long, a merger would immediately be required to be split. However, as the original article is the one that includes alternative views, if you can see a way to merge these without ending up at splitting them again, I will help with that.
 * Walrasiad The original CRE contained a full discussion of . It was quick-failed at GAN because of it.
 * P Aculeius is absolutely correct in all they say imo. This article is
 * I also agree that It took up half of the original article. It needs to stand alone. In my view, its current title reflects that it is a sub-topic that presents the one school of thought named.
 * Walrasiad The first part of your comment is incorrect, yet you may still be right.  That's true I think, but there does seem to be a good reason. Critical discussion of all the schools of thought would need to be in an article on the sociology itself, but such a discussion would be too much in an article focused more on one application. This is an article on the Christianization of the Roman empire, not the sociology itself, which is why  buidhe  wants to change the title so that's clearer.

It is is in vogue for experts in multiple fields to work together and reference each other – at least in this area of history. Historians and anthropologists are all referencing network theory, and sociology is at the top of the heap right now. There are only two other approaches currently being used - one is disease theory - and they are minority views.


 * Walrasiad again, you may be right. When presenting a single school of thought, is there a way to avoid that? I am open to suggestions. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:18, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * A general article about history does have to present all views according to equal weight. An article about a single school of historiography, well, has to be about historiography or else it's arguing a particular viewpoint, which isn't allowed. (t · c)  buidhe  17:27, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


 *  buidhe  How are you defining historiography? In my understanding, historiography is interpretation of history from any perspective, so in your understanding, does that include this one? Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


 * * Super  Another alternative, I suppose, would be to leave both articles - with some extensive editing on the first more general article so it covers only the overview of all the various approaches and none of what's covered here - with a link to this one as a sub-topic. What about that idea? Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:24, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * * I agree with Walrasiad that an overview article should include all schools of thought with some discussion of each. This is not that. But an overview article is needed, a sub-topic shouldn't be alone. The original article tried to do and be both things, and that just didn't work. So I am going back and doing the overhaul of the original article to include all the modern approaches and less on sociology alone. I invite your participation. With that in mind, I feel strongly that this one should be left titled as it is, because it is simply a subtopic on just one of those approaches.Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment, @Jenhawk777 You say that you are "presenting a single school of thought", but this is not what you have done. You wrote about a subject by using only one side of the academic debate. The current article reads as if all its contents were an accurate representation of the academic knowledge on the subject, nowhere you actually tell about this particular school. The article therefore looks terribly one-sided; hence why some people have had an issue with it.
 * If you want to write about the "diffusion of innovation" school, you have to write about the actual "school" and the people behind it, eg. its scholars, the history of the school, the major works, its chronology, etc. Then you write about their methodology and conclusions. This way, you don't have to retell the entire history of the Christianisation of the Roman Empire, because it's quite long. Then, you can write a last part on the reception by other academics (did it become majority view? minority? fringe?) and among the general public or politics.
 * The lead should therefore start like this:
 * This is what I call telling about historiography and presenting a school of thought. See a good article about a historical school here. I'm afraid you will have to rewrite, because in its current shape this article is not fit for Wikipedia. T8612  (talk) 22:48, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This is what I call telling about historiography and presenting a school of thought. See a good article about a historical school here. I'm afraid you will have to rewrite, because in its current shape this article is not fit for Wikipedia. T8612  (talk) 22:48, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


 * T8612  "Not fit" seems a bit extreme, but okay, that's how you feel. I don't want to seem argumentative, but I think perhaps you might consider that your perspective is the opposite of what is intended in this article. This is not an article about the "school" of sociology. This article is supposed to be about the Christianization of the Roman Empire - the subject you are telling me . That's ass backwards for this article.


 * Scholarship on the topic of Late Antiquity has shifted dramatically in the last fifty to sixty years, and WP has no article that explains that. It's as if it hasn't happened. And no one seems to give a rip. Old scholarship remains spread throughout all these articles and everyone seems fine and dandy with that. Doesn't that bother anyone besides me?


 * Network theory is currently the majority view for how Christianization happened. Of all the theories for the spread of religion - any religion - network theory is the only one I know of that's supported in several different fields and not just sociology. In fact, I could find no one that disagrees. I could find no detractors of this theory of religious spread, and quote at least two studies that conclude they have proven empirically that Christianity spread in this manner. If this seems one-sided it is because the scholarship out there is that way. I always check book reviews of books I reference, and I found one guy that disagrees with Ann Carroll's conclusions about the Jewish diaspora - but not about the spread of Christianity. These articles, and many more referenced here, discuss the spread of religion using the specific example of Christianization of the Roman Empire, and that's what this article is about. and this one and this one Perhaps, before accusing me of one-sidedness, and cherry picking, and OR, and all the rest, it would be wise for someone else to actually check the sources for themselves.


 * Again, this is not an article on network theory. It's an article on Christianization of the Roman empire - from a single perspective. This is working it backwards because the general overview article is not complete, and the sub-topic is. I can see how that could be confusing, but that is being addressed, and since network theory is the most popular current explanation, this sub-topic should exist as a separate article.


 * You know, when I was working on Problem of evil and noted that it put forth the idea that there was no possible response to animal suffering, I went and wrote a long article covering that sub-topic all by itself: Evolutionary theodicy. It presents one theory basically, and no one objected, or truly, even much cared. What is it about this topic that gets everyone so bent out of shape? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * An article that's "about the Christianization of the Roman Empire" has to present all viewpoints according to due weight. An article that's about a specifc viewpoint should follow the pattern T8612 suggests. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:31, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "It's an article on Christianization of the Roman empire - from a single perspective." Precisely, you cannot do that on Wikipedia. It has to be either Christianization of the Roman empire (with all perspectives considered), or detailing the aim/people/works/methodology/reception of each viewpoint. You can write an article entitled "Network Theory on the Christianisation of the Roman Empire"; this way, it is clear that you are presenting only a part of the academic debate. T8612  (talk) 08:00, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I hate to be negative about Jenhawk777's hard work, but I can't see an encyclopedic article on this single interpretative approach being appropriate. There really isn't enough secondary literature meta-discussing the approach. It's pretty much universally agreed to be useful, and even its main exponents such as Rodney Stark don't present it as being the only reason for the spread of Christianity. This interpretative approach should be woven appropriately into the article "Christianization of the Roman Empire", not have a separate article of its own. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:49, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * People aren't "bent out of shape", they're concerned that this top-level article—one of the key topics in all of classical antiquity, and one that all of us know about and have at least a vague understanding of—might potentially be reduced to a single theory or point of view, which as you argue above, dismisses all other theories or views as outmoded or obsolete. You seem to have concluded that the lack of direct contradiction or criticism of the authors you cite reflects near-universal acceptance of their hypothesis, and the rejection of anything inconsistent with it.  But it seems equally possible that other scholarship simply does not see the need to refute every new theory that appears on the horizon, or that other scholars don't necessarily regard it as a revolutionary concept inconsistent with previous theories about the topic.  Even if one view of the topic becomes dominant in published scholarship for a period of time, that doesn't necessarily make it widely, let alone universally accepted.  Many topics from classical antiquity involve a whole range of viewpoints, some of them quite old, and yet not disproven—understandable, given the fact that they basically come down to matters of opinion.  P Aculeius (talk) 13:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


 * T8612 Actually, yes you can.  says about sub-articles that . You're right, though, that more cross-referencing to other views is probably needed, so I will do that. Should it go in background do you think? Will a sentence or two on each be sufficient?
 * P Aculeius All WP articles require neutrality, I do understand that and completely agree. Surely you can also agree that it would be OR for me to interpret the absence of sources as saying what you are assuming will one day be said. How am I supposed to know why something isn't there? All I can do is report what the sources say. I invite you to find some sources that are contradictory, and promise that will be added if found. I couldn't, but maybe you can. (This is a bit of a digression, but you say and that's not really accurate. There is currently material evidence from archaeology, inscriptions, graves, coins, art and architecture that does provide empirical evidence beyond mere opinion. Plus a good bit of mathematics and statistics. This has moved some theories to highly probable and others to highly improbable when scholars start saying it has been "undermined". Even material evidence requires interpretation, but it is true that several disagreements in this field have been largely settled in the last fifty years. At least that's what current sources are saying.)
 * You're not being asked to assume that sources will arise contradicting these, or interpret your sources to say things that they do not. You're being asked to assume that your sources don't speak for the entire universe of classical scholars, merely because you're not finding extensive criticism of them or their opinions.  And this article is most certainly about a point of view, and by definition a matter of opinion, not established fact.  You can still write about it—as long as you do so without implying that it's correct and that all other schools of thought are wrong.  And that seems to be the stumbling block here: the article assumes the correctness of the argument that it describes, as though it were universally accepted—which it is not.  You're framing the lack of direct contradiction of your sources as proof of acceptance, and rejecting the common-sense understanding that silence does not necessarily imply agreement as a forbidden act of original research—and to me that sounds strikingly close to rationalizing in order to obtain a desired result.  This article decidedly about a point of view, and as such is not subject to proof, nor are competing views of any age disproven, whether or not any source you can find is currently arguing for or against them.  Objectivity—NPoV—in this context means presenting and discussing all reasonable views, not merely one view as though it were the only correct interpretation of the subject.  It is possible for an article to be about a particular view, but if you change the title as proposed and replace the main article with this one, then you are substituting a single point of view for the entire subject—and that is the fundamental problem with this proposal.  P Aculeius (talk) 19:35, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You're right on all points. I have assumed that the absence of opposition meant there was no opposition. So, I can make this more neutral, and satisfy T8612 at the same time, by adding that cross referencing I told him he was right about. I have enough to begin but not complete that yet, so don't jump on me for it not being everything yet. I will begin at any rate. I agree. Note that I opposed the proposal. I am working on both articles now according to the suggestions offered here - thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Richard Keatinge you know that  was already done, and it gave this one view Undue Weight in that article. Now that this is a sub-article, a short summary of it and a link can be included there without all this detail. If you go look at that one, you will see I have removed all of this from that article, have referenced 4 current views in the lead there, and am working on adding them all to that general overview article. Work with me here Richard. Please. This is the only view that deserves its own article, but it does deserve it. There is already overwhelming evidence in support of it, and I predict that this view is only going to strengthen as time passes. WP needs an article on it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  buidhe  There is no support for this move. It would be wrong for all the many reasons discussed here. Can we close this?

Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

redirect
This page needs to exist as a subpage as it contains detail that is necessary but too much for the main article. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It is now designated as such. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:38, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you!
 buidhe , Walrasiad, Super, P Aculeius,  T8612  and anyone interested that I might have forgotten. First I want to say thank you. These two articles have evolved in a completely backwards and upside down fashion, but because of you, they have evolved. Your input pushed for more and better, and I did my best to respond accordingly. So thank you. You made the articles better. Second, I would like to apologize if I have been difficult. I have been going through something in my personal life that has made me a bit thin skinned, so if I seemed at all uncooperative, I am genuinely sorry. I hope you will not hold it against me. I hope to work with you in the future in a way that reflects my respect for your standards and my commitment to cooperation. Thanx again. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:02, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No problem. It's never too late to start collaborating.  This specific topic isn't one I have a lot of expertise with, but nearly everyone in CGR has *some* understanding of the subject of which it forms a part, and the way in which classical scholarship on any topic evolves and changes over time.  I weighed in because the specific question about replacing one topic with the other wasn't hard to answer, and it affects a key topic in CGR.  I can't fairly evaluate all of your sources and their conclusions, even though it's apparent they don't speak for all classical scholars or account for all opinions.  But I'm happy to help when I can!  P Aculeius (talk) 22:13, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Total rewrite from new perspective
Spudlace I could not follow your suggestion that this sub-article pick one topic as that would simply eliminate it altogether. That may have been what you were thinking! But if not, I have now attempted a third approach that focuses on the sociology. I eliminated Bible references, although it is allowed in articles like this one, and they were never used without a secondary source. The secondary source now stands alone, but that shouldn't be a problem in this new sociological approach. Where these things are in the original source is generally not significant to this discussion. I am hoping the more focused approach will jump back and forth between the two subjects less and thereby make it less "disjointed". I have now done all that you suggested, I hope, including posting it at the NPOV noticeboard: I am hoping for some valuable input. If you have any ongoing interest in this article, (or if anyone does), I hope you will give it a relook. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Weren't there comments on the talk page that it was written like an essay before you submitted it for GA? It is still written like an essay. You have used a source Everett M. Rogers (not about Chirstianity in the Roman Empire) and his model of 5 characteristics of diffusion, combined it with work by game theorists ad lengthy creative discourse on slavery, an example follows: "the spread of asceticism through Roman society as a respected value, may have lessened their sexual use and their reproductive value and impacted slavery directly." Does the source say this is a relative advantage the type of Roberts model? If there is a neutral topic here that has not been presented by the current version of the article. The lede is improved but the article is still written like an essay. I don't know what additional input I can offer. Spudlace (talk) 20:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Spudlace This offers no WP reference to policy or even an explanation. "Like an essay?" I know what an essay is, and I know this is not one, so what the heck does being "like one" even mean? I have spent hours looking, and everything I find on "essays" is about personal views on how WP does things that haven't yet been accepted as policy. I have now spent hours going over the Manual of Style - which I have done before - and I can find nothing that makes any comment on any writing style beyond summary style and the inverted pyramid that I learned in high school journalism. Unless you can direct me to something on a WP policy that might shed some light, I will have to conclude this is a personal dislike and treat it accordingly. If you can't offer helpful input in good faith then you are in no way obligated to respond at all. Thank you for your time. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:18, 4 August 2022 (UTC)