Talk:Historiography of the Christianization of the Roman Empire/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Vaticidalprophet (talk · contribs) 10:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Picking this up. This is quite a long article, so a full review might take a while, but I'll do my best to be prompt. Vaticidalprophet 10:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Vaticidal No worries, take your time, I will not object, and so far my experience has been that as long as we are actively working on it - don't take a week break or some such thing - no one else will object either. A week is a guideline for average articles and you are absolutely right that this is a long article. It's actually a merge of two, but they were about the same central question and were incomplete by themselves, so merging them was suggested by three different editors. I did so and attempted to clean and combine them as well as I could. The structure is based on the merge while also attempting to keep the central question - in the first paragraph of the lead - as the focus. It has been peer reviewed twice - once on the talk page and once through email. The sources have also had a separate check as you can see on the talk page. I am hoping there are not too many problems, so that even though it is a long article, it won't take too long or be complicated to review. I hope. :-) We'll see! I will appreciate any and all comments. I will also do my best to respond promptly. And thank you again. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Vaticidalprophet How is it going? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Vaticidalprophet I have a friend going through a citation review checking the accuracy of all the page numbers, so if you need to press pause on this for a bit, that is fine with me. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry for leaving you hanging -- I didn't realize! I don't receive pings, and this fell off my watchlist...I'm just wrapping up a FAC review, so will have time for this. How's the citation review going? I can review the prose while it's going on and get updates on the cite accuracy. Vaticidalprophet 19:01, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I wondered! The citation review is going. It is something I really hate doing - I am not naturally detail oriented - but my reviewer found a page# error, and I found two more, so clearly it's very necessary. I am through the first part on causes of decline now, so that's something - right? I am checking every one - all 400... Groan. I love research but when writing, will start moving things around and sometimes lose which citation was connected to it! Aaarrggh!  Now it has created more work for me!  Sources are good, and citations are to the correct source, but those danged page #s! I can only do so much of this at a time however until I overload, so it may be a little slow. If you need to take a pause since a few days have already gone by and it's impossible to know how long this citation review will take, it would be perfectly reasonable. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Completely understandable -- I'll have to do similar if I ever take prehistoric religion to FAC, because one of my sources has page numbers very different between editions, and I'm looking forward to it as much as you are...I'm happy to give you a few days if you need it, leave a message on my talk when you're good with that. I might leave some prose comments on the first couple sections in the meanwhile, but I'm still reading/rereading/getting a feel for the article in general. Vaticidalprophet 20:14, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Cool. Awesome. YES! A few days would be great! It is 400 citations. Review prose all you like.  If you decide to make changes, which is perfectly okay with me, please check the source if you don't mind, otherwise, my friend will eat me alive for even the slightest variation from what the source says. Otherwise...moan...I will do it. Hope you find the article interesting and informative at any rate. Happy editing! Hey I love your user page! All of this does get a little unreal! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Alright, first couple notes...

General

 * Watch for consistent use of BCE/CE or BC/AD. You can use either per MOS:ERA, although Christianity-related articles usually use the latter in my experience -- but it's really personal preference. Right now you're mostly using CE, but there's a stray use of AD in an image caption (under #Negotiation, accommodation, adaptation, and transformation), and it should be standardized one way or another. (I realize that sometimes asking someone about MOS:ERA is like asking them about their choice of infobox, so bit of a delicate point :) )
 * Using a control-F search, the image caption (and titles in the bibliography) are the only places AD is used. I tried changing the image caption, and then the image wouldn't print. What should I do? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hm -- what does "wouldn't print" mean? I've just tweaked the caption myself and the image looks fine. Vaticidal<b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 07:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b> So you are not just brilliant and dedicated, you can also do magic. When I changed the AD to CE, all I got was a blank box filled with red print, no image at all. I don't know what you did differently, but it's fixed now, so thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)


 * There's a few cases throughout the article where a fairly short statement is followed by a long line of references. Some people are much more annoyed by this than I am -- I've been in enough content disputes to know sometimes you have to do that -- but it can imply a statement is being underexplained/undercontextualized, or that not all of the references are actually needed to back it up. For instance, does Rhetoric often espoused violence, but actual (i.e. physical) violence was rare and usually isolated.[95][96][97][98][99] (#Violence or persuasion) need that many references (it might, but it might not), and if it does, is there information in any of those references that could add additional worthwhile context, like real-world examples of the attitude towards religious violence?
 * Statements that I know will be disagreed with by some readers do have multiple references. Also, there are two separate claims in that sentence, so they both have refs. This is a fairly controversial topic, as the entire field of late antiquity is going through a change right now. There are some who just don't want to let go. I will go take a look at what each reference says. Maybe I can narrow it down some. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I did have a somewhat long section giving specific examples about violence, and it was recommended that I remove it. I really liked it, it was quite convincing! So I moved it to a note. Then it was recommended that I remove that as well - it was long and they said no one would read it. I took the part about Martin of Tours out of the note, put it back in the body, and just dumped the rest. If you like, I can put it back as a note, and if you decide you don't like it after all, I can always remove it again.Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ See what you think. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You have some apparent quotes in footnotes that, because of the way they're quoted, are a bit hard to tell where they're from or if they're even quotes at all. This is a fairly important issue, as it's a copyright/NFCC concern. Note 7 stands out to me in this respect, and I'm not sure that specific footnote is needed at all.
 * Ah yes, attribution. I was told by the guy that is in charge of FA that I have too many inline attributions, and that the citation is sufficient. I told him I did not think anyone who writes on religion would agree, but I tried to cooperate. Of course, he also said I should just remove the quotes, which I have done as well. I will check all the notes and clean that up one way or the other. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Lead

 * I know this is a tricky matter for a broad-scope, abstract article -- been there, done that -- but we could really use a lead image here. What data we have of reader experiences with articles implies people get a lot more use, appreciation, and necessary support out of images than us as writers (or the image policies we have to follow...) often account for, so it's an important thing to have. When I faced similar concerns at Prehistoric religion with trying to find what image could encapsulate such a broad and abstract idea, I ended up with an image quite characteristic of the time (a Venus figurine) but a lesser-known example to avoid being overplayed. You could try something similar here, such as a depiction of a saint or martyr of the Christianization era.
 * How about a temple? I added one. You may hate it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't hate it :) <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 22:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The second mention of the title, the one in the last paragraph, shouldn't be bolded.
 * Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Greco-Roman polytheism, (commonly called paganism), -- I don't think we need that first comma?
 * Well, my Brief English Handbook says this qualifies as an interruptor, and therefore it needs commas at both ends.Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

More to come. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 19:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Very cool! Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Couple more comments...and no need to be anxious! I work somewhat on 'my own schedule', but I'm here.

Roman religion

 * Would it be worth explicitly mentioning the orthodoxy-orthopraxy distinction here? That's often the thing that trips up modern-day readers learning about polytheistic religions the most, in my experience. You allude to it by saying ritual was the most important aspect, but given the misconceptions lay readers often have about what "ritual being more important" means, it might be worthwhile to explicitly explain what's different about religions that focus on orthopraxy vs those that focus on orthodoxy. (The Religion as it is understood in the modern world did not exist in the Graeco-Roman world drew my eye for similar reasons -- it's correct for the religions most people reading this article would be familiar with, but there are still many orthoprax faiths practiced today, so some readers might not know how to read that statement without additional context.)
 * Ritualism is actually different from both orthodoxy and orthopraxy. They are more about how one practices Christianity and aren't really applicable to Graeco-Roman polytheism. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The links in the second paragraph could use some tweaking. Mithraism seems like it could reasonably link to that article, rather than just a subsection of that article as it does now. "Worship of Isis" could be restructed as a link to Mysteries of Isis, rather than "Isis" alone linking to a subsection of her article.
 * ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Christianity

 * The en dash in 30s – 40s should be rendered as 30s–40s without a space.
 * ✅Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Context

 * I'm not sure about the current splitting-out of "Imperial cult" as yet another sub-heading here -- it produces very short subsections, which clutter the table of contents and make the article appear even longer.
 * ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * experiences, insights, and stories.[29][17] -- good practice to keep an eye on references that they're in the right numerical order.
 * I know, this is a quirk of mine that I defend as fitting since the order of the references reflects the order of the claims in the sentence. But since according to the comment beneath this one, I am going to be splitting the sentence, it is now moot.
 * On that note, Roman historians, such as J. A. North, observe that Roman imperial culture began in the first century with religion embedded in the city-state, then throughout the imperial period, it gradually shifted to religion as a choice with different groups offering different characteristics, experiences, insights, and stories. is a rather long and choppy sentence that could probably be split in two around "throughout the imperial period" and restructured slightly.
 * ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Another 'general' note -- "Graeco-Roman" vs "Greco-Roman" isn't consistent throughout the article (it's "Graeco-" under #Roman religion and "Greco-" here; I haven't gone looking for all uses). While it doesn't particularly matter which is standardized on, it should be standard.
 * ✅ all Graeco now except one book title Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Scholarship of the twenty-first century has shifted toward seeing it more as a genuine religious phenomenon than a political one is an important point -- the general reader will usually come in with the point of view that it was a political move, rather than a religious one. If the sources permit, it would be worth expanding on this to make it somewhat more prominent and explain why the point of view has shifted, to counteract those misconceptions.
 * ✅ see what you think. If you don't like it or if it seems like a long walk down an unnecessary rabbit trail, we can always cut it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

The top-down model

 * The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, as a book title, should be in italics.
 * ✅Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Constantine was "a sincere if a somewhat simple believer." -- logical quotation
 * I read it and don't see what I did wrong. Could you explain? Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This is one of the more 'technical' MOS points, so I don't mind it too much, it's just one of those things that gets at the grammarian in me :) Manual of Style would prefer a quote structured like this one be rendered as "a sincere if a somewhat simple believer"., with the full stop outside rather than inside the quotation marks. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 06:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Bless you! Thank you! It is now fixed. I don't know why I didn't see that, but it's perfectly reasonable to point that out. (I have a thing about commas!) But good punctuation is just a minimal requirement in my view, so thank you. I checked other quotes, and they all seem to have the quotation marks inside the period. I cannot explain this one! But it is now ✅. I will be back tomorrow. It's after midnight here. Thanx again, Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * sudden empire wide conversion should be rendered "empire-wide".
 * ✅Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "He did not punish pagans for being pagans, or Jews for being Jews, and did not adopt a policy of forced conversion"; he was not in favor of suppression of paganism by force.[55][56][53] As well as reference order, this incorporates a quote alongside several sources, where it's not clear which of the sources is being quoted. The quote-ee should be mentioned in the text at least.
 * ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Violence or persuasion

 * Not a criticism but the opposite -- I really like what you've done with the footnote on MacMullen. I've struggled before with how to contextualize in-article when an important writer nonetheless holds some odd positions, and that's an excellent way to do it.
 * OMG! I am so relieved to have you say that! I was worried about that one, but felt compelled to explain why he is now considered the minority opinion when forty years ago, when he started out, his was the majority view. It's been a total 180 in this field, and that's got to be disorienting for a lot of people including him. So anyway, thank you so much for that! It helps me. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * anti–pagan violence Hyphens and dashes are complicated, I don't behoove anyone for mixing them up, but this should probably be a hyphen (-) rather than an en dash . The same is true for Roman–style and on–going in footnote 4.
 * I confess I don't know the difference. I try to remember to use the – at the bottom of the edit window, but I have no idea which one of those it is. Have I been in the wrong to use it, or do these fail to use it and I should go put that in? I put in those – on these examples w/o knowing if it's right!! Hope it is! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Martin Zimmermann, German ancient historian Aside from the prose note that this should probably be rendered "the German ancient historian Martin Zimmermann", the more concerning part is that the source here is unreliable -- it's itself a wiki project, which shouldn't be used as references. What you could do here is, instead of cite them, add a link to his article on the German Wikipedia (given he doesn't have an article on the English one). There's a specific code to do cross-project links of that sort, which is a bit fiddly, so I've done it for you here so it can be added to the article: Martin Zimmermann
 * ✅ Thank you so much for this. I knew about using other wikis but when I looked, I didn't find him there. This is extremely helpful of you! Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Christianity sought to legitimize its new power through rhetoric.[98][92] -- reference order
 * ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Actual (i.e. physical) violence is a somewhat unfortunate wording, given verbal and psychological violence can be quite severe; just "physical violence" would work.
 * ✅ used 'actual violence' as in violence that was acted out and was not all talk. This is sort of an allusion to MacMullen's standard of morality which says morality must be more than just talk in order to be considered real. If you think it needs more explanation, I can do that.Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Temple destruction
That should be all for now. Very thorough work! <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 22:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Greater Lavant misspells "Levant". (In the Greater Lavant such destruction was substantial though most of it occurred after the mid-fifth century also strikes me as missing a comma for "substantial, though".)
 * Jeez Louise - and the correct spelling and the incorrect are right there next to each other! And yes you are right about the comma. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Most recorded incidents of temple destruction are known from ecclesiastical and hagiographical accounts which are eager to portray their subjects as engaging in violent acts in order to emphasize their piety and power is a long run-on sentence.
 * Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b> In the process of checking every - single - citation - I have ended up making some changes to content in two places that I hope is clearer. Would you mind giving a second look at 'Violence or persuasion' and 'temple destruction'? References have been completely checked up to 'Paganism evolved', and in the 'new ideas' sections, and partially checked through the rest of the article, but I don't anticipate doing this to you again. I'm sorry. I couldn't help it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll take another look! My laptop is currently having issues so I can't guarantee a timeframe, but I'll get there. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 22:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Reading from a library computer, I don't see any new issues. That said, some of footnote 5 seems like it could be incorporated into the text -- "Economics was also a factor" by itself is quite short, and most footnotes don't seem to be read very often, so the information here seems relevant enough to be worth putting in the text directly. The first half of the footnote, at least, seems worth placing directly in. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 01:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b> Sorry to hear about your computer. Mine has been having problems and I suspect I need to take it in to a shop but there is no Mac store close by, so I keep putting it off. You have my sympathy. Thank you for taking a look and for the suggestion. I will follow up immediately. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:17, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Legislation
I should be back to having a computer now! More to come. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 01:09, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * YAY! Whhoo hoo!  Halelujah! I'm so happy to see you here I could weep! :-)
 * As a record of history, modern historians had to assume these laws and their harsh consequences were implemented, yet contemporary scholarship has shown this to be incorrect.[130][74][131][132] Ref order, but this is also just a lot of refs for a single sentence. Contextually I think that's okay, but it's worth noting just to get it brought up.
 * Okay I removed two of them just because you brought it up. Alan Cameron is probably all that's needed as his discussion is thorough but I'm leaving Salzman just because she also asks the question plainly. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * For various reasons, scholars agree they went unenforced -- various reasons such as?
 * That's a lengthy explanation. For awhile, I had it in a note, then I deleted the note because this is just too damn long! I can put explanation back amd try to keep it short, or I can remove "Various reasons" and just say scholars agree they went unenforced. Which would you prefer? Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I just jumped boldly in and removed various reasons. Hope that's okay. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Length is always tricky; I trend more in favour of long articles than a lot of other editors. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 06:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b> Lucky for me. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Caroline Humfress appears to have an article, so can be linked.
 * ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * They could appeal to other systems of law, such as Jewish law, or local traditions I don't think we need the link to Tradition here.
 * ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, it was Constantine's son Constantius who first issued bans on sacrifice.[153][145] Ref order, but this is also a source from 1912! The other source on it is more recent, so I suppose it's worth explicitly saying somewhere that this is still considered true, given how much attention is given elsewhere to significant changes in the historical interpretation of Roman Christianization over similar or shorter timescales than this one.
 * Removed and replaced the 1912 source though this view has not changed. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b> Thank you! Bless you!  Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b> More computer problems? Would you prefer to put this back on the list of candidates, and let someone else review it? I assure you there will be no hard feelings if you would. If real life or anything else is interfering, believe me, I do understand. It's okay. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:05, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I'm just naturally slow :P I did notice one of the sections was substantially edited by someone else lately -- is that going okay? Just checking in on the article's stability. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 00:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b> Sigh, that was a friend (Avilich) who periodically parachutes in where I happen to be working, throws a few grenades, then retreats into the mists once again. No worries. He means well. I just leave him be. The article is stable - at least as much as anything can be with me and my friends around. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Paganism didn't decline, it evolved
Well, if you can speak to the article's stability :)

<b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 08:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking, apostrophes are usually verboten by the Manual of Style, although in a context like this section header there's a good argument to make it's the best possible phrasing. I actually like the phrasing, apostrophe and all, and can't much think of a better one within the constraints of a short section header -- I'm just noting this because it's the sort of thing that gets brought up, and at the very least the reason for not removing it should be addressed.
 * Attribution with regards to large block quotes, again -- the "author" parameter of the blockquote template should be able to handle that.
 * OOPS!! Both are Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Balance of the article from the peanut gallery
The article is very long (over 10,000 words), and well over half of the body text is taken up by the section "Possible causes of Christian growth". Seems to me that this section should be split off into a new article titled "Causes of the Christianization of the Roman Empire" and summarized here per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  03:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey  buidhe  hope you are doing well in these weird days. This article is actually a merger of two that were originally split just as you suggest. Several editors who worked on them determined that combining them was necessary as the discussions between the decline and the growth are so intertwined that one kept having to explain how and why and what it meant, over and over, in each separate article. I was actually able to cut out a lot of that once they were merged as I just had to do that explaining once. Yes, it's long, though not longer than many other complex topics, and it's a much improved approach to what is also a controversial topic – imho. I won't support splitting them back apart again. That would be a change that sacrificed quality and content for some arbitrary number of words. It would not be an improvement. The merge was. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Regardless of what gets split or merged, I think the article goes into too much detail on causes. Since the article is about Christianization, the main focus should be on the expansion of Christianity rather than various theories on why it expanded. Per the GA criteria, it should stay focused on the primary topic. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  06:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * But darling, dear  buidhe  - that is the topic. As it says in the first paragraph of the lead: This article presents the relatively new sociological model  What you call the "main focus" is simply the fact that it grew, which is covered in one small section. That would leave all the actual questions - that are truly what constitute Christianization - unmentioned! That would be like trying to explain physics without mentioning gravity! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The causes of the growth should be certainly discussed, but not constitute the bulk of the article. I've removed that sentence from the lead, since it is an opinion-based statement and would need attribution, besides I cannot find it anywhere in the body. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think the article should be organized around the possible reasons why people might have chosen Christianity over other belief systems, as it is at present. I guess I'm expecting to find sections on: 1) the establishment and growth of Christian institutions, such as churches, monasteries, etc. in the Roman empire and 2) the effect of Christianity on Roman society, law, politics, etc. You already have a bunch of information on 2) but categorize it under "Possible causes of Christian growth" which seems backwards to me. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

A note that I'm following this conversation, just in case Jenhawk worries I've disappeared again; the aftermath section note I agree with, the organization stuff is worth considering. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 03:04, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * We're also missing information on aftermath/legacy. Surely the foundation of what is now the Catholic Church and the fact that millions of people converted to Christianity had a major effect on later history after the fall of the Roman empire, but this is never even touched upon. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:41, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 *  buidhe  First you say the article is too long, then you say it needs to contain more. The article you are describing already exists as Christianization. That is not this article. Everything you have asked for is already there. This article has a much narrower topic. This article is only about the Roman empire in the first five centuries of the common era. And if Robert Markus is as brilliant as Peter Brown claims, then ancient Christianity came to an end after the fifth century when it shifted into its medieval form, and the middle ages has no business being anywhere in this article.
 * The sentence you removed is not an opinion. It is in fact a summary statement of all the multiple articles and books that address Christianization. There is Peter Brown, the scholar that virtually created the field of Late Antiquity, and one of his plethora of articles and books: where he discusses how we have come to commonly understand the "labyrinthine problem of Christianization", how Christians changed the thinking of the time about "the heavens", and how that impacted Christianization, and how and why Christians invented the narrative that is the favorite of moderns, and what's its real impact on conversion - otherwise known as Christianization - might have been. There's this one where Kate Cooper discusses whether one of the causes of Christianization was women influencing their husbands to convert or not. Here is just one by Jan N. Bremmer: He begins by asking "why did ancient religion disappear" in the second paragraph. And in the third paragraph, again, "if the transition into a dominant Christian society was relatively peaceful, the question arises why this was the case". Pick any of the over 200 references, and find any one of them that describe the process of Christianization in any other way that does not include the how and why of it. You won't be able to, because your assessment of Christianization as not being about 'how and why' is mistaken. I don't know what else you think Christianization is: it is by definition about the process of how and why people converted.
 * The question of how is directly addressed by sociology. This article is about the new sociological model. It makes the claim of social forces causing Christianization, and that requires discussing what is meant by "social forces". Since that is actually the focus of the page, it is appropriate that half to two–thirds of the article directly address it.
 * are all in fact already in the article in multiple places. Look under 'Constantine', look under 'Community', look under 'health care'. I think something pertinent to each of these is in every section of the part of the article you dislike so much. And as you say, #2 is even in section titles where it's easy to find.
 * I'm sorry you but that is the question of Christianization and the Roman empire. Why did people convert? Why did so many people convert? That is this article. It has just as legitimate a place in an encyclopedia as Christianization itself does. You prefer the other article, and that's perfectly fine, but that doesn't undermine the notability of this one. This article basically summarizes all the current research on religious change in the field of Late Roman Antiquity. That's notable all by itself. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)


 * It can be true simultaneously that, considering its stated topic, an article spends too much space on certain issues, that it does not spend enough space on other topics, that it is too long overall, and that it is poorly organized.
 * Everything needs to be verifiable so if you want to make the claim that "How and why this dramatic growth occurred are the central questions of Christianization", it needs to be cited somewhere, and as more than just the opinion of one writer or a handful of people.
 * I think unless there are substantial changes in the article's structure, it should be moved to Causes of the Christianization of the Roman Empire because that seems to be what you're trying to cover in the article. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  07:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)


 * That it can be true doesn't prove it is true.
 * How about "All questions concerning the rise of Christianity are one: How was it done?" Since when are the majority of the leading scholars in the field a "handful of people"?
 * I think that title is redundant. See above. Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I have now put a version of the original sentence back with citations. This article has a narrow focus, a limited time frame, and is organized around the main ideas of 'Christianization in the RE' with particular focus on the arguments for and against the new sociological model. Accordingly, it is well-organized. Content that would duplicate Christianization and what you are calling "aftermath" doesn't belong here. (There is no such thing as an "aftermath" to Christianization. There is an aftermath to the fall of the empire, but that's about politics not religion.) This title was the subject of much backing and forthing when the article was being created, and this was the one agreed upon, so there is an established consensus for it. That's what we should stick with. Thank you for your input  buidhe , I am always grateful for your ideas, but this time, I do not believe the article would benefit from taking them. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Looking through the GA criteria, I'd just like to record how immensely impressed I am with the amount of work that Jenhawk777 in particular has done. Moving on with buidhe's valuable comments, I still have problems with the result so far. In particular, I can't see that Stark's model of constant exponential growth of Christianity has achieved any consensus, except of course in his own multiple publications and a (very) few followers. There is a consensus for the reality of organic, un-coerced and officially-unsupported growth, but also for its inconstancy, mass mortality from infectious disease being a particular contributor to the spread of a religion that enjoined practical care for the sick.(for instance Heather, Harper) Stark's constant-growth hypothesis is unproved, it's unprovable, and its assertion as fact is used to set up a false dichotomy between violent official imposition after the Edict of Milan, and ongoing growth entirely unrelated to large-scale official support and threatening messages. This article does need to report that dichotomy - violence has most of the primary literary sources behind it, and ongoing growth irrelevant to violence is at least implicitly supported by a lot of recent work. But we need to recognize the combination after Constantine's conversion of internal growth, very occasional violence and recurrent high-level threats, and the stimulus to growth by an official atmosphere of threats and lack of protection, which discouraged overt non-Christian celebration and made non-Christian sacred property conveniently available for private appropriation.


 * I also feel with buidhe that Christianization of the Roman Empire had an aftermath. I'd count the establishment of an intolerant and internally quarrelsome state religion as part of the identity of a major world civilization as a pretty important part of that aftermath, also its further development (especially in the form of Islam) and resulting religious wars down the centuries. I wouldn't say that we need to go into any details as part of this article, but a couple of sentences with relevant wikilinks would strike me as appropriate.
 * I'd also take out quite a few items that I can't see as relevant to the central theme, such as Augustine's view of how to punish heretics (really not at all relevant to this article) and Meijer's speculation on gladiators (has anybody seriously suggested that anti-gladiator preaching contributed to the spread of Christianity? Or is the disappearance of gladiators being argued to be part of the aftermath of Christianity?)
 * A more practical discussion of the factors that may have induced people to convert would be good. Community support, and even tiny improvements in personal agency, life control, and status, are all important and could be discussed better, as practical personal factors rather than impersonal higher-order abstractions.


 * I have other comments, but it may be tactful to stop at this point and let others respond... Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Richard Keatinge!! Hi! Didn't expect to see you, and I am terrifically pleased. Your comments are, of course, genuinely appreciated. They fully demonstrate the complexity of this issue. I love this! Discussions like this are right up my alley. Let me take your very intelligent points one at a time, so please be patient and try to actually read my wall of text.
 * First, you are absolutely right that no one supports a constant growth model - not even Stark. You say and you refer to  but that's a misunderstanding of what is said. First, no one has asserted these #s as fact, not even Stark. Stark says his purpose is "not to establish these numbers as fact, but to demonstrate that the growth of Christianity did not require miraculous rates of conversion" (as other models do require).(page 12) On page 11, he says "keep in mind that these numbers are estimates"... Second, he points out that "reality may have been a good bit lumpier". Growth might have been more rapid at times and there may have been periodic losses. (After the destruction of Jerusalem, the Christian community there seems to have died out for awhile.)
 * I don't mention any of this. In fact, there's basically one sentence on Stark. That seems now like that might have been a mistake on my part. It should have been made clear that these are estimates, and that no one thinks growth would have been a steady constant rate. I do say but perhaps that's insufficient. What Stark offers is an average rate, not a constant one. Those are arithmetically different.
 * Stark's numbers are not his, they are taken from what we think we know: which is how many people Christianity started with, how many Christians we have indications of at the end of the second century and by the time of the Council of Nicea, how many were in Egypt and when they were there, how many there were by the fifth century, and finally, what we estimate the overall population of the empire was. These numbers all stand independently of Stark, having been established through other means, by other historians, which Stark references. They form the foundation of the estimate, and more importantly probably, they limit what is possible arithmetically. This is fully demonstrated by Keith Hopkins who is as skeptical as should even satisfy you. In his interesting article, he takes more than one approach to the problem. He spends a good bit of time discussing variable rates - which I also did not include, thinking it a side-trip - but given what there is to work with, he arrives at almost the identical average rate of growth as Stark. Stark may or may not have consensus, I don't know, I didn't look for that, but it is fair to say there is no evidence of anyone contradicting him. As the article also says: The math is what the math is.
 * The comparison with Bagnall's work in Egypt is unarguable. That undergirds late third century growth, which pretty much all historians agree with, as fact. I am happy to add any of this and explain in more detail the numbers we know, the time frame for them, that this is an estimated average, and that reality would not have been constant. But numbers working as they do, growth in numbers would absolutely have looked something like this.


 * Second, you say this sets up a, but, no, it doesn't. It neither discusses nor mentions violence which is discussed elsewhere. It contributes to the ongoing undermining of the argument that Christianity only really grew after Constantine, but this has been done in multiple ways through multiple scholars, none of which are Stark. One example in the article: "E. A. Judge provides a detailed study demonstrating that a fully organized church system existed before Constantine, leading to the conclusion that "the argument Christianity owed its triumph to its adoption by Constantine cannot be sustained".


 * You add that What recent work would that be? I would like to see a reference anywhere that says violence is currently anything but a minority opinion.


 * I will add here that other models of conversion, even those including violence, require large scale mass conversions in the fourth century for which there is no evidence. As one example, Sivan says fifth century Goths were aware of only one mass conversion. (There is also tons of evidence against Constantine or his subsequent emperors ever practicing forced conversion. Historians agree he did not. Evidence of 'coercion' is all about law, so let's set that aside for now. I will come back to it.)


 * In fact, I will have to come back and address the rest because RL is interfering right now. I will be back asap. I want to answer these. I predicted they would appear. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Splitting off 'causes' doesn't seem necessary here, for now at least. For example, the 'Socio–economics' section, which relies on few sources, can very much be trimmed without any significant loss of meaning. Maybe a reduction of the number of direct quotes can help bring down the excess of words. But even in the current form I don't see much point in splitting: the causes are integral to the subject, after all. Avilich (talk) 22:18, 3 February 2022 (UTC)


 * *Okay Richard Keatinge, I am back and am anxious to address all your concerns. So let's go back to this one: . First, the concept of primary sources has to be expanded in our modern day. Second, we both know that "most of those primary literary sources" are Christian texts. The trouble there is that so many have been flat out contradicted.
 * *The Christians constructed a reality in rhetoric that is not supported by other evidence: they lied. Maybe they really believed what they claimed, metaphorically, I don't know, but while it suited them to claim a violent victory over paganism, it's mostly not true. The Battle of the Frigidus has been shown to be a myth. Porphyry of Gaza is considered a forgery. Malalas claimed Constantine destroyed all the temples, then he said Theodosius did, then he said Constantine converted them all to churches.  The textual evidence is not dependable by itself. We can't lean on it alone. Not anymore.
 * *Peter Brown spends a conference paper on "why would they do that?" Why would they make claims of violent victory? To demonstrate piety and power. They wanted to seem stronger than they really were.
 * *James Rives is one of the top men in his field, and I recommend reading his entire article, however, reality being what it is, at least take a look at page 251 where he writes:  That includes the concepts of Graeco-Roman religious decline due, in any major way, to violence by early Christians.
 * *There is a whole section in this article on violence, and I am sure I still didn't say enough, but one WP article can't be expected to say everything. Rive's article on the current state of scholarship in this field is 59 pages long, and he says he didn't cover everything. Try J.H.D. Scourfield's on page 4 where he suggests a "cogent reason for marginalizing the conflict model".
 * *Third: It is perfectly reasonable to limit the time frame of any article on WP, and it is certainly justified - no required - on anything historical. What you are referring to is the Middle Ages. It is post Roman empire. It is post fifth century. This article is limited to the period of Ancient Christianity and to Roman Empire. If we were to agree to include Aftermath where would you stop? Because in fact, I can quote multiple sources who say we are still in the aftermath of Empire in our modern world today. Stopping at the fifth century is the natural stopping place as Ancient Christianity came to an end there as did the empire itself.
 * *I can acquiesce to removing Augustine and gladiators. No, of course they are not arguments that provide evidence for growth. They are arguments against. They are presented as "proofs" that Christianity had no moral impact, therefore no sociological impact: that the sociological model is wrong for these reasons. Imho, I thought it was important to address all the standing objections to the sociological model. Isn't it important to include both sides? That's why those sections are there. The reader can then decide for themselves what to think. But if there is consensus that presenting the opposing arguments isn't needed, then okay.
 * *Socio-economics can possibly be trimmed. I'll work on that.
 * * All of this is already in the article Richard. Most of it is under 'support of the sociological model', but it's also in various objections such as 'slavery'. If you have something you feel needs adding, bring it and its reference here, and I am sure we can come to a reasonable consensus. I'm sure whatever you have to add would be of value to the article. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:16, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this considered reply. I apologize for my inadequacies in communication and I suggest that we may best make progress with this article by making limited, possibly bold, edits, with subsequent discussion. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Richard Keatinge I have never known you to have any difficulty communicating. I don't agree that this article needs bold edits, but you must do what you think is best - with good sources of course. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Richard Keatinge I have now made some changes that hopefully reflect your concerns. I have also edited down socio-economics in response to Avilich. I will hold off on Augustine and gladiators until there is a consensus concerning including arguments against the sociological model.
 * Richard, it is terrifically interesting, and ironic to me, that you include an as part of the aftermath of Christianization. You are absolutely right, of course. It is actually very briefly referred to in this article under  in the phrase concerning . On page 115 of E. A. Judge's book, Jerusalem and Athens, Judge discusses how this method of debating out beliefs and practices was a practice of Roman Republic that the Senate pretty much surrendered to the autocratic emperors throughout the empirical period. It was revived by those Christian bishops under the Christian emperors, and this is important because this quarrelsomeness was practiced throughout the Middle Ages and became a cornerstone of modern democracy. I guess that's why you and I are here, where we are now, huh? Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Exegetical works are suitable as sources on themselves of course, but not on history... Best leave this point now, but one question, what is the peanut gallery? Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Richard Keatinge It was originally a reference to cheering or booing from the cheap seats in a Vaudeville theatre. The peanut gallery is also a reference to an old children's radio and TV show from the forties and fifties - Howdy Doody - which used the phrase to silence its audience - always producing the opposite effect of course. This seems like an odd statement from one who likes to reference Gibbon as much as you do. But actually, I agree generally speaking. History is done by historians, but they come in all flavors now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Possible causes of Christian growth
...and, back. This is a tricky one, I'm sorry. The solution might well be "leave it as it is", but it at least has to come up. This is one where it's a good thing that we have a few people watching this, because it's a hell of a lot easier to solve such an issue if you can get multiple viewpoints :)

This is a very long section, which is problematic on mobile. If you have a phone, you can take one out, look at the layout it has here, and try to navigate that section on mobile. Otherwise I can provide screenshots to show what it looks like -- it's a lot trickier to navigate than it is on desktop. (Most importantly, links to sub-subsections don't work properly on mobile, so such a reader can't currently go to #The sociological model alone or another sub-subsection of it alone.) About two-fifths of this page's readers are using mobile browsers according to the pageview statistics, so it's important to keep in mind how they see the article.

The question is, what's the best way to make mobile readers more able to access this information? This is a tricky sort of one to split up, as it doesn't lend itself naturally to multiple smaller subsections to my eye (I've faced the same issue in other articles). I'm raising the issue to see what comes up, and because it's important to reviewing the rest of this section -- if the structure changes, then a section-by-section review here gets messed up a bit. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 03:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b> I am unsure exactly what you are asking here - other ways to divide this section? Sure, I don't really like the section title, but couldn't think of a better one. I was told that too many little sections was bad, that it "distracted" the reader, so things are combined that could very well be separated if that's what you mean. The section above this one is Challenges to the sociological model. Perhaps we could do some combining of challenge and support instead of having them separated, and group them two at a time or some such thing. I have no idea what the requirements for viewing this on a phone would be. What would we need to comply with? I need a clearer description of the problem I think. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I've uploaded a couple screenshots of the article as shown on my phone (and any other smartphone). The first image is the default view -- all section headers are closed unless someone specifically opens them. The second image is if someone opens this individual section header, with the scrollbar visible; you can see how long it is from the scrollbar. The big issue is that individual subsections aren't easily accessed on mobile -- on desktop I could make a link to, say Christianization of the Roman Empire and read that specifically, but on mobile that's impossible. I'd just be redirected to the article with all the closed section headers, and after specifically opening the one it's in (which I wouldn't necessarily even know which that was) I'd have to scroll through a larger amount of text to find it. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 07:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Well <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b>, before I saw this, I went and made some radical changes. Take a look and see if you think there is any improvement in accessibility. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:20, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b> I checked it on my phone this morning and I think it did fix the problem. All categories are visible and easily accessible now. I arranged them so there is now one pro then one con and so on. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)