Talk:History of Christian thought on persecution and tolerance

Tags removed
To anyone who cares, I have now removed the tags as I believe this article's issues have been resolved. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment
, I read through it, or most of it anyway. Too much to absorb, but a lot seems pretty fair. It's very sprawling, and not easy to say if some stuff would fit better in other articles. I noticed a blockquote thing under History_of_Christian_thought_on_persecution_and_tolerance that doesn't seem to be a quote of anything. Per WP:TOOBIG it's between "Probably should be divided" and "Almost certainly should be divided". The lead mentions scholars that aren't mentioned in the rest of the article, but that can wait until you're done with rest of the article. Since the lead is a summary, IMO it shouldn't mention any modern scholars at all. Perhaps some of it could be moved to a "terminology" section. Well, I'll guess I'll try to keep reading, a little at a time. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Oh my gosh! Oh my gosh!  I'm so excited!  You showed up and you have thoughtful comments!  You're amazing!  I'll go work on those right now! The scholars referenced in the lead are leftovers from the original article--where they were never mentioned again--so that should definitely be done.  I put a redlink for fourth century Christian thought which is a huge sprawling topic all by itself--putting four paragraphs on it really hurt me...--but every one of these periods could be a topic of its own, and maybe should be, you are so so right! I really tried to stay on topic and limit what I said, and this is not the way I would have gone about covering this topic probably, but all the examples used were in the original article so I kept them.  Was that wrong?  I tried to keep as much as I could. Mostly the original article had nothing on Christian thought and was primarily about what the author saw as bad behavior--Christian or otherwise. Are you thinking it should be divided into multiple articles or just deleted?  It was a lot of work but I totally get that it's too damn big!  How do articles get divided when it means creating a bunch of new ones?  I don't know how to do that. You're so wonderful!  Thank you!Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I fixed the blockquote I think. If you don't like it we can just remove the whole thing! :-) Yay yay, you're so great!  There should be chocolate cake! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Done. Your wish is my command. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Should I shorten and condense the historical background section? I could use it I think in the same way you are thinking of terminology--or I actually thought that since there is historical context in each section--what would you think of completely removing the entire historical background section?  That would significantly shorten the article!!  Please say yes!  I go now.  I'll be back in a few hours! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Okay I'm back. I think I will go head and take what's relevant out of history and do away with that section altogether. If you hate it, we can always revert to the earlier version right? Let's see if that doesn't clear up some of the redundancy and length issues.  It might still need to be divided, but there'll be less of it to mess with. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Pinging if you have any thoughts for this article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * That's a brilliant idea. They will be most welcome.  I really need additional input in the modern era.  I know mostly the fourth century and the middle ages.  And God knows I always need oversight.  :-)  Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Sidebar
What do you think Jenhawk, does it fit? Did I put the article in the right place in it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * u|Gråbergs Gråa Sång Sure. It's an important article. I thought it was in the original list--was it not?  Either way, it should be here.  I haven't dared look at it in a couple years now.  Is it better than it was?  I wonder if I made any impact at all for neutrality in that one.  I had no idea how to go about it then.  It was my first article.  I had no idea about anything. :-) But yes, it should be here. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I was talking about my addition of Template:History of Christian theology to this article and vice versa. Are you talking about... ... ... ... ... Christianity and violence? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry! I didn't see that you had added that!  It's good too! Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * u|Gråbergs Gråa Sång Hey! Is there one of those for the 'History of the Humanities'?  This article more properly falls under that category which includes religion, and its theology and philosophy and history.  Is it okay to have two?  How do you install a sidebar?  I've never done it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't find such a sidebar. Can we make one?Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm still wondering if these shouldn't be separate articles. The High and Late middle ages are both so long they are article length all by themselves.  This could easily be four or even five articles. Who am I kidding?  If we split them I'll view it as an opportunity to add  more detail.  :-(  Bad puppy! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello ! Didn't get your ping, you didn't use. I don't know of any, but there's quite a lot at Category:Sidebar templates by topic. Installing a sidebar is easy, check it's "code" in an article you found it in and bang:. I have seen articles with more than one, like Women in the Bible. I've never made a sidebar, but presumably other people have. I also checked the templates at the bottom of Humanities, but I don't see any obvious fits. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the ping. I am forgetful at times about all these rules and symbols.  They haven't become habit yet. I went to the Teahouse, got some help, and made a sidebar for the history of the humanities.  It's on my sandbox. It was a good bit of work too!  But the person that helped said articles don't usually have two, and there's nothing wrong with the one you put in, so I think we should just leave it as is.


 * This article does have a lot of theology in it--enough that in a couple of places I am thinking of removing some of it lest it sound like apologetics or worse--a sermon--because if you write what they say as they said it, that's often what you get. :-)  Then in other places I completely left out explanations even though it seems odd to mention something, say it's significant, and then not say what it is.  This is an article on Christian thought, which is mostly theology, so it's been difficult to determine what to include and what to leave out.  I think maybe I have too much in at least one place and nothing at all in several others.  I mention that "Christian thought" is  there, give names, and titles when I can, and hope that's sufficient for people to pursue if they want to. At any rate, I think the sidebar that's there now is good and helps identify the article.  So thank you. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * So do you have any idea why it doesn't show as a link? Is that because it's on that page? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, how what doesn't show as a link? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

persecution and tolerance. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you mean in the History of Christian theology sidebar in this article? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:40, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. I thought that's what you asked me about! I thought you placed Persecution and tolerance in the sidebar, and I was just commenting that it isn't highlighted/linked like the other topics and I wondered if that's because it's at the article or for some other reason. Sorry I was unclear. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's how they work, think of it as a "you are here" thing, a link wouldn't help. Compare Restorationism. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Got it! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:48, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

user 50.49.147.136 reverts
user 50.49.147.136 reverts - As I explained on your talk page, I reverted two changes you made as they were about personal style preferences that added unnecessary verbiage, and in two cases now, were also emotionally loaded. You also added the heading "Goa inquisition" without including any content. Empty headings should be removed. When you have content, add it then. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:14, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You made a claim about why the witch trials ended that I know is not only without support but is wrong. You like to include pathos, but this is an encyclopedia, not a passion play. Please don't make unsupported claims. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

GA comments
The article is a good effort, but some work is needed to achieve GA status. First, page numbers need to be included for verifiability. It is impossible to read an entire book or dissertation to verify the information. Second, cleanup tags should be resolved—currently, the article arguably meets the quick-fail criterion because of the number of valid inline cleanup tags. I'm really confused with the paragraph starting with "The necessity of aiding the brethren in the East..." This seems like a quote but it is not in the appropriate format. Also, it should be formatted as it appears in the source, without any stylization added by WP editors. You also have to make sure that all images with substantive information are correctly sourced, for instance there is no reliable source listed for the info on File:Pre-1500 map spread.jpg. buidhe 01:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for showing up and commenting. I really appreciate it.  I have fixed the page number problem on the citations you noted but there are more and I will finish going through it and do all of them or replace them with citations that I can find proper page numbers for. I moved the introductory sentence and included attribution for the paragraph you mention.  They aren't exact quotes as the material covers several pages; they are paraphrases. I stole the image from another Wikipedia article.  That'll teach me.  Should I remove it or what? Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ideally, you would be able to find source(s) for the information in the map, such as a similar map in a published WP:RS. (For example, see File:Europe 814.svg, which is correctly cited). However, failing that it should be removed as not verifiable.
 * I know you've put a lot of work into this article, but alas it's not really in my area of expertise, so I'm afraid I would not be able to give a very good general review. buidhe 07:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


 * That's perfectly okay. I have removed the GA template until I get those references perfect.  I hope you will return when they're done.  You would be a good reviewer under any circumstance I think.  Thanx again. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

GA Gerda comments
I began reading, finally, thank you for the invitation. I find the first sentence a bit too complex, and do we need Christian so many times. I guess we can't take for granted that readers know Enlightenment and Middle Ages, - consider linking. While I like the Contents structure, I find it rather long. You may want to limit the display to a certain level of detail. Not too familiar with the topic, I am surprised that "thought" is singular, only to explain that thoughts differ (thought differs?). That's it for now. More bits to follow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * YAY! You're here! I will try redoing the first sentence and not use Christian so many times. :-) I started writing as though people would be familiar with the middle ages--and then went back and redid all the history stuff because I realized how wrong I probably was. I could put all of it in one "historical" section if you think that would be an improvement--should it be divided by "Ages" in the way the rest of it is? That might end up making the contents longer.  Of course, I could just have "Historical background," cram it all in, and not bother with headings.  Sort of like I did on Biblical Criticism.  :-) Do I understand correctly that you think I need fewer headings overall?  I can do that.  Easy peasy.  'Thought' is as I found it when I got it--which never once discussed thought, only alleged and controversial behaviors.  I suppose we could ask for a change of title, but why bother really?  I have taken thought as a formal definition of theology etc. There are actually books on Christian thought.  How about that?  Thank you Gerda.  If there was a President of WP I'd vote for you. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * (blushing.) Thank you, waking up to this wonderful response. For the moment, don't change too much, just take in, and I will take in, and this process is what I love about this project. I have a FAC open, and perhaps compare. The question came up how to introduce a term readers will not know, - I said link, another explain. Just link to medieval and enlightenment (and more such terms), good for those who don't know. Is there an article on thought in that theological/philosophical sense? (I said I'm not familiar.) I wish we had a way to see a TOC both overview and (show:) expanded, because all we have so far (afaik) is TOC limit, saying all at level 3 (or what) should not be visible. It's still there, has headers in the body, sections you can edit, just not all this white space right at the beginning. I use it in my articles on compositions when it comes to movements. You may want to mention the key words of headers of the "lower" (not shown) levels in the one above. - Now, after this pleasant start in the morning, I'll exit for real life errands, have yesterdays song to polish (with a DYK I liked, see?), and a list of songs for tomorrow (please correct, add ... - so surprised there are not more), so please be patient, again ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ooops! I went and redid the whole thing!  Well, if you don't like it we can always put it back.  What's TOC?  Have a great day!  Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * TOC is Table of contents. When you don't know any WP term, just out WP in front, WP:TOC. Will look later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I'll remember that, thanx. I don't know for sure Gerda, but I don't think I like all the historical background crammed in together--there's just too much--and it's hard to remember what has to do with when.  It doesn't separate naturally because all of this is historical, the entire article, and it's more confusing this way I think.  I'm thinking of putting an under construction banner back up and putting the history back in each section.  If you can help me figure out--(just tell me what to do)--how to fix the TOC so it's better, I think I would like to go back to the multiple divisions and sections it had before because it made it possible to follow the winding path through this complex and obscure set of ideas. It's too easy to get lost now I think. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I decorated my talk for Pentecost, and some of it is about understanding coming from different languages, which may be English and German, and trained in philosophy and not. I think I said just the opposite of cramming history together: link to terms such as medieval and enlightenment, no more. Happy in-spirit-ing ;) - will look later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, so I got over-cooperative and got ahead of myself and made a bunch of extra work for nothing! Jeez Louise!  I will do the linking--and undo the mess I made.  Thank you for your patience. I like your talk page 'decoration.'  My church still is not meeting anywhere but online--which I am kind of enjoying.  I can get up and go to church in my bathrobe... :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Copy-vio from Ratzinger
There is a quote under contemporary Catholic views from Cardinal Ratzinger that repeatedly comes up as a copy-violation--but it's a quote--so it shouldn't be a violation. I have been to the Teahouse to ask how to resolve this and so far, nothing has worked. Does anyone out there have an idea how to fix this? It's got to be something about formatting but darned if I can figure it out! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * What message are you getting? The quote looks to be correctly marked. —[ Alan M 1  (talk) ]— 12:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks correct to me as well, but when you run the copyvio on this article, that stupid quote constantly shows up as a copy violation. I don't understand why and want it to stop! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh. I don't think Earwig's copyvio detector makes any attempt to exclude quoted material, possibly as a feature, allowing its use as a quote verifier as well (i.e., to make sure quotes are accurate). Other examples in the article include the LA Times quote of Pope John Paul II. —[ Alan M 1  (talk) ]— 22:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * So it's okay and I shouldn't worry about it? Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Correct. —[ Alan M 1  (talk) ]— 22:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Major NPOV and tone issues in the article
Wow, where to begin? Much of this article isn't written with proper tone, and definitely does not conform to WP:NPOV and WP:MOS. There are too many examples to list, but it's most obvious in the lead as well as reliably controversial sections like Anti-Paganism and the Crusades. It looks like a single individual wrote most of this article, and it reads like a scholarly apologia not an encyclopedia article. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 13:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I am so glad you showed up to participate here. This is written to reflect the most current scholarship which contradicts much of the traditional view, I know. I wondered how much of the old views to include because of that. I've been told that including controversy in the lead is not good, so I didn't, but if you can help with a way to do so I would be genuinely grateful.  Let's come up with a way to make this more balanced if that's what you think it needs.


 * Part of what this article reflects is the recent work in archaeology on temple destruction in antiquity. This is just from the intro. to Luke Lavan's book  The Archaeology of Late Antique "paganism".  To be fair, please take the time to read it for yourself.


 * Lavan says that, as a result of much modern archaeology, archaeologists are confident in saying that pagan temples in Late Antiquity were neither widely converted into churches nor widely destroyed.(xxiv) Of the thousands of temples spread across the entire empire, only 120 are known to have been converted into churches, and only a third of those can be dated to earlier than the late fifth century. Desacralization or destruction was very rare. In one empire wide study there were 43 cases, with only 4 archaeologically confirmed.(xxiv)


 * If one accepts all claims--including the shaky ones--concerning destruction of pagan shrines and temples in Gaul, 2.4% of all known temples in Gaul were destroyed by violence in the late fourth century and later.(xxv) In Africa, the city of Cyrene has good evidence of the burning of several temples; Asia Minor has produced one weak possibility; in Greece the only strong candidate may relate to a barbarian raid instead of Christians. Egypt has produced no archaeologically-confirmed temple destructions from this period with the exception of the Serapeum. In Italy there is one; Britain has the highest percentage with 2 out of 40 temples.(xxv) On page xxvii he says "our evidence for [Christian] attacks on temples is very shaky."


 * He talks about a straightforward reading of the Theodosian laws leading to a distorted image of the period at the top of page xi. He goes on to say that public sacrifice definitely ended where the court was, but that away from the imperial court, sacrifices continued to the end of the fourth century. There is evidence of desacrilization, but very little.(xxx) He concludes from archaeological evidence that "We must rule out most of the images of destruction created by the Theodosian laws.  The vast majority of temples were not treated this way."(xxx)


 * This is just what one of the sources says, and the anti-paganism section, which you apparently didn't check before tagging, has 19 sources, not one, and they are from all the best sources like Oxford and Cambridge and so on. None of them are popular works or questionable. They are not Christian and they are not biased. So, the tag is false. Please acknowledge the claim is inaccurate and remove it.


 * As to NPOV, as Lavan says, everyone has to take a big gulp and swallow this, and I understand it's a shift in perspective for you personally, but that doesn't prove that it is biased. Please help me to see how reflecting the best most recent scholarship is non-NPOV. I will work with you and will include what you think needs including.


 * I am happy to include the older traditional views--even if they are apparently out-dated and contradicted by the consensus of modern scholarship--which would have to be said. Let's have a whole paragraph on it if you think that's appropriate. We could make a section on traditional views and another section on contemporary views. There are ways we can do address this, and I am more than willing to work on this in cooperation with you if you will. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I certainly appreciate your thoughtful and courteous reply, but when I mentioned WP:NPOV and WP:MOS, I'm referring to the issues covered in those two guides, primarily regarding tone. It seems to me that the article is written to present a specific argument using supporting evidence rather than in a neutral, encyclopedic style. For example, the article doesn't conform to MOS:WTW; going down the list, there are examples of almost every category throughout the article. Contrast this article with any of the featured articles at WP:TFAA; the one thing they all have in common is that they are written in a factual, encyclopedic tone. I just don't think this article conforms to the appropriate tone, and it seems to me that the controversial nature of the content is a big reason why. Pronouncements about consensus or the history of scholarly thought on a subject have to be properly sourced, otherwise it's WP:SYNTH. The entire slant of the article seems to be pushback against popular conceptions or previous scholarly attitudes, but I don't think that's appropriate; it's the tone that's the issue. We shouldn't be "making the case" in the text of the article one way or the other, merely dispassionately reporting what one source or another says. EDIT: Scanning through the article, it also seems odd that there seems to be little mention of Christian sources advocating intolerance or persecution; if persecutions are mentioned at all it seems to be in a way that is exculpatory of Christian theologians who were contemporaneous with the events. Surely there are sources we can cite showing instances of persecution and intolerance that were defended by mainstream Christian thought, church leaders, etc? For example, the Crusades section (for which there are surely such sources) seems to offer nothing whatsoever like this. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 04:22, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you as well for your courteous and genuinely helpful reply. I only have about a year's total experience on WP, so I don't know a lot of what you are referring to. I will go read those things. I accept what you have said here without argument assuming you know what you are talking about and genuinely want to help make this article better.  I don't quite understand yet how to go about changing the tone, so I would appreciate your input on that with some specific suggestions if you would. See, I thought this was written in a factual tone.  If it isn't, I guess that reflects the content of the sources themselves which are in the position of making an argument. What's the best way to deal with that?
 * So, what you are saying is that to say there is consensus I need to reference a source that says that, right? I had one, and took that idea and put it in, but didn't know that wasn't sufficient.  I will go back through them and find the ref, but I still do agree with you that more needs including.  I didn't find anything directly on Christian sources about Christians in mainstream thought advocating persecution.  All I found was the few mentions of previous scholarship that was now being shown incorrect. "Surely there are sources we can cite showing instances of persecution and intolerance that were defended by mainstream Christian thought, church leaders, etc?"  I agree, there must be, I just didn't find them, so if you know of some, I will add them--or you can.  Please feel free to edit here all you want.  If we can work together we can figure it out, I'm sure, without making the article sound all schizoid if you know what I mean. :-)
 * I accept and agree and appreciate your input. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think one thing we can do is mark the article for cleanup so that editors might see and help contribute. I'll put up the cleanup template. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 16:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


 * . The whole article?? Really? Okay, if you think so. I read all that stuff you sent and I can only see a few examples which I will happily change. If there are more, you will need to point them out. But I have been working on anti-paganism--which I knew would be a problem--and I have done a rewrite that I want you to read and critique--and approve before I use it to replace what's there. I want you to agree or provide input--or both.  Don't just "drive-by" tag and leave okay?  Here is my rewrite:


 * According to the Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity, (OHLA), scholars of Late Antiquity fall into two categories in the debate on how and when Antiquity ended: "catastrophist" or "long." The traditional "catastrophic" view argues for a rapid demise of paganism in the fourth century and its violent end sometime in the fifth. This was first embraced by Gibbon and has been the established view for 200 years. "From Gibbon and Burckhardt to the present day, it has been assumed that the end of paganism was inevitable once confronted by the resolute intolerance of Christianity; that the intervention of the Christian emperors in its suppression were decisive ... that, once they possessed such formidable power, Christians used it to convert as many non-Christians as possible –  by threats and disabilities, if not by the direct use of force."  The "long" view was first stated by Peter Brown whom OHLA calls the "pioneer" who began the study of Late Antiquity as a field in itself, and whose work remains seminal. Brown used anthropological models, rather than political or economic ones, to study the cultural history of the period.   Brown says Christian thought after Constantine revolved around the narrative that Christians had invented and imposed claiming that a "mighty conflict had taken place, and the Christian church had emerged as the victor" in Heaven; conversion of pagans was therefore not a primary concern of antiquity.


 * Archaeologists Luke Lavan and Michael Mulryan point out that the traditional catastrophic view is based on literary sources, many of which are Christian, and are known to exaggerate and invent the "iconoclastic achievements of radical monks in the service of polemical panygeric."  They indicate that archaeological evidence of religious conflict exists, just not to the degree previously thought.  According to Fowden (1978) pagan temples were destroyed by determined Christian iconoclasm in the late fourth and early fifth centuries; Deichmann (1939) said that in the same period, pagan temples were being converted to churches across the Mediterranean.  Subsequent scholarship such as that of archaeologist Richard Bayliss (2004) have tended to refute some aspects of this picture in terms of chronology and intensity.  According to Bayliss' study, 120 pagan temples were converted to churches in the whole empire, out of the thousands of temples that existed, and only a third are dated before the end of the fifth century. Desacralization and destruction were attested to in 43 cases but only 4 were confirmed by archaeological evidence.


 * Rita Lizzi Testa, Michele Renee Salzman, and Marianne Sághy quote Alan Cameron as saying the idea of religious conflict as the cause of a swift demise of paganism is pure historiographical construction, whereas Stephanie Ratti says it still provides the best explanation of events.  Laws such as the Theodosian decrees attest to Christian thought of the period, giving a "dramatic view of radical Christian ambition."   Brown says the language is uniformly vehement and the penalties are harsh and frequently horrifying.  Salzman says the law was used as a means of conversion through the "carrot and the stick", but that it is necessary to look beyond the law to see what people actually did.   The local authorities, who were still mostly pagan, were lax in imposing them, and Christian bishops frequently obstructed their application.  Generally, Christians objected to anything that called the triumphal narrative into question including the mistreatment of non-Christians.  Lavan says Christian writers gave the narrative of victory high visibility, but that does not necessarily correlate to actual conversion rates, and there are many signs that a healthy paganism continued into the fifth century.      Testa et al. add that scholars concur that the once dominant notion of overt religious conflict cannot explain, by itself, all the varied realities of late Antique Rome.


 * Contemporary scholarship indicates there is no single narrative of the end of paganism. Temple destructions and conversions are attested, but in very small numbers. In most regions away from the imperial court, the end of paganism was both gradual and untraumatic.     The Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity says that "Torture and murder were not the inevitable result of the rise of Christianity."   Instead, there was fluidity in the boundaries between the communities and "coexistence with a competitive spirit."  Brown says that "In most areas, polytheists were not molested, and, apart from a few ugly incidents of local violence, Jewish communities also enjoyed a century of stable, even privileged, existence."   Having, in 423, been declared by the emperor Theodosius II not to exist, large bodies of polytheists all over the Roman empire were not murdered or converted under duress so much as they were simply left out of the histories the Christians wrote of themselves as victorious.


 * There was periodic mob violence involving both Christian and pagan. OHLA says that, "Rather than illuminating a deep current of intolerance within pagan and Christian communities, these events primarily reveal the intolerance of fanatics."   Salzman indicates heresy was a higher priority for Christian thought than the conversion of pagans in the fourth and fifth centuries.   Examples of intolerance are found in Christian dealings with those they termed heretic.  Brown concludes that "any attempt to draw a scale of violence in this period must place the violence of Christians toward each other at the top.


 * I left Hypatia out, but that can always change if you think it should. Please get back to me on this!Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I deleted my first effort and have now replaced it with a rewrite of my rewrite. If I don't hear from you, I will assume it's okay and will insert and delete the tag on this section as it has 11 references (fewer than before) but pretty equally cited. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Here's another little technical detail for you. On a talk page, you can keep the reference list in the same section as the refs by adding  (after your post usually). I've inserted it above for you. I also had to copy the "Boin" and "Mulryan" refs from the article, since they were referred to in your text above (with  ) but not defined (with  ).  —[  Alan M 1  (talk) ]— 23:10, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


 * So would you consider adopting me permanently? :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I have redone the anti-paganism section and removed the tag. I am now working on the crusades and will replace it tonight.  I think part of what you are seeing in this article is because the content is on Christian thought, that's the topic, it isn't apologetics, it's just the actual topic.  Since you have not given any specifics or any assistance, and since I haven't heard back from you on either this page or the other one, persecution of pagans, I am left assuming you have no further comment. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Section titles
I changed a number of section titles from "... (year1 ~ year2)" to "... (c. year1 – c. year2)" per MOS:CIRCA. However, I'm now questioning the inconsistency between the ones like "Dark Ages (c. 500 – c. 800)" and the ones without the circa ("High Middle Ages (1000–1200)" and "Witches (1450–1750)"). I'm thinking the "c." can be eliminated (e.g., "Dark Ages (500–800)") since date ranges like these can be assumed to be somewhat fuzzy by default, right? If they're changed now, I won't feel compelled to leave another anchor since the circas would have been there for only a few hours. I do see some more mis-capitalization of sections, too. Any objections to the following changes? —[ Alan M 1  (talk) ]— 22:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm so glad I met you! Thank you so so much! Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Non-breaking spaces in refs
At Special:Diff/959108838, changed 96 instances of literal non-breaking space characters (0xA0) to HTML character entities (&amp;nbsp;), which makes sense, since the literal character is generally indistinguishable from a space in most editing environments and so is not recommended to be used.

However, these seem to have been used as separators in cites in a way that I don't think is necessary or even correct. One example is the Nirenberg cite, added by at Special:Diff/960037718. The result would seem to be to allow breaks in the middle of individual fields of the cite – the opposite of what you would want, which is to break at field boundaries.

Not realizing the extent of the issue, I had started removing them in one of my edits earlier today, but stopped. Is there a reason for these to not just be regular spaces (as is normal practice), of which I'm unaware? Are these cites being copied from somewhere, or generated this way by some tool? —[ Alan M 1  (talk) ]— 22:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , while I see the nbsps being added in my edit, the only thing I altered was the ISBN number. I have no knowledge of anything past that. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  23:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * So I got notified my name was being spoken in vain and showed up here only to wonder if this is actually English... :-) I might be able to answer if I understood the question. I would have put in that reference myself.  What are the breaks you are referring to?  Spaces or those upright posts that go between each aspect of the reference? What are field boundaries?  Should I go away and leave you alone?  I'm thinking this is way over my head.  Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I know these are stupid questions to you, please forgive me, I ask for patience because I don't know anything about coding. Do I have to put that sfn thingie in every time I want a dash? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you make the edit using a script of some kind? I confirmed that the edit did, in fact, translate the non-breaking space characters (which appear as spaces in the diff and in most editors) to, which as I said is not wrong, but you should be aware of it, since it explains the +407 bytes shown in the history, the long diff, etc.
 * Not stupid at all, and don't worry about it – I'm just trying to get to the bottom of it. In the edit I linked above, you can see that you added the following reference. To make them visible, I've replaced the five non-breaking spaces with underscores . They appear on either side of "David." and "United Kingdom," and before "2015":
 * So, did you manually type this cite with your keyboard and did you do something different in those five places than in the (many) other spaces in the cite? Or did you maybe copy it from somewhere else, like some kind of cite tool? What kind of computer do you use? Again, nothing accusatory happening here – just trying to resolve the issue.
 * As far as dashes, the details are at MOS:DASH, but basically, ranges of years, page numbers, etc., use an en dash separator instead of a hyphen. An en dash can be inserted from the "Wiki markup" buttons (the first button) below the edit window when using the source editor. There's probably an equivalent in the Visual Editor. Another way to type an en dash on a Windows PC is to hold down the Alt key and type 0150 on the numeric keypad. If that is not convenient, you can type  (seven characters, including the trailing semicolon). For example, when referring to pages 23 through 45 after a cite, you would type.
 * When separating things that have spaces in them, like full dates or parts of a sentence, a "spaced en dash" is used, with a leading non-breaking space and a trailing regular space. The easiest way to do that is with the template. For example, the lead sentence of a bio article might begin with:
 * There are also uses for an em dash (always unspaced), which is the second of the "Wiki markup" buttons below the edit window, or can be created on a PC with Alt-0151, or by the characters  (not by -- (two hyphens)).
 * Again, the details are at MOS:DASH. I hope this helps. —[ Alan M 1  (talk) ]— 00:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I believe I just used the standard source editor. I understand that correcting them isn't wrong—in fact, I don't see the point of doing that myself. It could potentially be WikEd, but if it is, this would the first time I've seen it translate the characters into nbsps. I don't have many other scripts installed: I've got:
 * a personal script for giving key bolded words icons
 * another that counts the page size in articles
 * an archived discussion finder
 * the discussion closer
 * an edit request wizard
 * Wikiplus (which I installed 2 or 3 days ago)
 * I'm not aware of any interactions these would have with article text, though. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  00:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikiplus (which I installed 2 or 3 days ago)
 * I'm not aware of any interactions these would have with article text, though. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  00:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any interactions these would have with article text, though. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  00:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the explanation. I wrote it all down.  I have read most of the beginners instructions here but I just got overwhelmed and figured I would remeber it better by doing and learning as I went along.  Thanx to the goodness and patience of people like you, I am.  As to the Nirenberg cite, the manner in which it is formatted is a dead give-away that I got it directly from a "cite this item" in an MLA format--the format I am most familiar with.  If I had put it in myself--as I previously thought--I would have used WP's long style for citing a book.  So I was mistaken on that one.  There are others that I used that as well--Wikipedia took it without complaint and it saved me work so I went with it.  I take it that was a mistake on my part--all the references should be the same?  Or there's something about how it is written that is causing a problem? Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Whatever site that was from formatted the cite with those non-breaking spaces (for reasons I can't imagine). For the future, if you use that site's "cite this item", you apparently need to replace those non-breaking spaces manually. In other words, you would have to paste the cite into the Wikipedia edit window, then delete and replace (or over-type) each of the apparent spaces with spaces. I know that sounds like a pain. What site is it? Perhaps there's another fix. —[ Alan M 1  (talk) ]— 03:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's just googlebooks----nthing weird I swear! Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Hardly worth such an extended discussion... You should be able to cite Google Books directly by just copy/pasting the URL at the appropriate place using the cite feature (i.e. see this if you're unsure): doing this without any changes with what you give above results in:  Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  05:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm guessing you're using the Chrome browser? The problem seems to be isolated to that browser, with which I was able to duplicate it. Firefox, Edge, and Internet Explorer do not exhibit the problem. If you have one of those, I'd suggest using it instead of Chrome if you want to use a manually-formatted cite. As RC said, a better solution would be to use the cite tool to produce the template.
 * I use Safari and Firefox and Chrome, all of them, because they often obtain different results and Google has a fast click icon for google books and google scholar. I will read that page, I promise.  Anything that would make referencing less of a hassle would be a plus!  Thank you again Alan. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

It's hard to know how long a discussion is going to be when starting it. Such is the nature of troubleshooting. I think it was worthwhile since we ended up tracking down what turns out to be a bug (probably in the new Google Books; not done investigating yet). I didn't want to introduce the template vs. manually-formatted cite issue into the mix because some people feel strongly about it and I didn't want to complicate things further, but that would have been next if you hadn't beat me to it. —[ Alan M 1  (talk) ]— 06:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No fussing at allowed! :-) He has shown up here and done all kinds of work to improve this page--most of which is beyond my know-how--but which I am watching and taking notes on and learning from.  He takes the time to explain things at the kindergartner level which is what I need.  He is patient and kind and helpful.  I have a master's in my field but I am less than a kindergartner when it comes to knowledge of coding and many of WP's processes and that means it just takes longer to explain things --I don't even know the vocabulary, the jargon, so he has to find words that mean something to me--and he does.  So no fussing at Alan!  He is nothing short of awesome, okay? And no more fussing at you either!  Thank you for showing up and helping too. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

A few minor issues I noticed
There has been a lot of improvement on this article, I put the GAN tag back because it is certainly ready for a GA review.
 * I fixed some citations which were citing bare urls or a Google Translate version of a website. Please be careful with attribution. The previous version said, "Mack quotes Irwin Colter, human rights advocate and author as saying, "[F]reedom of religion remains the most persistently violated human right in the annals of the species." cited to Cotler, which is not allowed because Cotler does not show that Mack quoted him. When I checked the Cotler article, I found that Cotler actually was quoting most of this from a different individual. So please be careful with attributing quotes correctly!
 * "Berger, D (2012). New Perspectives on Jewish-Christian Relations: In Honor of David Berger. Netherlands." It would be unusual for a scholar to contribute to their own festschrift. Indeed, this part of the book appears to have been written by someone else
 * I could not figure out what "iced" means in this ref: "Johannes Teutonicus, Glossa ordinaria to Gratium's Decretum, edited by Augustine and Prosper Caravita, (Venice, Apud iuntas, 1605), C 23, q 5, c32, iced by Mark Peg, A Most Holy War, OUP, 2008, p,77" Also "edited by Augustine" seems wrong. See also "cite where you read it"; it's not clear in this citation whether the 1605 or 2008 edition is cited.
 * Two ref errors: "Cite error: The named reference "Monter" was defined multiple times with different content" and "Cite error: The named reference Van Doorn was invoked but never defined".
 * There is a minor style issue with spaces appearing before references.
 * Most links should only be linked once in the body, on the first appearance of the term. The article has many excessive MOS:DUPLINK, which can be highlighted with this tool. buidh<b style="color: White">e</b> 19:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow. Okay, let me have a sec to get over being completely blown away by you and your amazing skills. It took me, what, a month to go through all that? You're astounding.  Anyway, I keep trying to make it shorter and clearly caused myself some problems by removing and moving Monter and Van Doorn without being careful enough. I will fix those, they should be straightforward.  I have no idea what the iced means!  It's from the former author.  I tried to be sure I checked every reference from the former author and I found a whole bunch of hinkey stuff. I apparently missed this one.  Thank you for this.  I knew you'd be awesome! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * P.S. I have never heard of Duplink before! Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Checked, and it is Irwin Colter Mack quotes, so I had to put him back, but I have now properly referenced her, not him. I'll be more careful in the future--at least I'll try!
 * Re Cotler, (his name is not "Colter") the attribution to him is wrong (or at best misleading) since he was quoting someone else. I know WP:Verifiability not truth, but we should also try to get things right. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 01:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Monter and Van Doorn are fixed.
 * On the spacing, I did that on purpose simply because I don't like the look of references crammed up next to quotation marks! Do I have to take them out? I'll do what you say needs doing.
 * I'm removing Mark Peg's "a most holy war" since it references page 77 and yet pages 3-277 are omitted in the preview on Google books. I don't own it, so I can't check it at all as my library is still closed due to pandemic. That is probably why I left it. "iced" must be a typo--surely. It is now replaced.
 * Berger is fixed properly now--I don't know how I screwed that one up so badly!
 * I am now going to look at the duplicate link thing and see what I need to do there. Thank you thank you thank you!!!! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I did it wrong! I posted the script on the page and it found nothing that I could see. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I am totally complimented by the fact you nominated it for GA--and totally bummed that means you can't review it. It's cool though. You've been a big help and I'm glad to have met you. h wait--it still has my name on it! You can review it--if you want!  Whoohoo!!!  You'll be tough and fair and make it better!  Perfect! I am living in hope! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

There's now another "Cite error: The named reference Berger was invoked but never defined". <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 01:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Aaarrgghh! That means I changed the original ref but then forget to go back and change all the times I used it doesn't it? Okay, fixing that now!Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. All the details of properly coding on WP is overwhelming to me at times. I once spent a whole day hunting down a problem that turned out to be a space in the wrong place.  It's maddening to those of us who are not especially detail oriented.  I have a Master's in my area and I constantly feel like an idiot here. I genuinely admire those of you who are good at this.  It's like a superhero ability! :-) Thank you.  I checked and no red warnings anywhere! Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand everything you did but I'm grateful! Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * (Stuff I don't understand) I don't understand taking the Cotler quote back out since that is the reference I have. I don't have a reference for Dinstein.  Should I go get one?   Also the changes to the dashes have confused me.  AlanM1 came and changed those to that nbsp thing, and now you have changed them back to the way I originally had them, so which should I do?  It is a long quote at the end, but this is an article about persecution as well as tolerance, plus I reference global persecution in the lead, so I thought it appropriate. I can certainly remove it however. I get your reasoning for taking out Ratzinger, but I thought the whole Christian thought thing needed to be included, so if you agree it should, I can get alternate modern day views.  The Catholic thought today section is a leftover from the original author.  I could take a bunch of that out if you think it's appropriate and combine the Catholic and global sections into one.  Actually, as I sit here thinking on it, I could take the entire "modern day" thing and make it into one much shorter section.  I have from the start been somewhat uncomfortable with Spain being the only other country mentioned besides the US--which should perhaps also be shortened?  Previously, the Spain section only mentioned Franco, which seemed wrong to me. Perhaps no single country should be mentioned separately since they can't all be mentioned separately.  Hmmm... thinking...I could take a completely different tack toward the modern day that would more evenly discuss tolerance and persecution globally without focusing on Catholicism or the US and Spain.  I could have an assessment of global persecution and tolerance with modern Christian thought and leave it at that. Post me a yes if you think it's a good idea, and I will make it so. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * You can verify that Dinstein is the author by looking at Cotler's article, which is open access. I don't really have an opinion on the structure, but IF you have a separate section for Catholicism THEN Catholic positions should not be added to the other sections, or else you are probably putting undue weight on it. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 18:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I am going to redo the modern section for the reasons above. I believe I can make it more neutral and more informative both. Because of that, I think I should remove the GA tag until I'm done, then if you agree the redo is an actual improvement, we can put it back.  Buidhe, you have been so awesome, honestly, I so appreciate your input here.  You have definitely improved the article and you've been really nice about it.  I like your straightforward manner, it's productive, and it suits me.  So I'm going to work on this a while more and get back to you, and hopefully, you will like it!  Thanx again! Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Redo is done and GA nom restored! Whoohoo!! I did check and found Dinstein.  I had not read Cotler's actual work before, just Mack's reference to him, so that was good! Everything you've done is good!  Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

As asked on my talk
I finally can follow the invitation to look at this substantial article, - taking glimpses, followed by unordered comments:
 * Is there a difference of "Christian thought" and "Christian Thought". ✅ No there isn't! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Similarly: century is sometimes Century. ✅Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "Crusades" here, but "The Mendicant orders" there.
 * I don't understand this comment. They are two different topics. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry for being unclear. I'd understand "The Crusades" and "The Mendicant orders", OR "Crusades" and "Mendicant orders" better. --GA
 * OH! Duh! I get it! ✅Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * TOC - I wonder if you need to show all levels of the TOC, thinking you could skip 5, perhaps even 4, to make it more concise.
 * I can combine the Dark and Early middle ages--though scholars don't--but five is pivotal. It even says "the pivotal 11th century."  Too much critical stuff happened then to skip it as a separate heading. This one makes me uncomfortable--as if I would be incorrectly addressing the topic. But I want to accommodate your concerns as well--is there a way to do both? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You don't have to change a thing, just say TOC limit 4 or 3, to not show them all. --GA
 * Where do I put that?Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Where you want the TOC, normally before the first section header. - I formatted above where you opened something with two curly brackets, but didn't close. Please just don't use these brackets for other purposes than real templates, - it seems confusing even if properly closed ;) ---GA


 * When we are in "middle ages" and speak about Christian thought, we don't suddenly need "Historical background of Christian thought in the Late Middle Ages", - "Historical background" would do, - or the long form consistently. Nor do you need "Contemporary" three times once arrived in "Modern era".✅Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I see a red link to Christian thought, which doesn't work even once blue. It should be piped, or - perhaps better - be a Main article on top of the section, as for others.
 * explained below Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't a clue what any of what you said actually means so I just removed the red link--is that okay?Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * that's ok, - when you get to an article, you shouldn't link it to "Christian thought", because that's an Easter egg, - do you understand that? ---GA
 * Sort of. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I read at the beginning of another section "In the East, there was the Arian controversy ..." - Imagine a reader coming from the TOC. - Ideally, every section should be understood on its own.
 * added a sentence to opening--is it what you mean? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, but perhaps not only this spot. --GA
 * I went looking and hope I fixed them. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * In an article about religion, I think "religion scholar" sounds redundant.
 * well, the scholars referenced here are not all religion scholars. Many are historians, some are philologists, some are classics scholars--and more.  A religion scholar is what I am--not a New Testament scholar or an OT scholar or an ethicist or an actual historian--though it's my "avocation."  But you get the idea. A religion scholar is a particular type of scholar not a generalization. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * yes --GA
 * You write about what scholars say in the present tense, - I usually use past tense. Now, in music, some wrote long ago, which may make a difference.
 * Answered below. How should I find WP policy on this? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No idea, - I don't go much by policy ;) --GA
 * I learned "fourth century" but "fourth-century thought", no? And how about 14th century?✅. all consistently written out now}}
 * I find four refs for one fact, each with a page range, too much of a good thing. Drop two, or split the fact.
 * I like to include multiple refs for anything I think will be seen as controversial especially if it isn't controversial in the sources. On the RIMoore ref, I also say "and others" so I referenced the others without including their names --should I go back and add their names to the attribution? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I doubt that we should use "holy war" as if any war was holy, - perhaps with a link to Religious war, or, as the redirect goes, Holy War, or say so-called.
 * Holy War is the technical term used for the crusades as separate from other wars. 'Religious war' is not used because the concept is debated and its meaning can't be agreed upon.  They can't even agree upon how to define religion.   It should be capitalized however because it is a title, so I will fix that.
 * and that was all I meant ;) --GA ✅


 * I wonder about the use of "Germany" in the Middle Ages, when what people think of as Germany didn't exist yet.
 * Actullay, the kingdom of Germany began in the 1000s, but I did catch myself using it in the early middle ages which is incorrect. thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There was no Kingdom of Germany, afaik. --GA
 * Then you  better let the people that wrote this know: Kingdom of Germany.   Your home country has a long and illustrious history. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "The factual accuracy is disputed" is the first I see, and that - if it existed - it ended in 911 next. I guess we better drop it. There was no Germany as a nation until 1871. - German as a language and cultural unity is a different thing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't want you to feel I am simply dismissing your concerns. It is in the source I used. On page 87 of R.I.Moore's The Formation of a Persecuting Society he uses Germany, so I did. How would you suggest handling that in a way that would make you more comfortable? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The witch-phobia map is pretty useless that size.
 * click it and it enlarges
 * sure, but as it is it doesn't even invite to click --GA ✅


 * Our article is Catholic Church, not Roman Catholic Church. Perhaps one Roman, no more.
 * well, catholic with a small c is generally used to denote the entire Christian church of all persuasions, it just means 'all embracing' or a 'wide variety'. The 'Roman Catholic church' is specifically the Latin church in the West headed by the Pope. I don't know what Catholic by itself but with a capital c would mean in this context.  I think it may be a popular shorthand term but is an incorrect usage.  But again, I want to cooperate, so I will look into its scholarly use and see what it says. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I meant Catholic Church, not catholic church, as Holy War, not holy war, and the meaning on Wikipedia is what it links to. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand correctly--is this about capitalization? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * exactly, by capitals it gets a different meaning ---GA ✅


 * The See also list is too long. Try to integrate these links in the article. (The list should only have otherwise unlinked items.)
 * I agree. I didn't write any of it, and there are so many see alsos already in each section of the article, it looks almost as if he went through every article on Christianity and listed them all!  I will attempt to wean them down to what might be genuinely applicable. ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

For starters, more to come if you want. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:13, 14 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Bless you, you wonderful person! Thank you so very, very much.  It's funny how we can look over and over an article and still miss things that others see. I am so grateful for your willingness to take the time over these long articles outside your major interest. I will go through and fix my inconsistencies and everything else it is possible to fix. ✅
 * I read linked 'Fourth century Christian thought' because I couldn't find an article on it here and there should be one. It's a major area of its own, yet no article. There is an article on Christianity in the fourth century, but not on thought.✅
 * I understand, but either put it on your personal plans, or pipe it that the red link somehow show what the article will be. To see a red link to a term that appeared ten times before is just irritating. --GA✅
 * In literature, it is convention to always write in the present tense about the work because the work is current and is still saying whatever it has always said. The author him/herself might be in the past, but the work is present.  I know everyone on WP writes in the past tense consistently, and I have accommodated that at times, but if what scholars say is from their work--which it always is--then I periodically fall back into my old habit without thinking. I don't know wiki's policy on this.  I don't know where to look.
 * As above, policy I don't know. You may want to check out high quality articles for models. I see your point, sure. --GA
 * I thought it was possible to click on the map and see it enlarged. I will check on that.
 * yes, I even did, but I'd want a minimum threshold to be recognizable in the article, - try "upright=1.3", perhaps --GA✅
 * Thank you dearheart. I will take any input you can give for as long as you can stand it!  Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Did you know that you are just amazing, all these changes in almost no time! - I did some standard formatting, please forgive ... for the colour-blinds. - Did you know that a ping only works when signed? But never mind, I have a watch list ;) - I'd like to read more thoroughly, but also promised a FA review. - I hope you you'll find a good GA reviewer, - that's something I don't do, as English is not my native language. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you dear one, and thank you for the compliment. You do any formatting you feel like--always. And you know, your English is so excellent I had no idea you weren't a native English speaker until I went to your talk page and figured it out. Your English is virtually flawless.  I am ashamed to say I have forgotten most of what little German I learned while living there.  I would love to take this to FA, but think it should jump through the other hoops first, so I really hope it gets a good GA reviewer eventually as well.  No bites so far.  Take care and good luck doing the FA. My experience with it was not good, but that's probably more about timing for me than anything else. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the compliment ;) - I do GA - but only as a writer, not as reviewer, - that's all (so won't be your reviewer. I find FA reviewing much easier because you can just comment what you want, not responsible for the whole review. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Layout confusion
, the current layout is a bit confusing. The term "Dark Ages (historiography)" is virtually unused by modern scholars, and only sees common use today in popular culture. While it would be better to avoid the term, it's use isn't the main issue. The "Early Middle Ages" are the dark ages, so having them as different sections makes little sense. Also, the use of "circa" for some sections and not others is also puzzling, since every section is an arbitrary historical periodization, they should either all have "c." or none. Just some thoughts, best – Aza24 (talk) 06:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello and thank you so much for this valuable input.  I am flexible on this.  I am following the layout of the time frames used in "The Western Humanities" by Roy Matthews and ‎DeWitt Platt. I own a battered old first version from back in the wayback, and I understand they have updated more than once since then, so it may no longer be the same. "Search inside" is unavailable on the new edition, so I don't know.
 * I do understand that the Dark ages is an outdated Enlightenment term, but it has been my understanding that it is still used, even by scholars, to differentiate a smaller period than it was originally, being used to describe that period immediately following the fall of empire, when things were still in turmoil, before the Carolingians started to get things together and the new synthesized Germanic/Christian society that would become Europe truly began. There is a period of about 150-200 years there when 'dark' does seem to describe the situation. If you have a source you respect that says otherwise, then I will not mind changing it in the slightest. If scholarship has moved on, then DeWitt and Platte have probably changed too and I just don't know it.
 * The circas are used according to the sources which I assume means the authors were unsure of some dates and sure of others. I don't think it's legit for me to change that. But I probably should check them all to be sure. Sigh. Thanks for that!  Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:23, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Re the circas, I can more or less guarantee that there is an implied "c." before every date – whether the author actually puts it there or not. These dates are all arbitrary generalizations, and the authors know this; the current inconsistency is just that, inconsistency – sometimes we have to put common sense over what "reliable sources say". (I don't mean that in a snobby way!) I would still think that it's misleading to separate the early and dark middle ages, if the goal is to separate c. 500 – c. 800 from (c. 800 – c. 1000), perhaps just doing "Early Middle Ages (c. 500 – c. 800)" and "Early Middle Ages: (c. 800 – c. 1000)" would suffice? Aza24 (talk) 11:20, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that about circas but it makes sense. I will go through and remove them. WP won't let me have two things with the same name. It apparently confuses the software or something when you click on a section and try to go there. DeWitt and Platt specifically refer to that era as 'The Early Medieval West' - how does that sound?  It was significant enough to warrant its own section I think, but it doesn't have an agreed upon name of its own like the High Middle Ages does.Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:34, 15 November 2020 (UTC)