Talk:History of Christianity/Archive 5

A. Parrot
As of today, the article is at (13928 words). I could weep. There is one topic that has been requested that another editor is working on, but it should not be larger than a sentence or two. I am currently working on images - a punishment for all my sins. I think I have addressed all your concerns. I removed everything you suggested and more. This was really. really. hard. But it is better, you were right. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:40, 8 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I'll look it over during the next few days and see what pointers I can give. A. Parrot (talk) 00:01, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You are wonderful. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:12, 10 December 2023 (UTC)


 * With recent additions - 14226 words. This should begin to stabilize now. Content change is pretty much done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC)


 * A. Parrot (12342 words) "readable prose size" and I think it is now as comprehensive and concise as it can be. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:57, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Down to 12,1. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * A. Parrot It is below 12000 words now. I didn't think it was possible, but the main points and a few explanatory details are all there still. Everything you asked to be gone or added in is as you requested. I am so grateful for your help, I can't say thank you enough. You have made the article better. I hope I haven't been too difficult. This has not been easy for me! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! I feel like I should apologize for my lack of comment lately. I haven't had the time for another thorough read-through of the article, and I don't feel comfortable giving more feedback based on a cursory reading. But I wish you luck. A. Parrot (talk) 07:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * A. Parrot That's okay. You already made a big contribution to the article just to help out a fellow editor, and I am grateful. Thank you. I wish you the best as well. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Summary style
To further improve the article we have to keep in mind WP:Summary style. Currently some sections or paragraphs are too detailed and need to be summarized. Here are some examples: (talk) 00:32, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "The earliest Christian community in Jerusalem was led by James the Just, brother of Jesus." is unnecessary detail that can be omitted.
 * "Christianity quickly spread beyond the Roman Empire. Armenia, Persia (modern Iran), Ethiopia, Central Asia, India and China have evidence of early Christian communities." is a perfect sentence, very summarized. However, the next sentences are far too detailed. There are three sentences explaining that there is evidence of Christian presence in Sri Lanka, Tibet, Georgia, India and Socotra. If Christian presence in Armenia, Persia (modern Iran), Ethiopia, Central Asia, India and China can be mentioned in a single sentence, why not doing the same for other territories?
 * subsections  can be summarized even more.
 * Asia Minor: last sentence "Trevett writes that there was diversity and distinctiveness as catholic leaders of the second century began forming 'official' statements of ‘orthodox’ Christian belief based on apostolic teaching as authoritative." is unnecessary detail that can be omitted. Why would it apply to Asia Minor and not elsewhere?
 * Egypt: the first sentence "There is no archaeological evidence of Christianity in Egypt before the fourth century." is unnecessary detail that can be omitted. Why archaeological evidence is a subject for Egypt and not for other subsections (Asia Minor, Gaul, etc).
 * Syria: the fact that the prophet Mani was born in Persian Mesopotamia in 216 is unnecessary detail that can be omitted.
 * Gaul: "eleven Christians from Vienne and Lyons, although later martyrologies record 49 names." is unnecessary detail that can be omitted. Mentioning that there were several martyrs is sufficient.
 * North Africa: mentioning that persecution under Valerian aimed specifically at high-ranking clergy in North Africa is unnecessary detail that can be omitted.
 * Rome: last sentence can be summarized and the quote can be put in ref.
 * the sentence "The ancient chronicler Malalas claimed Constantine destroyed all the temples; then he said Theodisius destroyed them all; then he said Constantine converted them all to churches" is not very useful as these are contradictory comments that may confuse the readers. It can be omitted.
 * paragraphs about John Wycliffe and Jan Hus are too detailed and can be more summarized, if possible.
 * last paragraph describing how the Albigensian Crusade ended is too detailed and should be summarized in one sentence, if possible. The main article is here to provide more details to the readers if they want.
 * "revitalizing the Norman church into the early twelfth century" is unnecessary detail that can be omitted.


 * SanctumRosarium The balance necessary here is between being as comprehensive as possible while also being as concise as possible. Sometimes one consideration outweighs the other. You have stated that you think only big - what was it you said, "massive evolutionary" - information should be included in this article, but that's a backwards view of Christianity.


 * Christianity has been, for most of its existence, a result of multiple individual behaviors. It's not like politics and economics. They are massive and evolutionary and work primarily at the macro level. Christianity was built at the micro level through the power of one human social interaction after another. If there were enough of them, they in turn, created a vast variety of societal changes that varied by location. I have tried to cover the "flashpoints" including the people who struck the match, and how, and what the results were, in some effort to be as comprehensive as possible. Cutting content without discretion ends with an article that is no real history at all. The good the bad and the ugly need to be included, and sometimes there has to be enough detail to explain which is which.


 * 1. I disagree. That is an example of an important individual. Many readers will know that Jesus' family did not support his ministry while he lived, and it wasn't until after Jesus' death - and what 1 Corinthians 15 describes as a post-resurrection appearance to his brother - that James changed. He went from saying his brother had lost his mind to being the head of a church dedicated to him. It doesn't matter if you believe or don't believe any of it personally. It's a significant fact no matter what.


 * 2. I agree. ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


 * 3. Because it applies to Asia Minor and doesn't apply elsewhere. The development of orthodoxy based on apostolic teaching was a singularly important step in its early development, and Asia Minor is where that first coalesced. I strongly disagree with removing this. ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


 * 4. It's 'a subject for Egypt' because it has been the scholarly view, until recently, that Christianity did not appear in Egypt until the fourth century. This was based on the absence of archaeological evidence. It is only recently - because of discoveries like Nag Hammadi and the Dead Sea Scrolls, and so on - that the sheer weight of documentary evidence has led scholars to conclude otherwise.


 * Any major changes in scholarship deserve a mention. Still ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


 * 5. I can go either way on this one. Manichaeism was a big deal 'heresy' back in the day. The catholics hunted it into extinction. But I did not mention all the heresies, so I guess this one could go. ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


 * 6. I can go either way on this one too. There is a discrepancy in the source, and that seems important, but it is a detail, so it can go without altering much. ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


 * 7. I can see that, although that means there is no detail about what "persecution" meant anywhere in the article. ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


 * 8. Absolutely not. I will fight for this one. Every section has a mention of what happened that was specific to that geographical area - orthodoxy, heresy, persecution - and the last sentence is basically all there is on Rome.


 * 9. I strongly disagree. You originally rephrased this section by quoting Eusebius as if he was completely accepted as authoritative on this, and that's not correct. I replaced that with a reference to 43 sources demonstrating the huge discrepancy in the sources. They are contradictory comments - that's the point: the sources are contradictory. There has been a lot of controversy and disagreement over these issues, and this is why. That seems significantly important to any study of history.


 * 10. I don't agree. Explanation above applies. These men were as important in their countries as Martin Luther was in Germany. They produced Reformation movements too.


 * 11. I strongly disagree and will fight for this one too. There has been a lot of dispute over this topic, and the end is necessary to historically understand the beginning. The last paragraph is sort of the whole point of having it in this article at all - which requires it as representative of the paradigm shift taking place in the church at the time.

Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 12. You explain to me why that is not important to a history that claims these reforms were what gave Christianity its power and influence in this era? 'What era' should be included somewhere.


 * Regarding 12th: the full sentence is "Owing to its stricter adherence to the reformed Benedictine rule, the Abbey of Cluny, established in 910, became the leading centre of Western monasticism from the later tenth century, revitalizing the Norman church into the early twelfth century." Cluny becoming the leading centre of Western monasticism is a big change that must be mentioned, while the fact that is revitalized the Norman church is a local consequence and not a significant fact in comparison to the first one, that's why it may appear as unnecessary detail. If you think it should be mentioned, that's ok. SanctumRosarium (talk) 18:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There is so much in this article that staying clear on timing is difficult. I think it should stay just because it sets it in time as well as place. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I edited it by removing the first part and leaving the 12th century. It's shorter and maybe a little clearer! So thanx! Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Thoughts while pruning
Gonna just log my thoughts on parts that might need some prose work as I do my chopping.

More to come.Generalissima (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Beliefs and practices of the Middle Ages is currently some kinda disparate strands; we need to tie this together into a cohesive encyclopedic narrative on how it changed from late antiquity.
 * I am currently outlining how to redo this section in my sandbox, and had exactly the same thoughts - that it would be better to tie these to other aspects of "Christianity in society" - that kind of thing. I am feeling free to add content to my heart's content knowing you will come along and edit me! Thank you again for this! Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "By the 1300s, segregation and discrimination in law, politics, and the economy, had become established in all European states." Segregation of who, by what metrics?
 * The full discussion is in note 21 in "Centralization, persecution and decline (1100–1450)". Since you want to take out notes, if you could figure out how to add some of that particular note back into text, it would answer that question directly. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We should at least have a sentence to mention the Seljuks and the Sultanate of Rum under In the East (1000-1500), since that's what the Byzantines and Crusaders were fighting for the earlier crusades.
 * It was there in an earlier version. I'll see if I can find it and put it back. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We should at least have a sentence or two describe the Christianization of the Kievan Rus.
 * I had a full section on them and was told by the last person who helped we with conciseness that every individual nation had to go in a broad overview, and that besides, they had articles of their own, and besides it was just too damn long. I did have all the countries, it's true, but it did not seem appropriate for me to pick some as more significant than others. If I put the Kievan Rus back, I should put back the rest of Eastern Europe as well. Right now there's two truly pitiful paragraphs on East Central Europe and that's it. I will happily replace the Kievan Rus, but what about the creation of Poland? Bulgaria? All the rest of them? Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The summary of Upheavals from 1500 – 1750 really, really, really ought to give more weight to the role of missionaries and Christianity in general within colonial atrocities. At the moment it reads as practically apologia.
 * I'm sort of walking a fine line here with this one since colonialism was not a Christian movement. Christian missionaries were "add ons" who weren't always welcomed by colonial powers, had very little power over what happened to people, how things were administrated by the colonial government, and so on. They could appeal to colonial government but that was about it. Lamin Sanneh who was a missiologist - Harvard? or maybe Yale? Yale I think - anyway, his studies are full of examples of missionaries as basically evenly divided in their support and in their opposition to colonialism. He has examples of missionaries taking advantage of colonial power to force locals to cooperate, and of missionaries enduring personal suffering in order to oppose colonial power and protect the locals. I actually thought about cutting colonialism entirely since colonialism was political and economic and not primarily religious; religion was a not always welcome addition that often interfered with making money - the primary goal of colonialism. Christopher Colombus sailed in 1492. It was 1510 before the Dominicans arrived. They were appalled enough at what they found to speak out and nearly get themselves killed. These were the men who converted the famous Bartolomé de las Casas. Colonialism linked war and evangelism as a means of subduing natives, but missionaries thought force was obstructive to evangelism. That was Christian theology since early on. What do you have indicating missionaries were involved with atrocities? Ah, you want to include the Goa Inquisition, I'm guessing. A unique and fascinating example reflecting what was going on at home in Spain and Portugal. Of course the Portuguese were among the worst of the extractor governments, but it probably should be there, you'd be right about that. How, I wonder. It would require at least some context - I will work on something. I may have to split it into different sections. You'd be okay with that, right? It's a 500 year history. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * A Century of Violence in Soviet Russia, from what I can tell, is heavily exaggerating the number of Orthodox priests executed in the period. This appears to be a heavily politically charged work, which doesn't really agree with modern scholarship on the Red Terror.
 * This is one of the original sections left in the article from before I started on it. I always try and leave as much of other people's work as I can, but I confess, I did not go over it except to check that it was properly sourced, because it is consistent with what I have read. I will research it and check it out. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There was a figure that said 8% of India is Christian but that is like, 4x exaggerated from any other academic source I could find.
 * Also not mine. I will add it to the list of things to find out and fix! Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hat-notes on the Cristero War and Spanish red terror were in the wrong section.
 * You are a wonder and a blessing! Thank you! I am currently working on Late Antique. If you are working on Middle Ages, I won't get there for a bit, are you okay with that? It means you will have to come back again. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Generalissima So a lot of changes already - which are distracting me from adding content - but are very valuable and appreciated. Mostly they are good, but I think meaning has been changed incorrectly in a couple of them. In this Dif you have  and that is not anywhere in that source. Beginning at the bottom of page 8 to the top of page 9 it says that the battle that you describe lay in the future, that it was in the post-Enlightenment that they wanted to remove dogma about Christ's divinity. Young says  It goes on into page 10 with  etc. etc. on in the rest of that paragraph. You have overlaid a later interpretation that wasn't present in the first centuries, and it's contrary to fact. I didn't want to revert the entire diff, because so much of what you did is good, but this needs changing. I liked the quote, it summed it up succinctly, but do your paraphrasing magic if you prefer, just please don't interpret from a modern perspective. That creates an OR interpretation that isn't accurate.
 * Perhaps I am wrong. Have I misunderstood what you are trying to say here? If so, then there is some ambiguity to resolve. No one argued against Christ's divinity in these early centuries, which is what I understood you to be saying. All the controversies were over how not weather. So if I am wrong in what you meant, I apologize for going on about it, but it does need clarifying. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I hate autocorrect - whether not weather. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * On down you have and that too is not what the source says. That's another OR interpretation that isn't accurate. The Roman Pope did not have influence beyond Rome until much later, so first off, no such comparison can be made even ing it were the Patriarch that had influence, but it wasn't. It was the church in Alexandria through its many writings and the church fathers who lived and wrote there that had influence.
 * I am all for making things shorter but this perhaps removes too much since it doesn't explain why or how that mattered. The other "evidences" of morals causing change make a comparison. That's the only one that now does not. It needs more work.
 * I think this is also a false claim: Stabilized and established are technically different. It didn't stabilize till the fourth century. So that's the first Dif. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The second Dif I have removed the sentence "This had not previously been a requirement in the West." since it was the requirement that pagans convert that is now gone, so it makes no sense.
 * I think this is also false: "Christian emperors wrote laws offering incentives and prohibitions encouraging Christian norms." What norms would those be? I know of no such legislation. They did prohibit sacrifice and magic. I have changed that now for better factual accuracy.
 * "These became the first institutes of higher education in Europe since late antiquity." I put sixth century back, since Late Antiquity is currently somewhat disputed. So that's the second Dif. If you disagree with any of this, please bring a source. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Next diff on images. I'd really like to keep all maps. I think most people know crap all about geography. Really, doesn't seem like a fair criticism,  since the text directly discusses those regions.  Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Diff removes attribution  and its citation yet keeps the quote - you can't do that!  All quotes must be attributed and properly cited, and it was Witte that said it and not Matthews and Platt.
 * Under Enlightenment there is a reference to Jacob without even a full name to explain who that is.
 * Under the Baltic wars, Saxons were not just German, they were also English and more. Do you know for sure they were polytheistic?
 * "Christianity was in full retreat in Mesopotamia and the Near East", well I don't think that's quite accurate, since it was not the entire area, just the interior of Iran. Everything else is good. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Diff under Revolution and modernity it mentions  which is never actually discussed in the text. In the slavery section I removed an unnecessary sentence. Why pick the white woman as the only image? is not the same as the fastest growing which is what the source says. I think you might want to fix the ambiguity in this: I'm good with all the rest. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Generalissima Nevermind about any of this. I have fixed it all to my satisfaction, if it also suits you, then this initial pass through is done. I have also removed some notes. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:06, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You know what? I don't really like my edit at Origins. Can you fix it? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll try to get back to this soon! You have been doing some really really good work so far. I'm really proud of how far it's come along! TY for pruning the notes and incorporating some of them into the text.
 * One other thing; would you mind if I remove some of the superfluous section hatnotes? I feel there's a little bit too many for my tastes, and I think some FAC reviews might end up disliking them too. Generalissima (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I do not mind at all, in fact, I agree - go for it! While you are doing all of that, fixing my work, and having a life, in your spare time, please keep an eye on things I am adding. I know they needed adding in, but I also know they need editing down. I will keep filling in those gaps, and keeping an eye on accuracy, and trusting you to keep your eye on the bottom line of word count. We make a pretty good team, imo! Thank you again! Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
The above was getting too long. Generalissima I know there is a bunch of yellow 'no citation' in sources now because so much has been pulled, but please don't do anything about it, at least not until we are done and are sure they will not be reused. I will remove them, then, if that's okay with you. Or you can - or anyone can - but just not till later! Please.

Also, I have now copied the section on persecution and heresy/inquisition, the long note, and some new material, into my sandbox to rework that entire section to be more neutral, maybe, if possible, and more careful, if possible, and to use the sources Borsak wanted, and somehow make it all shorter! Yikes! Give me this week, please dear one. I also have to go out of town for a couple days and am kindo' slammed in RL. Don't give up on me! I will be back with - hopefully - something good that will fill the bill for what the reviewers wanted in the Middle Ages. Thank you!!!!!! Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The talkpage Template:Refideas exists if it's something you find helpful for some potential refs. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Ooooohh!! I like that! I am going to look at the books he suggested, just because he thought it was important, but I may still use that template - if not now, then at some point! TY! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Generalissima Okay, trying to use Borsak's sources did not go well. I got into an argument with him and have now, no doubt, trashed all chances of doing anything with this article. I'm afraid you will conclude you are wasting your time here. I will still redo the section - but I won't be using his sources - and it won't satisfy him. He wants apologetics not neutrality. It's my own damn fault. You told me to remove the "riddled with corruption" phrase, and I didn't listen. I'm an idiot sometimes. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Generalissima I have now redone the section Borsak objected to in a manner that satisfies my need for appropriate detail and factual accuracy and good sources. It is shorter than what it replaced so I request that it not be edited further. I am going to request a review at the neutral point of view board in hopes of putting that issue to rest. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It did not pass muster. I know little of Middle Ages history and was just relying on the sources and apparently my sources were not sufficient. I am going to have to start that section over again. Sorry. I am off line for awhile.  I'll be back. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Edit request: more info on non-European Christianity
Hi, would someone enjoy adding a bit on Asian and African Christianity? The current article suffers from undue Eurocentrism. Of course Western Europe is central to the history of Christianity, insofar as the religion spread from there to most of the world during colonialism. But the various Eastern/Orthodox churches are really really important and fascinating context. E.g. the unbroken presence of Christianity from the first century in Ethiopia in East Africa, or in Kerala in India, deserves more detail and explanation. And we should mention the patronage that the Church of the East received under Khosrow I and other Persian rulers, which allowed missions to be sent across Asia, before there was even (see "the Road to a Christian East" chapter of The Silk Roads by Frankopan).

More info could also be given on the strong relationship between Christianity and Islam, e.g. theories of Christian influences on early Islam, or their interactions in Africa or in the Balkans (much has been written on this, but The Case for Islamo-Christian Civilization by Bulliet is an accessible starting point). In other words, to make this a bit more of a well-rounded global history of Christianity, not presupposing Western Christianity to be the default, since it wasn't in the past anymore than it is today.🙏 -- MA SHAUN IX 13:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)


 * You must edit in whatever you think is vital, keeping in mind this is a broad overview only. The more specifics there are, the longer it gets. Since this is a flagship kind of article for Christianity on Wikipedia, I would very much like to see it go FA if at all possible, and length is an issue for that. Please do add whatever you think is essential to understanding this history in proper perspective, but please also note that there are any number of significant events that only have one or two sentences. Entire movements barely have a paragraph. I am not an Eastern scholar, so having someone that knows more of that area go over every mention of the East would be extremely helpful, but please, I beg you, keep it as short as possible. Try to cut as much as you add! I completely support your efforts and thank you up front. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * MA SHAUN IX This is now moot as the article has been moved to History of western Christianity. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:46, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There were objections to the move and I have now reverted it. It should not be moved until there is a requested-move discussion. SilverLocust 💬 03:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


 * MA SHAUN I have attempted to make this article less western-focused. I have not completed the Late Middle Ages in the East yet, and next week RL will prevent me doing much here, but I will get back to this. In the meantime, I would be grateful if you would look over what's been added and see if there are any major topics missing. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi @Jenhawk777, I have tried to create a short section on the state of Christianity in Northern Africa in the 12th and 13th century. I hope it is short enough but feel free to shorten it if you can. I think especially the Sanneh source can be also used for the further centuries. PontiffSulivahn (talk) 18:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * PontiffSulivahn I am grateful for the participation, but the paragraph has some problems. Right now it reads:
 * First off, you know you must only write what the sources actually say and cite them accordingly. the article by Lower, on pages 613 - 614, is your first reference. Those pages never mention Ethiopia or the Copts of Egypt. I can find no reference anywhere in Lower's article to either one. The claim is also factually contradicted by your other source on page 16. That has to go. It's OR.
 * You are right that this part is not mention in Lower but in Sanneh. I would not read page 16 as contradiction, the page explains what was going on with the Copts in Egypt and also mentions that Egypt tried to block "Christian Ethiopia" from establishing contact with the outside world. This is why I decided to put a half-sentence on the continuity of Christianity in Egypt and Ethiopia. I have therefore included another citation to that half-sentence.PontiffSulivahn
 * The connection made within the sentence - "had hugely decreased by the 12th century when" - makes it seem that the newly arrived Christians caused the decrease in the indigenous population. Perhaps that's unintentional, but that causality isn't in the article either. On page 613 it specifically states that what happened to North Africans is "a historical puzzle with many missing pieces" - scholars don't know the cause - so that's more OR. The article speaks of three periods of exodus when "North African Christianity dwindled and disappeared over the late antique and medieval periods," and one of those has some "chronological overlap" with new arrivals in the 13th century, but nowhere does it say European arrivals caused the decline of the indigenous population. That too its OR and must go. If you didn't mean to say that, clarify what you did mean to say.
 * I think in this case I have misexpressed myself. I refer to the sentence Lower write on page 614: "In fact, though, there was considerable chronological overlap between the arrival of these European Christians and the gradual disappearance of the indigenous communities." Therefore I wrote that "the indigenous Christians had hugely decreased by the 12th century when they were joined by newly arrived Christians from Europe." As I am not a native speaker, my rephrasing might have shown a bad causal effect, so I am happy with any correction :)PontiffSulivahn
 * The next sentence is confusing: were all the new Christians slaves, merchants and soldiers? Did they all come from Europe? Well, no, that's not what the article says. Where did they come from then? That needs clarifying at least.
 * Maybe Lower would have been the clearer citation as on page 614 he mentions the three groups very distinctively: captives & deported Christians, primarily from Spain and also including Mozarabic Christians, soldiers and mercenaries from Catalonia, Provence and the Italian maritime republic. Sanneh mentions on page 15 the merchants, the soldiers serving in the bodyguards and then Mozarabs. In case you can read German, I also suggest Die beziehungen der paepste zu den islamischen und mongolischen herrschern im 13 jahrhundert anhand ihres briefwechsels (The relation of the popes towards the Islamic and Mongolian rulers in the 13th century according to their letters) by Karl Luprian and here you can read again on page 19 that in the Maghreb (Northern Africa) one could find primarily Christians of foreign origin, namely merchants, mercenaries and slaves although in the inner parts of the country Christianised Berber tribes remained.PontiffSulivahn
 * Who were the puritanical Almohads? That's not explained, and I can't see how that could possibly be considered an appropriate adjective to apply to Moslems. It's not in the source. That makes it more OR.
 * puritanical would be used here in the sense of e.g. "having standards of moral behavior that forbid many pleasures" (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/puritanical). As far as I know, it is a common word in English, not only applicable to the Puritans and Sanneh also uses it on page 15.PontiffSulivahn
 * What economic and military value could slaves and merchants have? The reasons for the Pope's support should be mentioned and isn't.
 * Sanneh mentions on page 15 that Muslim rulers tolerated Christian for the lucrative trade that they brought and also mentions how Christians served in their bodyguards. Lower, whose article deals with the Christian soldiers in 13th century Magreb and how they sparked missions and papal interest to the region, mentions that as well and goes into more detail. Page 619 mentions how caliph al-Ma'mum put more trust into Christian mercenaries and "the Almohad's dynasty growing reliance on the military support of Christian mercenaries". Page 629 mentions how also the subsequent dynasties, the Hafsids, Marinids and Zayyanids, continued to employ Christian mercenaries. The whole article is basically about how the importance of the mercenaries became a source of leverage of the popes to promote Christianity in North Africa (page 620).PontiffSulivahn
 * The Sanneh citation page numbers do discuss the mendicants, but not as it is conveyed here. Francis spoke to the Sultan apparently without producing hostility. It was the mission to Tunis that was met that way, and the 5 that went to Morocco were martyred. That seems worth a mention to my mind.
 * The thing here is that the appearance of the three aforementioned groups in North Africa triggered the need to provide pastoral care as every Christian community would need a priest to administer rites (Lower, p. 615). This was the primary reason for the missions. Then, the Franciscans sent the above mentioned missions to Egypt, Morocco and Tunis to also Christianise local Muslims and pope Honorius III made this official papal policy in his bull Vineae Domini custodes. This was, as mentioned by Sanneh p.15 forbidden and you find the same in Joseph O'Callaghan's Reconquest and Crusade in Medieval Spain p. 118 that also states that proselytisation was contrary to Islamic law. The proselytisation was then met with violence and martyrdom as you mention. Therefore I phrased the sentence in the way I did, but I am happy for better ways.PontiffSulivahn
 * Lower's article is on the Muslim use of Christian mercenaries to fight other Christians, and nowhere is that even mentioned in this paragraph. It's actually an interesting topic, but when it comes down to it, it might be one of those details that isn't significant enough to include. At any rate, it can't stay as it is. It would set off all kinds of alarm bells at FAC and get the nomination quick-failed for OR. Repair or remove, please. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have not found any mention in the article how Christian mercenaries were deployed to fight other Christians. As mentioned above, it discusses how the mercenaries became an important impetus in the efforts to promote Christianity in North Africa. Nevertheless, the article together with Sanneh offers a short overview on what was going on at the time in former Christian North Africa: local Christianity diminishing, European Christians arriving, this triggering new missions by the mendicants and interest by the popes, typically to provide pastoral care for them, but occasionally also to proselytise. Additionally the short overview on Egypt and Ethiopia. I will try again, but feel free to edit it to make it shorter and so that the nomination works out :)PontiffSulivahn
 * Just so you know, I have now reverted the edit for the above reasons. If you fix the problems, it can be reinserted. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

With gratitude
I would especially like to thank SanctumRosarium for their persistence and aid of the best kind. Thanx to your timely assistance, all that is left now is checking images for alt descriptions and copyright info, and going over all the references for any w/o page #s. I note that there are a few of those left, and if there is some good reason, it should be posted. At least I think that's possible! I'll check! If not, we will have to find other sources. This is one of those truly tedious detail types of work that I hate but is so necessary for the quality editors expect of an FA article. If you are willing to continue with me to the end, I think - I hope - we will see the benefits of our work. Thank you again! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)


 * SanctumRosarium Well that comment shows how much I knew last December! Comments from peers at FA said the article was too western biased to ever make FA, so it had to be rewritten yet again. There are few secondary sources, and even fewer original sources on the East, but I did my best to provide as balanced and thorough a picture as possible. It is now close to 13,000 words. If you feel like walking across coals yet another time, please take a look and see if you can suggest edits that would shorten content without losing the thoroughness other editors have insisted FA requires. I've been working on this article for two years now. It's about to kill me. Any comment will be appreciated. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

protection for this article
Multiple acts of vandalism as demonstrated in recent edits at indicate to me that this page needs protection. Do others agree? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Here are the last two: ;


 * 2a02:c7c:4671:6300:dd2f:ea0c:376:ba69 Please stop. I will be compelled to report this to [] otherwise. Since you are already partially blocked, that would not lead to good things for you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it might be time to take this to RFPP. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:54, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I've requested semi-protection at RPP. Can't hurt. Remsense  诉  21:56, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Apparently there is not enough disruption. I did not go back and collect all previous ones, but if this continues, I will. Thank you Pbritti and   Remsense  for trying. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Ohnoitsjamie, per, you may want to partially block from this article too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I only see those 2 edits from that /32 range since the beginning of the year. OhNo itsJamie Talk 13:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't get to decide that! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)