Talk:Pelagianism/GA1

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

Reviewer: Aircorn (talk · contribs) 02:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Willing to review this. Don't know much about the subject so expect a few questions. AIRcorn (talk) 02:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I look forward to them :) (t &#183; c)  buidhe  06:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments

 * During the fourth and fifth centuries, the church was experiencing rapid change due to the Constantinian shift to Christianity. Shouldn't it be Church. and maybe a link to Christian Church.
 * Harrison doesn't capitalize it. "Christian Church" is a specifically Protestant term, and therefore should probably be avoided.
 * As Christians were no longer persecuted, they faced a new problem: how to avoid backsliding and nominal adherence to the state religion while retaining the sense of urgency originally caused by persecution. This reads oddly to me. I am not sure problem is the right descriptor as retaining a sense of urgency and persecution seem worlds apart.
 * According to Harrison, it is true that persecution led to "urgency": "In the early centuries, Christians to a large extent had their identity defined for them: they were a persecuted group, at odds with the society, culture and religions of their day, forced either to deny their faith or to defend it to the point of death. Selfdenial, denial of the world, an ideology of martyrdom, a sense of fighting for one’s faith against the powers that be, were characteristic features of Christian life for all the faithful who belonged to the pre-Constantinian church... Most importantly, how were they to retain the knife-edge sense of urgency, rigour and absolute self-denial which had so far defined the Christian life? How were they to avoid easy compromise, unchallenged backsliding, nominal adherence to a favoured (and therefore favourable) cult, unthinking observance of what had become the traditional religion of the state. For many, asceticism - a life of strict self-denial and unfaltering observance of all the commandments to the letter - was the answer."


 * Syrian tradition, including the second-century figures Theophilus and Irenaeus, included views asserting that physical death is natural rather than the result of the fall of man. How does this fit? New paragraph and some context maybe?
 * Done
 * and even the early Augustine. Isn't this a person. Should be wikilinked too.
 * Done
 * Caelestius or Caelestinus?
 * The former—sp fixed
 * were condemned outside of Northern Africa. Is this saying they were accepted in North Africa
 * The opposite; the source says But in fact all of the condemnations of Pelagianism outside North Africa had to do with positions characteristic of Caelestius and only secondarily with Pelagius. I rewrote to clarify
 * Jerome also disputed that free will was as strong as Pelagius said First mention of free will so we don't know what Pelagius said. I get the impression it is important and should be introduced earlier.
 * I have rephrased to : "Jerome also disagreed with Pelagius' strong view of free will". Pelagius' views on free will is covered in more detail later.
 * key turning point in the controversy again this is the first mention of controversy, except for the heading. Maybe needs an earlier intro. Also not clear how this was a key turning point
 * Sources are unequivocal that all the events covered in this section are part of the Pelagian controversy. I thought that with accusations of heresy flying and rhetorical attacks, it was obvious that there was a controversy without needing to spell it out.
 * especially other monks. I don't think we mentioned that he was a monk? He is introduced as a layman
 * Many sources refer to him as a monk even though he was not a member of any monastic order; according to one source, all monks at the time were laymen I've changed to "ascetic" to be more consistent.
 * Many of them later had to seek shelter with the Greek bishops Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius, leading to accusations that Pelagian errors lay beneath the Nestorian controversy over Christology. This seems a bit coatracky. Is there more to this? Theres nothing in the linked article.
 * Teselle describes this as part of the tail end of the Pelagian controversy: "He and several other bishops, condemned because of their refusal to subscribe to the Tractoria, took refuge with Theodore of Mopsuestia, then with Nestorius—compromising these bishops in the eyes of the West during the controversy with Cyril after 418 over the person of Christ. Augustine had already written to Cyril to ensure that Pelagius’s errors not lie hidden among the Greeks.18 The doctrines of Caelestius were condemned along with those of Nestorius at the Council of Ephesus in 431, and a letter was sent to the West confirming the condemnation of Pelagius, Caelestius, Julian, and others. Julian was expelled from Cilicia, Constantinople, and Rome."


 * but this has been criticized by others such as Liebeschuetz. Is there a better way to say this. Criticized could mean a few things. Did he disagree with it or just criticse aspects.
 * Bonner isn't more specific about Liebeschuetz, but he seems to suggest the former. I changed the wording in the article to "this idea has not gained general acceptance" as that is more important that one person's opinion of it. "It has been suggested by J. N. L. Myres, John Morris, and others that the alleged Pelagian denial of grace represented, in fifth-century Britain, an attack on political gratia (corrupt patronage and favour), thus understanding Pelagianism as a reforming movement in a society seeking to shake off Roman imperial decadence and to revive the traditional Roman virtues. The topic is too large to be fully discussed here. It may, however, be said that it has been powerfully criticized by J. H. W. G. Liebeschuetz (1963; 1967) and has failed to convince scholars who have studied Pelagianism as a theological system."

break

 * which struck him as Manichean Previously it says he opposed Manichean. Unless you are meaning that believing humans are evil is Manichean in which case it is not very clear.
 * Yes, he opposed the position that struck him as manichean. Rewrote to clarify.
 * ...because it would be unjust for any person to be blamed for another's actions. This has already been said above
 * Rewrote
 * (in Augustine's opinion) A few of these. I am not sure they are all necessary as they are usually prefaced as being someones opinion.
 * Removed
 * Ali Bonner is mentioned a few times, but I don't think we know who she is and what her credentials are
 * She is mostly known for her book, The Myth of Pelagianism. However, I also found that she is a lecturer in Celtic History of the Medieval Period and fellow of Queens' College, Cambridge added that to the first mention of her.
 * There is a mix of old and new scholars in the "Pelagianism and Augustinianism" section and it is not always clear which is which. e.g  Peter Brown and John Cassian.
 * I link each person on first mention, if notable.


 * I guess I more found it a little disconcerting when reading as it was not immediately obvious whether it was a modern or ancient take on the issue. I do realise the names are wikilinked and spent a bit of time using these wikilinks while reading the article. AIRcorn (talk) 07:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * and it could be argued that the rabbis shared a Weltanschauung with Pelagius Is there any reason not to use worldview. There are quite a few difficult words in this, maybe it is better to limit them when possible for easier reading.
 * Changed
 * (The "semi-Pelagians" all accepted the condemnation of Pelagius, believed grace was necessary for salvation, and were followers of Augustine.) WHy is this in brackets in its own sentence
 * Removed
 * argued for prevenient grace that individuals had a choice to accept or reject. Is the grammar here correct?
 * Yes, but I rewrote slightly to be easier to read.
 * Is there a reason not to spell out J. P. Migne or A. Souter?
 * Expanded
 * represents the consensual Pauline interpretation that is found in the Greek exegetical tradition I have no idea what this means
 * Paraphrased to reduce jargon
 * and therefore unequal wealth is undeserved. Isn't this a Pelagianism idea?
 * No, according to Nelson, a Pelagian would believe that human suffering is caused by our own sin and therefore not unjust. Added sentence to clarify this position.

Lead and general comments

 * heterodox is mentioned in the lead, but not in the body
 * Right, I wanted some sort of shorthand for the fact that there are no Pelagian churches / Pelagianism is not accepted by Christians to day. The problem with "heresy" is, heretical according to whom? It is deemed heretical according to the Catholic Church, but it's not clear if other churches would consider it a heresy.
 * Pelagian controversy redirects here. Are their plans to make it into its own article?
 * It is independently notable (entire books have been written on it), so it could certainly become its own article. I see no reason not to link it, because that way if/when the article is created, the incoming links will be in place.
 * I like the lead, it is very easy to follow. I did struggle a bit with the second half of this article though. Particularly the later responses. I don't know why exactly, but it felt like I had a good grasp on things leading into this section and then I found myself floundering a bit. I don't think it is a GA issue, maybe more an aspect of myself not being familiar with the subject matter. It could probably be a bit more written for the layperson and maybe more focused (a lot of different names of scholars and adherents are used), but I thin you should compromise to much of the info in there.
 * Thanks for the feedback, I'll go back again and see what I can do.
 * References all look good and are excellently formatted. I do wonder why we have so much further reading though?
 * I just added all relevant readings that I could find so that they would be useful in expanding the article. If it's too much, the list could be moved to talk.
 * No images. I noticed a few of Pelagius and Augustine at their respective articles. They seem the most logical ones to have.
 * For both Pelagius and Augustine, the images available were created 1000 years after their deaths and therefore are unlikely to resemble what either of them actually looked like. Furthermore, as this is an article about an idea, I don't know how physical appearance helps the reader understand.
 * The "Om the Christian life" is good, but I was wondering if there was a better way to relate it to the text (I know you have a note, but it would be better if it was more obvious as it doesn't mention Pelagianism.
 * Clarified in-text
 * A lot of notes. This is fine, but it does make me wonder if some would be better in text
 * Seem to have lost earwig from the tools. Did it manually at it linked reddit of all places. From a few checks I did while reading I am confident there is no copyvios here.
 * Overall a very good article. Not a lot wrong. AIRcorn (talk) 08:20, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Conclusion
I probably should have stated at the start that I treat these more as suggestions then requirements. Obviously some things need to be done to reach GA standard, but while I am reading it I like to make other comments as well. Thus unambiguously meets the GA criteria so I have no issues in passing it. I hope my comments have provided some useful feedback. Regards AIRcorn (talk) 07:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, they definitely have. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  08:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)