Talk:Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire/Archive 2

Legal/Governmental Basis
Believe it or not I don't have anything substantive to add here. :-) I would add a couple of details, but it's not wrong if you don't. I will simply leave you with food for thought. Chew it or spit it out as you please. :-)

The claim is made that Roman authorities didn't really have it in for Christians, so it seems like including some of what was actually done to them--like taking out their eyes and cutting off hands and feet--which wasn't even considered that severe by Roman standards--might be included somewhere. Just as a means of keeping it all in perspective a little: the weight of government against an individual because of their faith--whatever that faith was. How much would they need to have it in for them to do a lot of damage?

In the governmental section--if I were writing which I am not--I would beef up the discussion of superstitio and say more of how Christian persecution was not unique, maybe add some of what was done against Bacchanalia, and how Rome would have seen it and Christianity as basically the same. It isn't said anywhere that this classification put them outside the protection of the famous Roman law, and that is part of what made it possible to treat them, not just as criminals, but also as though they had no rights. As an ethics major I would feel compelled to explain this was because Rome's beliefs in religio and superstitio were normative and potentially discriminatory. Just to explain that all the various kinds of persecution, including Christian, did not happen against a starkly contrasted backdrop of "Roman tolerance".

One of the crticisms most often brought against Gibbon and Ste.Croix is that their explanation of why Christians were persecuted explains Christians--but it doesn't explain Roman behavior: why--if Romans were tolerant--was it a problem for Rome--whatever the crazy Christians did or didn't do? Modern studies have concluded Rome wasn't really all that tolerant; Rome had requirements--and arrogances--and eliminated all opposition as a matter of course. Their attitude toward racial superiority is what led to the problems with the Goths in the 400's, which was one of many things that contributed to the downfall of the empire. Since this has long term effects, 'was Rome tolerant' would be included in a discussion of politics within the legal and governmental sections--if I were writing anything else here--which I am not doing. The truth is, throughout the entire history of empire, Rome felt it was superior in every way and squashed those who claimed otherwise. Swear fealty to Rome or die. If there is one primary cause of persecution that would have to be it. But that is all for meditation late at night while drinking beer and looking at the stars. :-)

So we are done now! Thank you for working all of this through. I could not have asked for a better editing partner. Good luck in the future. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments. I would just point out that the article does not use the word "tolerant" a single time. It says the Romans tolerated the Jews for a long time because they were following their ancestral traditions but my feeling is that a general judgement as to whether or not the Romans were tolerant is best left to the reader to decide.Smeat75 (talk) 14:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The word isn't necessary. The implication is there.
 * I only intended this as a "behind the scenes" discussion. Didn't mean to offend. I am pedantic by nature and it comes off as offensive sometimes, but I don't mean anything by it. I tend to learn as much as I relate every time I write something on Wiki and want to "share".  :-)  But once again we are in agreement about what our job here is and isn't. For the reader to be able to make their own decisions, full accurate and unbiased information is required, and there tends to be bias smeared all over everything Christian--for and against--at least that's been much of my experience so far. Not saying that's you! I have edited out both kinds and I'm sure you have too. I'm accordingly sensitive to it. Too much time in philosophy classes. :-)  Just ignore me! Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Latest revision under punishments
 Are you excluding Tacitus for some reason? Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:15, 6 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you're referring to with the diff, Jenhawk777; I simply reverted a removal of sourced content. Do you mean that Nero's burning of Christians (in Tacitus) should be included but isn't? More likely, he -- or rather, a secondary source that cites him (hint hint) --simply hasn't been added yet. By the way, it (the Punishments section) seems to have been in the article for some time.


 * I'm also not sure why it (the little section on Punishments) has been positioned halfway through the list of persecutions. The section glides over some significant (in this instance) status distinctions between citizens as privileged honestes (superior persons) or commonplace humiliores (everyone else); only the former were lawfully exempt from an inventively tortuous death in the arena. Christian arena victims who suffered the worst fate weren't executed for simply being Christians, but as noxii -- executed for treason, sacrilege, refusal to swear oaths, etc. As far as the organisers and audiences at the games were concerned, every punishment should seem to fit the crime, but few, if any punishments, were reserved specifically for Christians. I don't think we need the section on Punishments when we have scholarly commentary on well-sourced, particular cases. All we can say on the Colosseum question (did they or didn't they kill Christians there?) is that we don't know; and that's actually what Beard and Hopkins say. I'm not sure that's worth repeating in this article; maybe it could be elaborated more usefully in the Martyrdom section, regarding the development of later martyrology. Haploidavey (talk) 10:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Tacitus on Nero's savage treatment of Christians is referred to in the article, in the section headed "Nero" -  Tacitus records (Annals 15.44) that Nero was rumored to have ordered the fire himself, and in order to dispel the accusations, accused and savagely punished the already-detested Christians and in a picture caption in the same section - According to Tacitus, Nero used Christians as human torches.Smeat75 (talk) 12:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)


 * That's all as should be, Smeat75, but I get the impression that Jenhawk was referring to the "Punishments" section (whose restoration by yours truly is shown by the diff). I don't think we need a separate section on that. What d'you think? Haploidavey (talk) 12:52, 6 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Is the difference between the way Roman citizens and others were punished made sufficiently clear elsewhere in the article? That is the most valuable element of that short section imo. I would also like it to be made clear somewhere in the article that there is no evidence for Christians being thrown to lions or executed in any other way at the Colosseum as that is such strong "myth" in popular culture. I have no objection to the "punishments" section being removed as long as those elements appear somewhere else in the article. I think what you say above Christian arena victims who suffered the worst fate weren't executed for simply being Christians, but as noxii -- executed for treason, sacrilege, refusal to swear oaths, etc is very important. Can you put that in somewhere? ThanksSmeat75 (talk) 13:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC).


 * Okey doke, I'll try on all three counts: obligations to the state and community; offences against custom and law; and arena events as Imperial retribution (which was nothing if not punitive, and is both symbolically and practically represented in the ethos and acts of arena "games"; general modern consensus places arena executions within the ludi meridiani (midday games). It's hardly surprising that the Colosseum (by far the most remarkable and grandiose of all Roman arenas) was so strongly associated with martyr traditions. After all, it's exceedingly visible. All this might merit a subsection; but it'll take me some time to get the basics in place. Haploidavey (talk) 13:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello again! How are you? I was responding to Firewire's sentence--which you have already reverted--so my comment is already moot.

Since I'm here I want to add Smeat75's point about the lack of evidence of Christians dying at "The Coliseum" in Rome is supported by current scholarship. If you decide to include that, which I agree is a good idea, I hope you will include some clarifications as well, such as, many provincial amphitheaters did witness such deaths; Nero's persecution was likely in the amphitheater Nero built in the Campus Martius but that "Nero inflicted elaborate punishments on Christians..." is supported; and that in spite of the absence of positive evidence outside of Eusebbius and Tacitus, as John Pearson and others say "it seems certain some Christians did end their days in the arena of Rome's Coliseum." ("Arena: The Story of the Colosseum" John Pearson; "Spectacles of Death in Ancient Rome", By Donald G. Kyle;  Gladiators: Violence and Spectacle in Ancient Rome, By Roger Dunkle; Arena: The Story of the Colosseum, By John Pearson; The Colosseum, By Keith Hopkins)

Historical evidence suggests more early Roman Christians were martyred in the Circus Flaminius than in the Coliseum itself, but Keith Hopkins in, "The Colosseum", says even though there are no direct records, it is likely there were Christians put to death in the Roman Coliseum.

Those said to have died "in Rome" is a phrase referencing those that probably died in the Coliseum.

As to "criminality", as you have already stated above, after Aurelius the Roman state got organized and made it a capitol offense not to worship Caesar knowing full well Christianity was montheistic and a Christian would have to recant or die. Rome expected recanting of course, not death, not expecting the Christian's stubbornness. Still, Christians were only guilty of "treason, sacrilege, refusal to swear oaths, etc" by default as long as they were practicing Christians. They weren't criminals in the ordinary meaning of the word. No scholar I am aware of suggests the actual bottom line of why they were killed was for any reason that did not revolve around their Christianity.Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Jenhawk777. Thanks for the greeting; I'm well-ish (I guess!). I've read through the article several times now - a difficult topic, for sure, and I've been racking my brains for any useful suggestions and insights. As it stands, the article seems to contain most of what's needed; the basics are there. But... for the sake of context and clarity, they could be reordered, and start with the core context, Rome itself. The reasons for Rome's increasingly hostile responses to Christianity can be presented - even explained - without much difficulty or argument, as long as the context is very clear. In this respect, the current viewpoint seems somewhat skewed; we can't put ourselves in a position where Christianity was not, eventually, triumphant. To wind back the clock two millennia or so, and put us in Roman shoes; a newfangled religion arrives in Rome from foreign parts, without fanfare or self-announcement, and slips into our neighbourhood by the tradesman's entrance. Then it sets up a low-class secret society. Actually, lots of them, here, there and everywhere. The more we find out about these weirdos, the weirder they seem. They're not even citizens. Not even Jews! So, what are these people really up to?? All this in a culture at least seven centuries old (maybe much older), and we've been doing very well for ourselves lately, thanks be to us and our gods. We're evidently the best. We sure don't need "saving".


 * OK, please forgive the "Janet and John" style; I'm not suggesting that we include it! It seems to me a matter of clearly presenting viewpoint within and around law, custom, social coherence and self-identity; a polarised narrative, basically Them (the Christians) versus Us (the "pagan" majority), because these were the conditions in which Christians found themselves, and are said to have tested their faith, through persecution by their hosts, and in martyrdoms undergone willingly or unwillingly. I agree that Christians "weren't criminals in the ordinary meaning of the word"; those who refused to offer sacrifice on behalf of Rome or the Emperor were guilty of treason under laws which, to the Christians concerned, were deeply immoral and irreligious. Certainly, during the later persecutions, Christian=criminal. Some were considered the most recalcitrant, stubborn and brave of their ilk: but still criminal in terms of the law. Somehow, a century or so later, Christianity rules the roost, and operates the same Empire's religion, society, politics and law; surely one of the most astounding reversals in history, though that's probably (and thankfully) beyond the scope of this article. Just an aside here, but many folks (myself included) find the abatement of persecution and later Christian dominance much harder to grasp than the reasons for persecution. I hope that doesn't seem any manner of defence for the latter; it's not meant to be.


 * Regarding the Colosseum business, I can't foresee any problems; it can appear as many times as it needs to, and claims that martyrdoms occurred there (as is very likely indeed) can be put forward without "swatting down" for lack of hard or contemporary evidence. As speculations and traditions go, it's entirely reasonable and relevant. Haploidavey (talk) 12:01, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I love--and agree with--everything you say here. No arguments of any kind.  I love your summation of "Rome's perspective" -- it is really good and should definitely be presented in pretty much that manner.  You summed it up perfectly.  I have come to know you well enough, I think, to know you have a genuine commitment to neutrality, to factuality, and to presenting as much of the scholarly consensus, in appropriate proportions as humanly possible without any personal agenda.  I will give you the greatest compliment I know how to give here and say I think you have the mind of a scholar. This is an excellent article on a difficult subject and it is largely due to your quality work. I meant no criticism of any kind.


 * My input was meant simply as a nudge, a reminder of what you already know, because I know you are fully aware of the many aspects of the question--whatever your personal views might be--you know that "many folks (myself included) find the abatement of persecution and later Christian dominance much harder to grasp than the reasons for persecution" and I know you realize it is therefore easy to overlook. Since historically that is what happened, and it does seem to regularly be discussed, to some degree, in sources on this subject, leaving out any mention of the views on, and the impact of, this persecution in Roman society itself--not in Christianity--would be an oversight.


 * The societal shift you mention was made one individual choice at a time. That's kind of mind-boggling itself but it is also significant here. There was popular opposition, then there was popular conversion, and that involved awareness these "Christians" were not criminals, and their unusual suffering led others to think they might have something unusual. It is probable persecution helped fuel the shift.


 * These are nuances, I understand, but that's part of what makes this such a good article and you such a scholarly writer. You do nuance.  You don't just do black and white. Staying focused matters, and I don't mean to lead you astray!  Include whatever you think is appropriate.  I know you will do a good job.  Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Much as I appreciate your kind remarks, I must point out that so far, I've done very little work indeed on the article itself. Haploidavey (talk) 18:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


 * OMG! I had to go back and find my previous interactions here and see who it was who impressed me so--since I thought it was you--and it was Smeat75!  So now I feel like an idiot!  Smeat--forgive me for forgetting your name!  No wonder I agreed with his original points!  Ha ha, I am red in the face now!  I am sure these compliments apply to you as well!  :-)  Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


 * No worries! I am not sure I deserve such nice comments but thanks!Smeat75 (talk) 05:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

What crime? (for categorization)
Should Category:Ante-Nicene Christian martyrs should be a subcategory of Category:People executed for apostasy‎? Really, this is a question of what capital crime early Christian martyrs were charged with. I'd like to see them placed in a subcategory of Category:Executed people by crime either individually or collectively. Daask (talk) 14:47, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it seems silly, though at least some were executed for failing to sacrifice to the emperor. We don't exactly have the court records though. It's probably better to add the whole Category:Martyrs to Category:Executed people by crime. Johnbod (talk) 15:20, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Revision of :Duration and extent
Sorry Jenhawk777 I do not think this is an improvement and I am going to revert it all. Passages such as "A basic distinction has been made between "Acta Martyrum written in a form of an official report of a court hearing, and passiones, passion-narratives describing the imprisonment, trial, and death of a martyr or a group of martyrs," but these categories are not precise, and sometimes they are combined. Dating them is difficult, and at times, impossible" are just too complicated for general readers, my eyes glaze over myself trying to read it. This is an important article for general readers and having this sort of thing at the beginning is, I feel, likely to make almost everyone turn to something else right there. I do not see any bias in the previous version, what do you mean? Too many names of scholars unknown to all but specialists - "Classicist T. D. Barnes" " "Sociologist Rodney Stark" " Historian W. H. C.Frend references theologian H. Dodwell" " Harnack and Bishop Westcott" "Ecclesiastical historian Étienne Chastel" "Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough",so on and so on. And we do not need to discuss how many Christians there were at this early period in this article at all, it is irrelevant. No, no, no.Smeat75 (talk) 06:39, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Attribution says anything likely to be controversial should be attributed. On that basis, everything in this entire page needs better attribution than it currently has. The fact those outside the field don't recognize these names is why their qualification is included--classicist, etc.--as to "why should we listen to them?" This is an encyclopedia, the people are linked, they can be looked up, they are recognized authorities in their fields.  Good articles include this kind of information. This article makes multiple claims without attribution--how is that general reader supposed to trust that what you say is accurate?  You have given them no place to check it out for themselves. You say Eusebius "exaggerated their numbers" and since Eusebius never actually gives any numbers, I would be interested in whatever source made that claim.


 * Please don't insert comments into others' comments on talk pages without signing your comment so others can see who said what. The quote is that although Eusebius "speaks of "great multitudes" having perished, he is thought by many scholars today to have exaggerated their numbers" (cited to Moss) and I think it is very clear that what it means is that he may have exaggerated, there were not really "great multitudes", not that many numbers of people, it does not mean a specific figure. Smeat75 (talk) 00:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, for instance, the sited information from Candida Moss (2013) "Only for approximately ten out of the first three hundred years of the church's history were Christians executed due to orders from a Roman emperor" is followed in your version by "W.E.H.Lecky says this "diverts the mind from the really distinctive atrocities of the pagan persecutions...and the depth of cruelty" which thousands suffered for the "sake of conscience" but that is ridiculous, he cannot have said "this", i.e., Moss's statement "diverts" etc, since he died in 1903!!! He never read Candida Moss.Smeat75 (talk) 07:05, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Just an accident. Sorry. Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I've been asked to comment here. I agree with Smeat75. The most recent edits overloaded the section with argument and counter-argument; it was rather heavygoing and hard to read - headfirst in at the deep end. Having read it through, I'm still not sure what conclusions were drawn, if any; to me, the section comes across as somewhat defensive, somehow. We shouldn't use primary or secondary sources to construct or demolish proposals or arguments made by yet other sources (per Smeat's comment above). Up-to-date sources would also help - and that holds for several other sections (quotes from Gibbon??).


 * We can make things much simpler if we provide context from the outset - the basics of Rome's pre-Christian socio-religious background are missing. I suggested this earlier (see my comments a few sections above) and promptly forgot to do anything about it. Apologies for that... dereliction; other stuff keeps cropping up, and the "in" tray of Life is rather overloaded. Haploidavey (talk) 10:15, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The topic title of this section is ... "extent", yet there is no actual discussion of it beyond one statement: "it's unknown." That is a weaselly statement and a weaselly approach to a question of interest to--well--everyone. There is speculation, and estimation, and that information should be here. If you don't like it as it is, we can edit it together.  I will compromise and meet you part way--you know I will, we've done it before.  I find you a reasonable person generally.  But having a section and then failing to fully discuss its topic is not good. Not having any real in depth discussion, at all, of the extent of the persecution in numbers--(which every article of this type discusses because everyone wants to know--how many?) is in my view a gross oversight.  The extent of what was actually done to these people should also be here. I only added the one quote from Lecky--but really--an article on persecution that fails to define or discuss what that actually means? How is that defensible?


 * Lecky's statement did not apply to Moss--it applied to the focus on the number of years as small. If that came across as ambiguous to you, it is easy enough to fix.


 * When there is debate over something in any field of study, Wiki guidelines say both sides must be presented with appropriate weight given to the dominant view. This article mostly doesn't do that. Due weight: "Neutrality requires that each article ... fairly represent all significant viewpoints" in proportion. ... If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with references ...  If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; [an article] should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject."


 * This requires the presentation of argument-counter argument in any area where there is disagreement--and this is one. Both Frend and Stark and all modern others spend a good bit of time in their books discussing the existence of what they refer to as "rival viewpoints" on this topic. Where is that idea--that reality--presented or discussed or even acknowledged here?


 * Where were arguments demolished? They were simply presented and discussed in the way they were presented in the sources.


 * Reverting the whole section was heavy handed and over the top as an initial response. It indicates a lack of willingness to work toward consensus. The edit is changeable.  Your objections can be adapted and included.  It's possible to produce a result we can both be happy with--but not if you refuse to work with me and simply revert the whole thing. My information is necessary to the article; it's valid, well researched, referenced, attributed, and actually covers the topic of extent.  Your objections mostly boil down to  "it's too scholarly." Not a good objection. Let's work on putting the majority of this information back in, in a style that suits you.


 * This is a heavy topic if you stop and think about it. It shouldn't be light reading. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't think that section, right at the beginning of the article,needs to be changed at all, it is fine the way it is. I asked for a third opinion, someone we have both agreed with on this page before and Haploidavey agreed with me, so that, as far as I am concerned, is consensus and the end of the matter.Smeat75 (talk) 22:10, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Apparently you went and asked him to. I feel reasonably confident I could go ask some friends to come and take my side as well. I won't. It's against the code as I see it--so to speak. These issues speak for themselves though and you have not addressed the issues. Surely you are not claiming this article is perfect and cannot be improved. It does not meet GA standards, so it's not as perfect as that at any rate.  The placement of the section in question is irrelevant--it can be moved.  Replacing it with Haploidavey's cultural background is probably a good suggestion.  I'll back him on that one.  And I'll check out what Moss says, and on what basis and what others say about it.  I'm not going away this time.  This is an important page and it needs improvement. Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, I asked him to comment. He is not a "friend", he is an expert editor on Roman history who has commented on this page before and who you warmly thanked for his comments as you can see right on this page, I wanted a neutral third opinion and I got it. If you want to make alterations or additions it is a better idea to do them little by little rather than write great big chunks of text and insert them that way. Smeat75 (talk) 12:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


 * What kind of a reference is this? All it says is Moss 2013--no ISBN or page numbers--yet you have referenced it 6 times. Please post enough information it is possible to access it. Otherwise it does not qualify as a valid reference and will be removed accordingly. Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:19, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Umm, the full reference is at the bottom of the page under "sources". There is nifty wikicode so that you don't have to write out the full thing over and over when you are referencing one work multiple times, which is what you are referring to. Do you see the numbers in black next to the blue reference numbers? the black numbers are the page numbers.Smeat75 (talk) 12:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I expected to find it listed under references and freaked out and didn't look elsewhere. Why is the full reference there and not in references? I have never seen a reference absent from references before. Though I have seen them rearranged alphabetically under sources the full reference is always in both places. The inline citation doesn't have the actual information this way. Doesn't seem like a good choice. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


 * So I did a quick look at Moss and about a dozen other sources on Eusebius. "Exaggerated" is actually a kind way to state Moss's opinion of Eusebius!  :-)  By the end of her book she allows for--maybe--six genuine martyr events and has pretty much accused him of making everything up--even those six--himself.  The thing is, her view of Eusebius as fiction is not a mainstream view, even though the statement that Eusebius exaggerated 'extent' turns out to be a fair comment. Michael Grant--who is certainly an historian everyone recognizes--in his book "The Ancient Historians" (pages 343-357) gives several specific examples of Eusebius' accuracy: 250 verbatim quotations, official documents of historical importance, imperial pronouncements corroborated by inscriptional evidence, etc. etc., but significantly, he also quite plainly states that Eusebius gives "an exaggerated idea of the scope of the repressions."  Eusebius has 146 martyr events.  T.D.Barnes is also mostly positive about Eusebius in the manner of Grant. Averil Cameron, who is another eminent historian, and is at Oxford, in her book on Eusebius' The Life of Constantine spends some time in the intro on what she refers to as modern "hyper-skepticism" claiming much of the older hostility toward Eusebius arose from prejudice. That could surely still be said. So Moss, with her "hyper-skepticism"-- is at one end of the views of Eusebius and I think it's safe to say Paul L. Maier can probably be placed at the opposite end of the spectrum from Moss. Though he is not among the group of French ecclesiastical scholars who seem to unquestioningly accept everything Eusebius says, he is still more positive than any of the rest of these people.


 * I could go on listing more, but there is no value in it as they all distribute in the same way if my sampling is representative--which I believe it is: for every one at Moss's and Maier's opposing ends, there are two or three in the middle with Grant and Barnes and Cameron. It is a mainstream view that Eusebius is not completely dependable, but it is also mainstream that he is partially dependable. It is mainstream that he exaggerated the extent of the repressions, but it is also mainstream that much of his information is accurate. Six real martyr events is too low a number to stand up to the counter-evidence.


 * So Moss's statement is fair to keep. However, it is also fair to say it is inadequate as a stand alone view. Used by itself, it creates a distortion of its own. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:20, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


 * It seems from what you have posted here that what the article says right now "although early church historian Eusebius...speaks of "great multitudes" having perished, he is thought by many scholars today to have exaggerated their numbers" is neutral and supported by what you have cited, you do not seem to have found any sources that say that Eusebius is totally accurate, indeed the only quote you have in the above post is Michael Grant agreeing that Eusebius exaggerated. So I don't see what the problem is, the article does not cite Moss to say that all of Eusebius is fiction, which would indeed be out of the mainstream. That Moss says other things elsewhere does not mean that her work cannot be used as the reference for that, entirely mainstream, statement in the article.Smeat75 (talk) 23:09, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Acknowledging agreement when it's offered would be good. I agreed "Moss's statement is fair" and even gave you additional support for it in Grant. I'm not trying to be difficult.  I'm trying to be fair and reasonable.  And yes, her other views do not preclude using a statement that is mainstream.  I don't believe I suggested excluding her completely just not using her alone.  I still say it's a weaselly --jello-- kind of statement--in that it is neither precise nor specific--it can't be nailed down.  What will it actually mean to the sophomore writing a paper?  What will his answer to the teacher be when she asks what does exaggerated mean?  He'll have to answer with something he found somewhere else. :-)  Good encyclopedic writing includes specifics.  It's not a quote, so it could be expanded and explained better.  I personally think it should be.Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Smeat seems to be relying heavily on your opinion, which I also respect as he says, so I am asking you some of this directly now. Isn't it correct that there are rival viewpoints on Eusebius in this field of study--and even on the extent of the deaths involved? Aren't differing major views supposed to be included according to Wikipedia policy--it's okay if you don't like my style--perhaps you can state these ideas better. I'm okay with that--but shouldn't they be stated by someone?  ::::::::Isn't it fair to say Candida Moss is at one end of the spectrum of scholarly views on Eusebius?  Isn't using her as a sole source problematic?
 * I agree part of the problem is the lack of context here, as you say, and that would help, but don't you think including some of the modern discussion from sociology using actual numerical estimates would be a good addition? Everyone reading articles like this one--the witch trials, etc.--their first question is always "How many people died?" I was fascinated by the numerical estimates of how small Christianity was for probably its first 150 years--too small for the Empire to care much about really.  But also small enough that any deaths would be devastating. I don't understand claiming that is not common interest.
 * And really, isn't my comment that persecution is never defined or described in this article a fair issue?
 * Are you honestly saying neither this article overall, nor that section specifically, can possibly be improved in any way? I understand you found my writing too heavy, so I am perfectly okay with you restating what needs saying. You never said I was wrong--just heavy and obscure. So okay--redo it in your own style, because I have to assume you are not claiming this article is perfect as it is. If it can be improved--how would you improve it?  What would you recommend?  Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


 * There are few things in this world that could not possibly be improved in any way. I don't understand what you mean by "persecution is never defined or described in this article", persecution is the subject all the way through. There is a section called "Punishments", if that's what you are referring to. Methods of trying to guess the numbers of martyrs are discussed near the end of the article, in the section "Martyrdom".Smeat75 (talk) 23:09, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I must have missed it. Where is it defined? Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)


 * For now, I'll just offer a quick "thank you" for the ping. As ever on Mondays, and possibly for the next couple of days, my attention and efforts must be elsewhere than Wikipedia. I'll respond here when I can, but most likely that will happen in dribs and drabs, rather than in the coherently lengthy post I'd intended. Haploidavey (talk) 00:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for responding. I too will be busy the next couple of days, so no worries.  Take your time.  Real life gets in the way of Wikipedia every now and then. Why would you want to be coherent anyway--it will just set you apart from the rest of us... make you seem weird... dribs and drabs will work just fine. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)


 * First of all, kudos to you guys for presenting your strongly-held (and well-supported) positions while keeping the discussion amicable. This topic is fraught, and maintaining a respectful, civil discourse can be a challenge.  This is what a Wikipedia talk section is supposed to look like. :-)
 * Jenhawk, as an editor that has done a fair number of rewrites, I can understand how you feel at having been reverted, but please allow me to make a suggestion. If you're planning on doing a significant revision to a page like this--I think it's fair to say a controversial one--cut-and-paste it to your sandbox, and when your edits are ready, create a request for comments section here on the talk page with a link.  Incorporate the feedback you get and then go ahead with the changes.
 * That's the approach I'm using on the Roman Republic Military and Military history sections, although my proposed edits are not yet ready for the RfC. Again, thanks everyone for representin'! Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 01:10, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


 * That's good advice. I know that because I have done that before--here as a matter of fact.  The text is even in my sandbox as we speak--I mean write!  I cannot explain getting so full of myself I just inserted a block of text with no warning at all.  It's a good way to get shot--or at least shot down!  Smeat's response was mild considering the shock it must have been. It was not a smart or a considerate thing to do. I feel stupid. :-(
 * I don't feel terribly bad about getting reverted--honestly. I thought he could have tried to work with me, but I don't blame him really. What's happened is that my method has now distracted from my points.  Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
 * I'm not hard-over about my brilliant words being included. :-) What I do feel badly about is the information not being fully addressed in this article. It's not broad enough and it's not specific enough. Let me ask you a personal question. Do you agree that the sentence "Eusebius exaggerated" falls into the weasel words category? [] I'm just asking a personal opinion.  I have certainly written sentences just like it, but my experience is they always end up getting yanked by a reviewer.
 * It's my opinion this article needs improving. The people here are trying hard to be reasonable with someone who just jumped into their puddle and splashed mud all over them. They are doing pretty darn good I think. We'll work it out--and if they continue as graciously as they have begun--perhaps they will let me play in their sandbox after all. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:03, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input Informata ob Iniquitatum and please continue to watch the article and the talk page, the more knowledgeable editors who collaborate here, the better imo.Smeat75 (talk) 13:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Bias?
The edit summary for the big block of text that Jenhawk777 inserted into the Duration and extent section that I reverted said " rewrote this whole section with more accuracy and less bias". What is the bias in that section as it now stands? I don't see it. Higher up on this talk page Jenhawk says that Rome wasn't really tolerant, they enforced "Swear fealty to Rome or die" and when I pointed out that whether Rome was intolerant or not is not discussed in the article and doesn't need to be and in fact "the article does not use the word "tolerant" a single time" she (I believe the editor is female, not that it matters) replied "The word isn't necessary. The implication is there." I think Jenhawk has now decided to remove what she sees as the "bias" in the article by extensively revising it so that it carries the message "Rome was intolerant and you had to swear fealty to Rome or die". However that, to me, is to impose a POV or "spin" or interpretation on the article that it does not need, what the article should do is to present the facts as far as they can be known simply and as neutrally as possible.

The article was biased some years back, if you look at the top of this talk page it starts with a section called Bias, a student says his professor actually used this article in its previous state in his or her classroom as an example of bias. At that time it presented legends as facts, from a non-neutral religious POV. I went to a great deal of effort to re-do the article since then with the goal of making it strictly accurate historically as much as possible, with no interpretation or speculation or moralizing and it is important to me that that goal be sustained. Which is not to say that the article is perfect and cannot be altered at all, of course.

A couple of other points here as I think the above section "Revision of Duration and extent is getting too long and hard to follow- you cannot compare the persecution of Christians by the Romans to the Salem witch trials, which are much more recent and better documented. People may indeed want to know how many Christians suffered or were martyred, but the fact is that the numbers are unknown, as the article says. I do not see how that is "weaselly" at all, it is simply the truth. No one knows. I think it is better not to fill the article up with speculation and guesswork about how many early Christians there were or how many died or the "devastating" effects that must have had. Just present the facts as we can know them.

Why does the word "persecution" need to be defined? This is an English language encyclopedia, not a dictionary, I think it may be safely assumed that readers know what "persecution" means.Smeat75 (talk) 01:12, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


 * You are mistaken in assigning motives to me that aren't there. I am not--repeat NOT--attempting to revise anything so it sends a message of any kind. Why would I want to send a message about antique Rome for criminy sakes?!  I totally get that it is extremely difficult not to appear to "take a side" when relaying controversial information.  All that is necessary, sometimes, is to leave a few things out. If Rome's attitudes are left out--if they aren't also included somewhere in this article--say in the section Haploidavey suggested--then that creates a one sided view--and by definition that's a bias.  What I want is not a message.  What I want is the total absence of any message--one way or the other. I don't want something that sounds as though it's defending Christians. But I don't want something that sounds as though it's defending Rome either.  That's a bias.  What I want is a truly balanced NPOV article.
 * You have done an excellent job re-centering the article toward the historic and the NPOV. I applaud your work. The quality of what has been done in no way proves more cannot be done. I recently moved an article from "This should be deleted" up to a B class. I thought it was pretty good, so I went for GA.  It was a little like putting one's self through a meat-grinder--but I got it. And the one thing I took away from that experience is, no matter how good the article is--it can always be improved.
 * Presenting the facts as we know them is something I can get completely behind. Let's absolutely "present the facts as we can know them"--as you say-- but think on that for just a second. Most of what's written on this topic is speculation--it's scholarly speculation--but still speculation which they generally freely admit. You have in fact included some of that scholarly speculation--because that's all there is. I agree with your decision to do so. No other option. It just needs to be recognized as such inside the article, and one good way to do that is by including alternate speculations--if they have sufficient weight. Like this: "We don't know; A says it could be this, B says it could be this, and a few (whackos) say it could be this." Very scholarly whackos of course. If that's what we know--that's what should be said. And that is actually pretty much all we do know isn't it? And it isn't what's said--hence--creating an unintentional bias. And I do believe it's unintentional.
 * I apologize for my method here. I should not have jumped in with no warning. I've offended you and now it is coloring everything. Please forgive my clumsiness, and if you will, take a step back and consider, from a fresh perspective, that section of the article--particularly the Eusebius phrase.  There is no slight intended. If you were not the author... how would you see it?
 * Of course persecution needs some definition, some description--something--for the sake of clarity, and specificity, and to focus the article more tightly. Is it death? Painful death?  Must bodily harm be involved?  Torture?  Seizure of property?  Interdiction of inheritance?  Destruction of property?  What qualifies?  Are persecution and martyrdom the same things? This does seem to go back and forth a bit between them. It's impossible not to get confused if boundaries are not clearly defined.
 * I have a philosophy background--one of the first things we learn is "define your terms." Otherwise people assume what's in their heads is in other's heads and it rarely works out well.
 * Please forgive me and work with me. I mean you no harm! I mean well and believe I could make a contribution here. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I was just looking over the entire article again and wanted to say once more--it's really good. The section on martyrdom at the bottom is excellent. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Structure
Oh no, not yet another section; but I need a header I'll recognise. I've read and re-read this talk page umpteen times, in an effort to discover the article's underlying or intrinsic problems. I think they're few, and mostly structural. Amazing work has been done here; could we also please consider the following?

In my opinion - which, by the way, is neither expert nor particularly well-informed in some aspects of this subject but well-read in others - the good-faith but somewhat niggling pre-occupation with "bias" and viewpoint of sources (primary or secondary) is a bit of a red herring. Or maybe  redundancy. As it stands, the "extent and duration" section offers a huge, scary and ultimately negating caveat in pride of place (inserted note: or at least it was rather huge and scarey). Why have a lead-in section on "extent and duration" at all? - particularly when that's followed directly by sections on the when, where, who and how long.... um, in other words, the "extent and duration" of persecutions are covered, with each example under its own heading. We - and the reader - probably don't need a generalised preamble on the reliablility and unreliablility of particular authors and sources, their polemical narratives, claimed numbers, or their rhetorical penchant for imprecisions such as "multitudes" and the like. Frustrating, maybe. But the same goes for precise numbers extrapolated from particular attested or "alleged" instances of persecution; exact numbers always seem more plausible, though that doesn't make them "true", of course. Personally, I don't think most readers will be wanting to know precise numbers; rather, they'll be arriving here with other particular questions; like wondering how and why an obscure, innately peacable, provincial "sort-of Jewish" sect managed, in the course of three centuries and despite sporadic ferocious supression, to gain exclusive control of the Roman state. Anyway, we've the facility to create sourced notes and footnotes; we can also create a "Historiography" section, somewhere near the end of the article.

Looking for a starting point for the putative "Background" section I came across Persecution of religion in ancient Rome. Unfortunately. it redirects to "Religious persecution in the Roman empire"; I was hoping for more than it offered. It needs attention; its presention of the Bacchanalia affair, presumably given as requisite background, is deficient. Accounts of "sytematic religious persecution" in the Republic (or in Livy's terms, perhaps, "defence of the Republican realm"), as in the Empire, have never been and never will polemic-free zones. I'm sure we can live with that; but I'd hesitate to draw parallels with the persecution of Christians; the Bacchanalia were brought into line, tamed, "systematised" and incorporated, not banned; Sorry, just thinking out loud here, and realising that I'll have to start from a section from scratch. Bah... Haploidavey (talk) 16:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Okay. I agree.  Well thought out, well argued, I have no opposing argument worth making, so, yeah--taking out that section instead of expanding it makes perfect sense. Could I begin something on the Background section?  Then you could rip it to shreds and make something decent of it. :-)  It's always easier to edit than create.  So it might save you some time--or it might make it worse!  I can try not to be too heavily scholarly--although that's pretty much where I live.  If you would rather not, I won't be offended.  I understand wanting to do it yourself.  I will then go away for awhile and come back later to see how much polemic it contains. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Ah, bless yer; right on all counts. Please do go ahead and begin the section. Scholarly is fine, perhaps even the sine qua non; runny, gooey polemic is most welcome, if you have any at yor disposal. Who doesn't enjoy a good wipe-down? Seriously, I'd far rather not overwrite anyone's work, although that's much easier than creating from scratch. Haploidavey (talk) 17:06, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Responding to the first comment in this section I've read and re-read this talk page umpteen times, in an effort to discover the article's underlying or intrinsic problems. I think they're few, and mostly structural. I am glad to hear it. Why have a lead-in section on "extent and duration" at all? I wouldn't object to that section being removed as long as the information that " Eusebius, whose works are the only source for many of these events" which is currently in that section, is moved somewhere else. Thank you Haploidavey for your input.Smeat75 (talk) 00:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC)


 * No no! Haploidavey!  Please always feel free to overwrite anything I write--honestly.  I am used to being edited.  It's not a problem for me.  I don't take it personally.  I am not necessarily used to personal attacks--which I have received from some who seem to think editing must include insults along with it--but neither you nor Smeat seem to have any problem with that at all--so--editing shmediting!!  Overwrite away!  Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:26, 5 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Excellent rewording of that sentence. 'Eusebius is the only source' is more specific.  It's clearer.  How about adding a sentence or two on what that means and why it's a problem? Why do scholars doubt him as a dependable source--or maybe just something on how many do--something that explains why it matters that he's the sole source.  There are other sole sources for things in history that are not doubted as Eusebius is--but his florid overblown style, his lack of any dependable chronological order--his polemic--contradictions and conflicts--these things and more make much of what he says questionable. It wouldn't be a polemic against him--it would just be including the consensus opinion in all its glory. I agree with you that Eusebius should be discussed somewhere.  Where do you think?  Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:26, 5 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I haven't forgotten you or this, but I am involved in trying to take an article to FA status and it is consuming all my time. I know you're thrilled to know I'll be back--but it will be awhile. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because there was a lot of content here that did not warrant deletion due to copyright infringement. Currently, the page is still useful, flag areas that need to be worked on but the page in its entirety should not be done away with. Unless that which is the whole page was copied from elsewhere.-64.141.84.26 (talk) 11:26, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because... (A quick look at the Contributor copyright investigations seems to show that it is looking at the original version of the article way back in 2007. It has been completely re-written since then) --Smeat75 (talk) 11:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It might be true that it has been completely re-written since then but that does not mean that this deletion is inappropiate.
 * First, you need to revision delete all revisions until the sections had been rewritten. Then, to prevent additional copyright violations due to violating Wikipedia's license you need to revision delete everything that was written inbetween, and so on...
 * Only if there is a complete rewrite(practically a new page) in a SINGLE edit this article does not have to be fully deleted. Otherwise, it has to.Lurking shadow (talk) 12:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't accept that, this needs to be discussed elsewhere.Smeat75 (talk) 12:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Lurking shadow: Drop the stick, and back away, you're going about this all wrong. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:39, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. 💵Money💵emoji💵Talk💸Help out at CCI! 16:20, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I have placed a template indicating this article has been substantively reproduced, without crediting WP, and is therefore a backwards copyright violation. The copyright violation detector indicates violation from another site that is actually a set of attributed quotes. Indications at this time are there are no real copyright violations in this article and its sources are good. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Essay tag
I can't run down who put the essay tag on this article, but thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:09, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Where to start with making it more encyclopedic? I thought about doing it but balked at the amount of work involved. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey Laurel Lodged how have you been? This is exactly the kind of article I do - long and complicated with lots of different citation problems. I've done a half dozen of them already, and if no one else takes this one on, I will no doubt get back here and do it. I note that the copyriight notice was posted two years ago now, so it isn't looking as if anyone else is ready to wade in, but if someone else shows up before I get back, more power to them. I have two articles waiting on a GA review - one like this one that I redid top to bottom - another I just created - three others I am in the process of splitting so they can all be taken FA - and another one I have just started in my sandbox, so this one is down the list in my priorities right now.  I will come back to it given enough time. We'll see what happens. Hopefully if someone else does redo it, they will post it here. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:40, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, as it turns out, the whole thing doesn't need rewriting imo. It's actually a well-done article – I think - though I haven't checked every reference, I have randomly checked some and haven't found any 'clankers' yet.  Someone put a lot of work into this article. It is well organized and well written, and only one-sided on occasion, and it's easy enough to add alternate views when appropriate. It's not bad really it's quite good. I am adding very little and deleting less, well, compared to articles that truly needed an entire overhaul. :-)  Taking down the essay tag will be appropriate soon I think. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Duration and extent
It was suggested in an earlier discussion that this section was unnecessary as it is repeated in the other sections below it. I agree, so I am being BOLD and copying the material, moving it to its corresponding locations, and removing duration and extent as a separate section.

Numbers are disputed and completely unprovable one way or the other. If there is going to be a blockquote claiming one view, alternate views will have to be presented as well. That is part of why this got tagged as an essay. If someone disagrees, please answer here by presenting a quality source that says there is consensus on the claims made here and I will not oppose putting it back. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:47, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Much improved, thank you. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:47, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Does the lead need anything further after mentioning the Edict of Milan? At that point, state persecution ceased. This article is not about conflicts within Christianity. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I like your revision, and I think it's fine. It is debated whether "discipline" within Christianity - which is how they saw and referred to it - qualifies as persecution. The church thought it had a responsibility to discipline its own. There are sources that refer to treatment of the Donatists as persecution because it was done by the civil government, but that's a long discussion that may - or may not - have a place here. At any rate, one view of a controversial subject should not be assumed, so I agree with removing it. There was conflict between different Christian groups, but mostly they just excommunicated each other back and forth. IDK, perhaps it does have a place here. Persecution of Christians by other Christians should perhaps be a sister article that is summarized here. Hmmmm... :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The real problem with this: is that it is in the lead and not anywhere in the text. If Christian persecuting Christian is to be discussed, it needs a full section of its own.  Imo, it should be an article of its own with all the modern discussion of it included.  That would give us something to summarize here. Right now this shouldn't be in the lead. I am working on writing a section of some kind - imagining in my head that there is something I am summarizing...  Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That's technically true and correct. So please do so. However, I'm more inclined towards your earlier thought: "Persecution of Christians by other Christians should perhaps be a sister article". Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:30, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Anyone else want to write an article on the Persecution of Christians by other Christians? Begin with the Montanists and the Donatists, add the middle ages and modern day, include the sociological discussion about the whys of it, and it would be an interesting article. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:24, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Reasons
Shouldn't sections 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 fit into one of the 3 theories advanced in the Reason lead? Are these new theories that need context? Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if I understand your question, Laurel. Are you proposing that the explanatory material be deleted and only the introduction be retained? As far as your question as to whether they're "new theories", no, they aren't. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 09:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If they are in the Reasons section, should they not be expanding on the 3 theories in the lead? Else they should have their own section. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Laurel Lodged I don't think I understand the question either. 2.1,2, and 3 are their own sections, and they should be. Are you asking if they should be moved to the three theories mentioned in the Reason lead? No, I don't think so because what's now in the reasons lead is a kind of "overview" of the original, more general, theories, and what follows in 2.1,2 and 3 are sort of where those original theories have ended up in our day - with more detail and lots of good explanation. I don't know who wrote the legal and governmental sections but they did a great job, and I wouldn't want to leave any of it out. Social and religious can probably be condensed but still needs to be included.  These sections all say very different things in my mind.  Do they not to you? Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that the thoughts expressed in 2.1/2.2/2.3 now supersede the 3 original theories? If so, then there needs to be an introduction saying that that is the case. They can't just appear mysteriously like mushrooms in the night. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Only in the sense that everything new supersedes everything old - yet doesn't really - because when writing about the history of various theories of history, they all still get included whatever the modern views - which do appear like mushrooms at times. You seem to object to the addition of the three theories in the Reason lead, but without them, much of what is under the individual emperors makes less sense imo. If there was no common law practice, what explains Pliny - and especially what explains Trajan's approval?
 * We can retitle the section as 'Reasons and causes' if you would prefer and put a subheading of 'Causes' or 'Contributing factors' or some such for 2.1,2,3, or for the whole thing and list them sequentially, or whatever. I don't really care. It makes sense to me as it is - it's all under reasons, and they are all varieties of different reasons - and that works for me.  If you don't like it, please make a suggestion as to how you would change it. Or just change it yourself. Max nix. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:17, 13 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Laurel Lodged Okay, um, the retitling is awkward and somewhat misleading - as if all the rest of the article is not academically based - and that's just wrong. No can do "Academic reasons".  Can do Reasons, causes and contributing factors separately if you feel that's necessary but please remove the long "Academic reasons..." quickly before anyone concludes the rest of it is non-academic! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Laurel Lodged I went ahead and changed it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Removing Christian vs Christian from lead
There are two sentences in the lead that are not discussed anywhere in the body.

I started researching Christian persecution after Constantine in order to add a section that these sentences would then summarize, but apparently there is a lot of thinking that says post-Constantine actions are not persecution because it is mostly rhetoric without any follow through, it is about identity, and various other theories. There are some scholars that say it does qualify as persecution anyway, but no consensus. In my attempt to come up with a new section that would cover this, discussing the different views has so far run into several paragraphs in my sandbox. It's interesting, but very very long, and I am wondering how relevant it is to this particular article. If this article is limited to the pre-Constantine era, then the discussion of events post-Constantine belongs in another article: Christianity in the Late Antique era or some such thing. At any rate, the point is, these sentences don't belong here for multiple reasons: they are not cited, there is no universal agreement they are correct, they are not in the body of the article, and are not in what seems to be the correct time frame.

Therefore, I am removing them - boldly - with apologies to anyone this offends. Please write another article that includes a discussion of what these sentences are about! It's surely as important a subject as this one. I will wait a few hours to see if anyone objects. Otherwise they are gone. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree to their removal. It can be assumed that state-sponsored persecution ceased with the Edict Of Milan. Any local, unauthorised persecution is probably of marginal, footnote interest. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've been reading through this book – – which is a collection of essays from different perspectives, and this additional article written from the sociological perspective on the shift from sect to church that occurred pre-Constantine, the challenge to survival that presented, and how that process sort of inevitably and unavoidably produces conflict and even violence with those elements who did not support the shift. Some of it might be relevant here, but I don't think anyone is assuming anything these days. It appears to be a controversial new field.  Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Okay, you and I agreed, and I honestly can't imagine that anyone else would disagree, so they are now gone. Thank you Laurel Lodged for answering so swiftly. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Wait! There is already an article on Christianity in the 4th century!  Should we link it here?  It's an excellent article. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:24, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

recent revisions by Karma1998
My revert was entirely justified. WP uses only verifiably reliable sources: also:  Any time an editor finds text that is uncited or has questionable citation, that editor may act by removing the questionable text until the issue is resolved.

You provide two references, one is the book by Hopkins which says the exact opposite of what you claim on page 103 that you reference.

The second reference is in Italian and you did not, and have not yet, provided a translation. This is the English WP. There is no way of verifying that it isn't someone's personal blog, or some other disallowed non-source, without a translation. You, the one who used it, needs to provide verification of what it says.

My concern is that, when archaeology makes major breakthroughs, they tend to get published everywhere, and I went looking for recent archaeological work in the colosseum and could find no mention of such a find anywhere. This is a question that must be resolved.

You reverted without responding to my request. It was clear my revert was only a temporary measure until you verified your source, which has not been done, and which has now created the risk of an edit war.

Just verify your claim. Validate your source. Then all will be well. I will leave it for a bit until I hear from you. If I don't hear from you, I will call for an RFC on it and will no doubt end up removing it then. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It is well established that "verifiable" does not mean "verified". Call an Rfc if you want to waste everybody's time, or ask experienced users. Johnbod (talk) 04:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Where and by whom is that established? What does that even mean?  Verifiable means "able to be checked or demonstrated to be true, accurate, or justified".  Able: have the ability. There is no other meaning. It's straightforward. An RFC is asking experienced users, and who is going to respond that having a verifiable source is not necessary? But hopefully this is unnecessary now since I added the counter-view to the article. Please let this be done now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Established by consensus, at least 15 years ago - see early talk archives at WP:V. As I said, "verifiable" does not mean "verifiable by me". Is a reference to a print book only in libraries you don't have access to "verifiable" - yes, of course it is. Run the Rfc & see what happens. Johnbod (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Good morning, . I believe there's a great misunderstanding: I did cancel your revert, that is true, but I also modified the part about the coliseum, so that the page states that "it is disputed wether Christians were executed in the coliseum: no proof of it has been found yet"--Karma1998 (talk) 08:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello Karma1998! Thank you so much for answering! It's lovely to meet you. I saw the modification which is basically a return to what was already there, so I was disappointed. I was really excited when I read that there was new archaeological research on the subject and was hoping for that addition to return. If you give me the info - names, dates that kind of thing - I will go looking for additional sources for you so you can put it back.
 * In that vein - Johnbod - as you can see from the above lengthy tirade - thinks you can put it back with the Italian reference alone. I don't know if he is familiar with the website, or what, but apparently he can read Italian, though he didn't bother to tell me what it said. (Perhaps you would, just to be nice.) He seems quite sure it is a verifiable reliable source, so if you want to go by his opinion, that is legitimate on WP. The two of you are in agreement, and that is a second opinion, and perfectly reasonable to see as a consensus.
 * Whatever you decide, the decision is yours to make. I wish you well. Happy editing! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:14, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I did tell you what it said briefly & confirmed it said what the original edit (which you removed) said. 22:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The sum total of all that you said about content is this: That's it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:14, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

closer to true?
in a recent revision you changed  to  and the reason you gave for that revision is that your statement was "closer to true". I disagree. Unless you consider the persecution of Arians, Donatists, Manichaeans, and Nicene Christians as not actually Christian, or not actually persecuted, or have some other disqualifier I am unaware of, I think claiming that it stopped with the edict of Milan is a false claim that you would not find a source to support. If you have a source that says that, please post it here, as I would be interested in reading that. If you don't have a source, I ask that you return the former statement as the one that is sourced and more accurate. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)


 * OK. Editor2020 (talk) 13:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Question concerning "Hazuh" Pliny
inserted here:. I would like some explanation and a source. Hazuh appears to be a Gothic term, and this seems to be claiming that Pliny was a Christian governor, but surely I must be misunderstanding what is being said here. It is unclear. Can anyone offer an explanation? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:59, 24 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Um, nothing better to do with their time? Clear misinformation, with possibly humorous intent. I'll remove it. Haploidavey (talk) 05:13, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * These days, I tend not to edit until I've checked the previous contributor's edit, especially if it's very recent. Not that I'm advocating a suspicious frame of mind, but one can never quite know what's sealed in behind the wall of good faith - for years on end, sometimes. Haploidavey (talk) 05:57, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey Haploidavey! How are you these crazy days?  Can't check, they have no user page.  I tend to be suspicious of that as well. Anonymity lends itself to consequence free behavior. Thank you, I thought maybe it was just me... :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC)


 * No trouble at all. Regarding contributions, the user-contribs link is in the article history. And I'm not saying you should do any of this, just that it's a handy tool, should you wish to use it. And congratulations with this article. Things seem to be going very well.


 * These times are truly difficult. It's very nice to hear from you! Haploidavey (talk) 08:01, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. Article is going very well. Congrats. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Haploidavey OH! I thought you meant their overall contributions, not just here, but yeah of course, can check history here - it's how I found who it was that inserted it. Wikiblame is a pretty cool tool! It's nice to hear from you and Laurel Lodged whom I am always glad to run across as well.  Article is looking pretty. good I think, balanced and neutral and contains lots of good information from excellent scholars. I haven't looked up who started this page, but they did a good job, so it was easy to build on. Thanx for the positive comments! Stay safe and happy editing! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:23, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Copy violation detected
according to this diff on June 1 2012, you added material that is copied from a blog. It needs immediate removing and rewriting. It looks as if this individual may be gone from WP, but I am hoping someone will stand up and redo this section. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:51, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I found the problem and have now posted a backwards copy vio tag. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

More copyright violations
This paragraph is copied word for word. WikiBlame says this one was added by on June 1 2012. Please remove and replace.


 * Jenhawk777, it would be utterly unlike such an honest and conscientious editor as Cynwolfe to commit a violation of copyright. I checked on the net and found a guttenberg self-publishing site that contained nothing but copies of Wikipedia articles and claimed to own the copyright - illegally, of course. Very few sites (including blogs) whose authors copy from Wikipedia honestly credit their sources. Can you please give a link to the site from which this was supposedly copied? Thanks Haploidavey (talk) 15:12, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Haploidavey I have had 7 - yes 7 - different backwards copy violations on articles I have written. One was in a published journal article! I wrote the journal, and they never did a thing about it! It is good to hear a statement of faith in your fellow editor, that makes me glad, so I am sure you are right. I just ran the copyvio detector again and it looks like two of them are now gone, but a second one is reporting what are mostly attributed quotes as violations. Here: everyone should have the ability to run this valuable tool for themselves. I ran it then went through WikiBlame under view history to find out who wrote it. If there is a mistake, I apologize. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Haploidavey I am now wondering if all of these aren't backwards copy violations. If you look up the Talkpage here, I apparently checked once before and found no violations, so how else would these appear suddenly unless someone else was copying us? The detector can't tell who copied who, it can only tell that material is duplicated. We need to run that down.Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * A bunch of this article is duplicated at which was written in 2021, long after us, and while it has sources I can't access them, so I can't tell if they attribute us or attribute the sources we attribute. I think the latter. I think we can assume a backwards violation based purely on the date. This one  is simply a translation of Tacitus. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I can't adequately express how relieved I am; and that's partly because some of the writing in these (ahem) mooted copyright offences is actually rather fine. Cyn and I worked together on various articles for years, and I found her challenging, rewarding and very skillful indeed - a very fine writer, intellectually streets ahead and also an accomplished Latinist. Anyhow, the only possible evidence for copyright infringement, additional to text, is a date; the older date is the source, always; and its author(s) hold copyright. The site I mentioned above, the one sponsored bby the guttenberg.org, has no dates that I could find, and no claims of affiliation or scholarly credentials or names of authors, only a claim of copyright. The other clue is inline citation numbers. If text online has numbered citations check whether there are citations where they should be (per Wikipedia's version). Chances are that there will be none. I'm not talking about genuine mirror sites, by the way; they usually copy everything, right down to wiki-syntax and spelling errors. Haploidavey (talk) 17:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree on the matter of previous checks disclosing no problems. Thus also for this batch. By the way, I've come across the odd bit of piracy, with my own text as victim, on a few occasions. The most blatant was a TV programm on Rome, which employed various junior university talking heads. One of them spouted out stuff from the Venus article; I'd written it not 3 weeks prior. Flattering, I guess, but.. Haploidavey (talk) 17:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Ha ha! Flattering indeed, but the sort that makes you squirm instead of smile! Someday I hope you and I will have worked together enough you will be able to say something even half as nice about me! It is sad she is no longer here, but good she has a friend watching over her work. I have posted one backwards tag and let the other ride since it is just Tacitus. I hope that works! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * And just guess who we have an article about. Why, it's a swallower of articles! It's Course Hero Haploidavey (talk) 18:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Holy Toledo Batman Haploidavey!! Should we go add something?! We have no source! Aaarrggh!!  Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Let's just add this :-) Haploidavey (talk) 18:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * What?! This conversation - or a smiley? Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You must mean let's add a copy of this talk to the talk page there right? Duh. I'm a little slow in the pickup today! Definitely! I agree! Will you take care of that? Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You're giving my imagination far too much credit; just a smiley, sorry to say. Yours is the better idea. Haploidavey (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

This is also a copy as it sits: but half of it's a quote that can be found in numerous legitimate sources. What's interesting is that inserted this back in 2012 as part of a large quote which someone else whittled down - and removed the quotations from - making it a violation. The first part can be paraphrased, the last is a quote found in multiple sources. Please repair.
 * Wait! That's mine!! I have now restored the quotation marks and the attribution. Whew! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

The opening sentences of the lead are apparently also copied from a blog:. It should also be easy to find a legitimate source for - that can be paraphrased or legitimately quoted. the detector says you added that one on 31 October 2020. It's not an inaccurate statement but we can't have a copyvio for our very first sentence! Please remove and replace with a paraphrased version that is sourced.

Please help everyone! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:26, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)