Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Philip the Arab and Christianity/1

Philip the Arab and Christianity

 * • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
 * Result: No action. While the review process for this article has not been ideal (see the talk page for general comments), there has been support here for concerns about focus and prose, and an independent case that the article currently meets the GA criteria has not been made. Hopefully peer review will help. Articles can be renominated at any time. Geometry guy 21:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

This article was kept on hold for three months, from December on through March. The original reviewer, Wandalstouring, made no attempt at constructive commentary: every point he made was addressed by myself, with the intent of satisfying his needs or disputing his contentions. Wandalstouring did not oblige me. His most frequent reply was silence; his most frequent contentions a simple, unattached phrase absent foundation. I would have been very happy if he had engaged with the work constructively, but he decided instead to stonewall me. When reading the first review, witness that I replied to every single issue he brought up, but that he did not reply in turn. This is my most basic objection to Wandalstouring's review: If you cannot say what a problem is, and give a specific instance of it, it is not a true problem.

I brought in outside review. I contacted Ealdgyth and Malleus Fatuorum, both of whom gave the article a run-through and then offered me their support. Wandalstouring opened up the floor to second opinion. Every single issue raised was addressed, and every single commenter ended in giving their support. The most persistent individual to weigh in, Cmguy, expressed his support in bold type.

After Wandalstouring went silent for an extended period of time, various GA nomenklatura started sniffing around for a way to get rid of the unsightly mass on their review list. At last, Jezhotwells decided to land a final review. A fail. It is my contention that his review was also inadequate. It was deeply unspecific, contradicted elements of Wandalstouring's review, and was installed without leaving me any chance at reply.

I am here because I believe this article complies, in full, with GA standards; because all prior review has been inadequate, designed to forestall discussion, blinded by false premises (Wandalstouring and Jezhotwells both seem to believe, in some unspecific way, that original research is going on here; they can point to no example of the same, because the contention is completely false), and based on a misapplication of guideline; and because I believe this forum will stipulate to those facts.

I am willing to speak on all elements of fact or opinion raised in prior discussion. It is with full confidence in the verity of my case and the legitimacy of this article that I speak here today. I hope that we may all cooperate and move forward on this case. Thank you. G.W. (Talk) 14:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I failed the article because it is clearly a long way away from GA standards and most of the points raised in previous GA reviews had not been addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "most of the points raised in previous GA reviews had not been addressed". All points had been addressed. "clearly a long way away from GA standards". Where? Why? For what reasons? And "clearly"!? You have not made any of your points of contention clear at all; and where they can be read as clear, they are wrong. These things that you write are demonstrably untrue. G.W. (Talk) 15:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: Following his initial review, Wandalstouring approached me to give a second opinion on the article. I offered some suggestions for improvement, which were mostly addressed after some requests for further explanation. However, having neither background knowledge on the subject nor easy access to most of the sources, I declined to give a final ruling on the article when approached by Wizardman after Wandalstouring became inactive. In my opinion, the article passes on the criteria with which my review was mostly concerned (writing and formatting, stability, images); I do not feel informed enough to judge it on the other criteria. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 15:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I would first just like to make a few comments on Wikipedia's review process. When an article is submitted for review there seems to be no consistency with who will review the article.  Also, some articles get reviewed while other articles seemed to get stalled or have different assessment criteria.
 * Aside from this, Philip the Arab and Christianity, deserves GA status. I would add a brief section on Christianity, itself, possibly just one paragraph, giving Christian origins, how it spread throughout the Roman Empire, and the how the earlier Roman Emperors viewed Christianity.  I would also add a brief one paragraph section on Irfan Shahîd.  His comments are found in the article, however, it is unclear on who Shahîd actually is. {Cmguy777 (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)}


 * G. W. asked for my input here. I did not really do a proper review of the article but had only suggested that the GAN needed to be resolved. At a glance the article appears to be of GA quality, even though there seem to be FA-level issues. The lack of access to sources is problematic but I believe that it is acceptable to a certain degree to accept sources on good faith provided the reviewer can at least confirm the major points and there are no editors disputing content. In general, though, I defer to Wandalstouring, Nikkimaria, and Cmguy777 as to whether it is good enough or not. --Mcorazao (talk) 17:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments. There are several key Good Article Criteria to consider here:
 * "the prose is clear..."
 * "it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid,...
 * "it contains no original research..."
 * "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail..."
 * There are concerns in each of these areas I think, though the OR one is hard to evaluate without access to the sources.
 * The prose is generally precise, and prepared by a scholar or scholars of considerable skill and knowledge. But it is not necessarily clear to a lay reader. However, i think this issue relates largely to issues of focus and structure, rather than being a product of any problems with written expression per se.
 * The prose does not fully comply with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid etc. For example, the lead does not tell us where or of what Philip was an emperor. It makes reference to "ecclesiastics", the meaning of which would be opaque to anyone outside the field. The opening para of the body text makes reference to his birthplace being "refounded", which makes me think it was moved to another location, but i doubt that is what was meant. Even with a wikilink, the following sentence is much too technical: "A fully developed synodal system is attested for the mid-third century,..." (I have had to comment previously about the use of the term "attested" in articles intended for lay readers.)
 * It is impossible to evaluate whether or not the article contains OR without access to the sources, but in places the style certainly suggests this possibility. I am having difficulty in concisely explaining the issue, but overall, I sense the WP article author is developing a line of argument / perspective on the scholarly work of Shahîd, rather than having the secondary sources speak directly. I admit it is difficult to pin down this issue. Sentences such as this one can create the perception that it is the WP author who is assessing the evidence: "The passage contains two important features: first, the statement that the letters of Origen to Philip and his family were still extant in Jerome's time; and second, a strong affirmation of Philip's Christianity", however, it is possible that the cited source itself states that these are the two important features. Earlier in the article, we have this: "Shahîd describes this passage as a mere flourish from Eusebius the panegyrist, "carried away by enthusiasm and whose statements must be construed as rhetorical exaggeration"; he does not take it as serious evidence against Eusebius' earlier accounts in the Historia, where he never refers to Constantine as the first Christian emperor." The claim that Shahid "does not take" something "as serious evidence" appears to be the claim of the WP editor, again moving to the realm of OR.
 * To a lay reader, it is hard to conclude that the article "stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". I don't see evidence of summary style in this article - rather, it appears to exhaust the sources and discuss the evidence in great detail. There are many symptoms of this problem. First, this article is several times the length of Philip the Arab itself; second, when i am reading the article, i get lost as to where i am in the overall argument; third, outlining and discussing the views of the secondary sources appears to dominate the text.
 * On balance, i would expect to find the text of this article in a journal rather than an encyclopedia. At the risk of evincing howls of protest from the article's creators, it appears to me that the final section, "historiography", if doubled in length to have a more detailed section on the contemporary analysis by Shahid, Bowerstock and others, would form the heart of the article, and be truly "summary" style. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * An interesting and engaged review. Thank you, Hamiltonstone. I will review and present the material of the cited sources to demonstrate that the instances in the third point are not, in fact, original research. I hope you can give a comprehensive list of unfamiliar terms you gave in your second point; I will attempt to make these clear. I contest, however, your interpretation of WP:SS, and, though I will not howl, I do not believe I can follow through on your closing advice.
 * First, let me quote WP:SS: "In general, information should not be removed from Wikipedia: that would defeat the purpose of the contributions. So we must create new articles to hold the excised information." Nowhere does the policy make any statement on what should be excluded, or how WP is meant to treat sources. Thus, when you state that "outlining and discussing the views of the secondary sources appears to dominate the text", your point is tangential to the aim of WP:SS itself, which has limited aims: "Sections of long articles should be spun off into their own articles leaving a summary in its place". This is not a long article, so the essential precondition for WP:SS does not obtain. An "outlining and discussing the views of the secondary sources" is very much what WP:NPOV commends us to do in areas where essentials are in dispute among sources of comparable weight, as they are here.
 * Any argument on the point you develop in your fourth section would have to follow from our notability or forbidden content policies; WP:SS cannot sustain the argument you hope to pin on it. I believe that an attempt to "exhaust the sources and discuss the evidence in great detail", provide it stays within WP's other content guidelines, is a very good thing; I cannot accept that it is, as you call it, a "problem". WP:NOT and all that. That I have not developed Philip the Arab itself is not really an acceptable argument either: when we review articles, we treat them in isolation, and WP:SS arguments cannot appeal to the evidence of other articles (WP:SS is designed to filter content downwards, not upwards). We must read it on the basis of its own structure.
 * You have said that you "get lost as to where [you are] in the overall argument". If you could specify and explain how I could help this, I would be happy to clarify the argument and clean up the style. As for your final suggestion, I do not think it would help us much. I think that section is the least valuable, to be honest. Expanding it would depend on the addition of content without the aid of a standard structure from the secondary sources. That is, your proposed article would veer much closer to WP:OR than anything presently in the article. I am not sure what the argument for your plan is, either. Do you believe this section less afflicted by, ah, WP:SS problems? Or WP:OR-ish phrasing?
 * Anyways, I'll go get Shahid to clear up the OR-ish problems you raise. G.W. (Talk) 02:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, GW, but I'm not sure you are following the thrust of my argument - which may be my deficiency in explaining it. I will try to be more direct. WP:SS always applies. That is one of things that makes this an encyclopedia, not a secondary source, not a textbook, and not an academic journal. The current version of this WP article reads more as a scholarly journal article: it simply doesn't read like an encyclopedia article. The injunction to "preserve information" is not one i would apply. The discussion in the literature simply is not being summarised for readers - it is being presented in what to a lay reader appears to be great detail. I think the difference in our views is made clear by your comments regarding the historiography section. You call it the least valuable. As a lay reader, however, it is the most comprehensible and useful. If the entire article were reduced to the lead, a simplified version of the three background sections, and the section "historiography", i actually believe i would have understood what it was about. The final section gives rise to no ambiguity regards OR, in my view, but just so i am not misunderstood: fixing the perception of OR would not in my view resolve the article's biggest problems. Likewise, it isn't just a question of a list of technical terms, but the whole approach to the writing of the article, which to me appears to be targeted to professional historians or at least to those with a particular interest in, and understanding of, this field. Sorry. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Then I am not sure what your grounds in policy are. WP:SS is limited in aim. It does not say "everything is a summary", nor does it make the point you make. When you write "The injunction to "preserve information" is not one i would apply", I would say: it does not matter which injunctions you choose to apply. The injunction holds true. Without argument in policy, I cannot find your advice conscionable.
 * WP:SS is not something that makes us not a secondary source, textbook, or academic journal; nothing makes us those things, except a demand to treat the general reader. But let me quote another part of WP:SS: "The idea is to summarize and distribute information across related articles in a way that can serve readers who want varying amounts of detail. Thus giving readers the ability to zoom to the level of detail they need and not exhausting those who need a primer on a whole topic." No article is required to speak down to its audience, or to express in naive terms what is easily expressed in more complex terms. Without this in our guidelines, we could have no articles on higher mathematics; reviewers would constantly demand a full deconstruction of any formula above a seventh-grade level. G.W. (Talk) 03:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, i will await the views of others on this. However, i cannot agree that the article's present content "stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail" in respect of "Philip the Arab and Christianity". I cannot see any reason why the level of information in the present version is necessary for a reader to be informed about Philip's relationship to C. Second, actually it does matter "which injunctions you choose to apply": there is discretion, on at least three levels. First, the phrase from WP:SS is "In general, information should not be removed from Wikipedia..." We actually remove information from WP all the time, such as at AfD. In this case, while i am admiring of the scholarship of this WP entry, it does not appear to me to represent an encyclopedia article that will serve the necessary purpose. Second, WP:SS is a guideline, to be followed with discretion. And then there is of course WP:IAR, but i would not be invoking that in this context. I will be interested to read the contributions of others in this discussion, and am open to changing my view. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What I am hearing in this argument is this: (1) my view is nowhere directly indicated in policy, but (2) policy leaves room for editorial discretion, so (3) I reassert my view. But, hamiltonstone, most removals of information (as at AFD) are made on specific policy recommendations. And where there is no consensus on the application of policy, we keep the information; the system is designed to be biased in favor of information preservation (except where legal issues such as copyright and privacy are at stake). You are attempting to remove information without specific policy. Here you rely on your own view of what constitutes validity. You are permitted to do so, but you are operating at the very fringe of policy when you do so (in the IAR/guidelines as discretion). You are arguing that this article is a corner case, and is not effectively covered by standard policy. This is a very extreme view to take. G.W. (Talk) 18:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I will attempt to address your substantive comments here. My apologies for getting sidetracked. G.W. (Talk) 18:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Would "churchmen" be better than "ecclesiastics"? The word is only used twice; I've switched it both times. G.W. (Talk) 18:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed that instance of "attest" and explained what the fully-developed synodal system indicates. I'm also going through the article to catch other "attest" variants. G.W. (Talk) 18:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've got all of them now. In once instance I've replaced an "attest" with a "speak to". Is that too legalistic (my mind goes to "speak to sentence")? G.W. (Talk) 19:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll address the near-OR here:
 * The first sentence: "The passage contains two important features: first, the statement that the letters of Origen to Philip and his family were still extant in Jerome's time; and second, a strong affirmation of Philip's Christianity.[131]" Note 131 is a citation to Shahid, Rome and the Arabs, 73–74. Here is the relevant sentence from that source: Shahid first quotes Jerome in Latin: "et ad Philippum imperatorem, qui primus de regibus Romanis Christianus fuit, et ad matrem eius litteras fecit quae usque hodie extant.21 Noteworthy in this sentence is the fact [page break] that the letters were extant when Jerome wrote as well as the explicit, emphatic statement on Philip's Christianity." G.W. (Talk) 19:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The sentence you cited: "Shahîd describes this passage as a mere flourish from Eusebius the panegyrist, "carried away by enthusiasm and whose statements must be construed as rhetorical exaggeration"; he does not take it as serious evidence against Eusebius' earlier accounts in the Historia, where he never refers to Constantine as the first Christian emperor." Here is the page cited, Rome and the Arabs, 82:
 * "It is noticeable that in the HE Eusebius does not refer to his hero Constantine as the first Christian emperor, which would have been expected from a panegyrist and a historian of the Church who had based his chronological system on the reigns of Roman emperors, most of whom had been non-Christian or anti-Christian. This is indirect evidence that Constantine was not the first; Eusebius could not very well have presented him as such in a work that had referred to one of his predecessors, namely, Philip, if not as primus, at least as Christian. But the problem of giving the palm to Constantine must have been on the mind of Eusebius. In 325, all he could do was to rehandle the HE by toning down Philip's Christianity lest it should diminish the glory of Constantine. But ten years later, in a work that was devoted exclusively to Constantine and in which there is naturally no reference to Philip, Eusebius comes close to using the term primus and as an encomiast does not find it difficult to do so when in chapter 3 of the Vita38 he refers to Constantine, 'who alone (μόνος) of all that ever wielded the Roman power was the friend of God, the Lord of all, and has appeared to all mankind so clear an example of a godly life.'39 The judgment on Constantine, especially its second part, is patently untrue. The biographer who forgets the crimes40 attributed to Constantine and writes on his being the exemplar of a godly life is only a panegyrist who is carried away by enthusiasm and whose statements must be construed as rhetorical exaggeration. Nevertheless, the judgment is significant in this discussion of the problem of the first Christian Roman emperor and represents the last stage41 in Eusebius's handling of the pair&mdash;Philip and Constantine&mdash;which began with the revision of the Chronicon and the HE in the twenties."
 * It is important to remember not only the actual text of the page cited, but also its place in the chapter and argument; here it follows on the statement on page 77 that "The examination of the various relevant passages in Eusebius on Philip undertaken in the preceding section yields the conclusion that Eusebius does not vouch for Philip's Christianity". The section which follows, including page 82, is Shahid's account of, and arguments against, the alternative critical opinion. So the passage in the Vita, for Shahid, is not enough to disprove the earlier evidence of the Historia, which he develops in the pages from 67 to 77. On these grounds, I believe the inference that Shahid "does not take [the Vita] as serious evidence against Eusebius' earlier accounts in the Historia" is fair and non-original. G.W. (Talk) 19:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I reassert that I do not believe this constitutes OR. If hamiltonstone has suggestions on how to improve the sense of the text so as not to give these "sense" of OR, I would be glad to hear him out. G.W. (Talk) 19:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * G.W. has left messages on my talk page asking me to explain my review more fully. G.W. says that my reading that the points raised by other reviewers had not been addressed is incorrect. Sorry, but I disagree.
 * "The article is not readily accessible to the vast majority of readers. There is some jargon, but the main problem is a lack of clarity and fluency in the prose which makes comprehension difficult, especially for non-experts." - remains un-addressed throughout the article.
 * "The lede goes into lots of non-essential details. Cut these sections and turn them into summaries, not theses." remains un-addressed
 * "Copy-editing is not the problem; I find almost no grammatical errors, and the prose is technically correct. However, it should be accessible for more readers, and that requires cleaner and clearer writing." not addressed.
 * There are still inconsistencies in spelling: "honour" is British English, as is "favour", "colour".
 * Modern sources: Books published since the introduction of ISBNs should have them added, likewise journal articles should have issn and / or oclc numbers.
 * I concur with hamiltonstone's points above about unnecessary detail, it really is too much and not suited to an encyclopaedia article. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 20:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And now, to make another reply that my interlocutor will not read, as before:
 * "remains un-addressed throughout the article" is, again, a totally unsatisfactory response. You cannot make a blanket statement like that without giving instances and explanans; there is no reasoning here, so there can be no response..
 * ... 
 * 
 * Comment. I have moved some of the discussion between nominator and GAN closing reviewer to the talk page of this GAR, as it was starting to drift off-topic, with both sides restating their view and limited progress being made. In terms of this GAR, so far the most substantial new input has come from hamiltonstone, who has indicated, with reasoning, that he believes the article does not meet the GA criteria at present. Can I urge all editors to focus on whether the article meets the GA criteria. Geometry guy 14:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. The nominator has asked for specific examples to illustrate reviewers' comments that the article is hard to follow. I hope it is then helpful if I concentrate entirely on the first section, "Christianity in Aurantis" (or is it Auranitis?). The dates in this section jump about in a very confusing way. At this point, we have not been told when Philip the Arab was born, although we may recall from the lead an impression that he flourished around 240. Although we are told Auranitis (or Hauran?) "was among the first regions to convert to Christianity", the article refers to Philippopolis (the later name of the birthplace), the mid-third century synodal system, and the date of 325. "By the time of of Philip's birth..." I was starting to wonder if I got my dates wrong, or that there might be some scholarly convention that the third century is a hundred years later than I am used to! But no, we are travelling back in time to 204 for just a moment, before leaping ahead to the fifth and sixth centuries. Having been told that the Hellenized settlements of Auranitis were extensively Christianized, we are then told that Philippopolis wasn't. I had to backtrack to the first sentence to see that the birthplace was a village, then forward again to the mention of cities to presume that villages don't count as settlements. In the next paragraph, we return to 200 AD and are introduced to a new place Osroene (or is it Edessa?). I was not able to understand the relevance of Bosra, the third century heretical bishop there, or the use of Greek in the debate. The sentence on minting of coins also surprised me, until I concluded that these sentences were trying to tell me that the people of Hauran (or Auranitis?) probably spoke Greek.
 * In conclusion, a short introductory section which I hoped would set the scene for the me, left my head spinning. Geometry guy 15:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your specific comments, Geometry Guy. I will try to resolve these for you. First, though, I will add that, in consultation with Malleus Fatuorum and Iridescent, I am developing a new opening section that focuses on Philip's person and career alone. It should be clearer than what exists at present. G.W. (Talk) 16:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that, and that you have asked for a peer review, which I hope will also generate useful comments. Good luck improving the article. Geometry guy 16:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have corrected the spelling: it's Auranitis. Sorry. G.W. (Talk) 18:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have now added the mini-biography and done some clarification and re-arrangement in the section you covered. (I will try to apply your methods to the rest of the article later.) G.W. (Talk) 18:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've re-arranged the sentences so that "...Philip's birth..." precedes Nicaea. G.W. (Talk) 18:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added a brief note that the Arab peoples would have had their own Christianization, independent of Hellenic elements, to explain the transition to Abgar. G.W. (Talk) 18:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know what I can do to make the village/town elements clearer. I've reminded the reader that "Philippopolis...was a small village for most of this period". Does that help? G.W. (Talk) 18:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know what I can do to make the Hellene/Arab elements clearer. I hope the opening sentence on Arab peoples having their own Christianization helps there, and that the clarifications I've made to emphasize the distinction between small village/city clears this up. Suggestions? G.W. (Talk) 18:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've looked over the rest of the article, but your method&mdash;noting and clarifying technical and thematic shifts&mdash;does not seem to work as well for the rest of the article, where the subjects are documentary and literary, rather than what the French would call événementielle (don't think we have a word in English for "concerned with events"). Could you give me some suggestions on how to proceed? G.W. (Talk) 18:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'm not familiar enough with the particulars of the subject matter to make useful comments about the content, but certainly on the surface, the article seems thorough, serious, and non-ideological in its approach. I would make one suggestion: the lead section is too densely argued. The lead section should be a reader-friendly overview — almost like an abstract of a scholarly article. I'm not sure you need the meticulous attribution of who thought what; just a statement of the general terms of debate. If necessary, a footnote could point to the relevant section that presents the contentious point in full. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. In the absense of fresh reviews detailing why the article now meets the criteria, this reassessment may be closed, without listing the article, to allow for renomination at GAN. Geometry guy 23:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)