Wikipedia:Peer review/Diocletianic Persecution/archive1

Diocletianic Persecution

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for December 2008.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for December 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because... I want it reviewed by my peers? I've done work on the featured articles Diocletian and Maximian in the past, so I've already done quite a bit of reading on the subject. I'm interested in whatever you good gentlemen and ladies have to say on it, whatever you're content to deal with. In descending order of what I consider the issues most likely to cause comment, that would be: Prose, organization/article structure, MOS, referencing, and coverage. I had a bit of trouble organizing the page. I eventually settled on having two major sections covering the body of the persecution: A overview and description of empire-wide effects, followed by more detailed coverage of the process of persecution, area by area. There's some redundancy in this method, but the alternatives (combining empire-wide and detailed coverage; omitting detailed coverage altogether; omitting empire-wide coverage altogether; removing small redundancies) seemed to compromise readability, accessibility, or comprehensiveness. If you have a better solution, do tell!

I've raised a bit of trouble regarding the article title (it's all my fault, again), because almost nobody calls the thing the "Diocletianic Persecution". The more common term is "Great Persecution", but that's hardly unambiguous, as Septentrionalis informed me (the Restoration suppression of Dissent in England is sometimes referred to by the same name). My primary objection to the term is that "Diocletianic" is a non-ideal moniker: If Lactantius is to be believed, it should be a "Galerian" persecution. I'd vouch for "Tetrarchic persecution" (note the lower-case "p" in "persecution", following WP:NAME), if Great Persecution is otherwise unavailable. (Currently it redirects here.)

Thanks in advance! Geuiwogbil (Talk) 21:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

In addition, it is a big article. 71 kb readable prose size, which suggests that the article "probably should be divided", by about 11k or so. Do tell me what should be on the chopping block. Suggestions: "Palestine and Syria", "Evasions", and elements of "Background". Geuiwogbil (Talk) 22:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Done and done. We're at 60 kb now. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 12:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments -
 * Suggest that the first paragraph of the lead is perhaps a bit too much information for the lead. I'd suggest writing the first paragraph to be a summary-summary of the WHOLE article, giving the absolute high points, then the next three paragraphs expand that first paragraph a bit more.
 * Watch the passive voice ... First paragraph of "prior persecutions", second sentence "...could be subject to ..." would read better "could be arrested and condemned to death...". This is just an example.
 * Prior persecutions. Might point out that while Jewish people were also loathed by most Pagan Romans, they were felt to be following their ancestral religion, and thus escaped official condemnation. When Christianity separated itself from Judiasm, it lost that protection.
 * I don't have the sources for a full discussion of that yet. If it were included, I feel I'd have to also to note that, during the first two centuries, Jews were explicitly political in a way that Christians weren't (John 18:36, "My kingdom is not of this Earth"), bringing about the Jewish–Roman wars (which probably killed more Jews than the persecutions did Christians). I'll be on the lookout. I have two sentences on that later on, in "Persecution and...": "The unique position of the Christians and Jews of the empire became increasingly apparent. The Jews had earned imperial toleration on account of the great antiquity of their faith, and continued to enjoy it under Tetrarchic government. (The Palestinian Talmud records that when Diocletian paid a visit to the region, he decreed that "sacrifices should be offered by all the people except the Jews".[43]) Christians had no such excuse.[44]" Geuiwogbil (Talk) 07:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Prior persecutions section, third paragraph, first sentence - first two centuries of what?
 * First two centuries AD. Now "of the Christian era". Is the formulation too archaic? I could make it "Until the third century" or "Until the 200s". Geuiwogbil (Talk) 07:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Same section and paragraph, persecutions were also carried out as a lynch mob type behavior also, without official authority.
 * I haven't seen anything on that yet. My sources all note that the early (limited) persecutions were all driven by popular hatred, but don't remark on any popular vigilantism. Could this be a legendary accretion/saintly exaggeration? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 07:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ouch. Same section, sentence starting "They were of limited threat to the estabilshed Church." ... historians disagree about whether there WAS an established church at this point, or whether it was a gathering of loosely organized local groups in contact with each other. Might want to make this more ... soft and less picking a side in the historical disagreement.
 * In my defense: When I wrote the phrase, I didn't think of "Church" as an institutional body with a clear chain of command and consistent operating practices (for which, read: liturgy) and business model (for which, read: theology). I meant something along the lines of: a decentralized community of faithful divided by many features but united by a common faith in Jesus as God. A sort of friendly/fuzzy proto-unitarian universal way of looking at the early Catholic (as in, "universal") Church. So much for the apology! It's been replaced by "Christianity as a whole". Geuiwogbil (Talk) 07:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Persecution section, second paragraph, first sentence "Diocletian did not favor Maiximan and Hercules..." don't you mean Jupiter and Hercules?
 * Fixed. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 07:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Make sure you're not overlinking. Probably don't need to link slaves (First editc section) whipping (christians in the army..)
 * Fixed. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 07:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I really didn't have time to do an indepth reading, but I did want to look it over quickly. If I find more time later, I'll try to revisit. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the early review, Ealdgyth. Especially so, given the general busyness of this time of year and your own particular workload. Some of your comments will require more research on my part, and might take more time to address than the average PR. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 07:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment on spelling of sourced author name: In the article, "Keresztes" is spelled 13 times as "Keresztes" and 27 times as "Kersetzes". I believe they refer to the same author, with the 27-count spelling looking like it is incorrect based on sources. The count exceeds my, admittedly low, boredom threshold to fix myself. -- Michael Devore (talk) 22:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks, Devore. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 07:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)