Wikipedia:Peer review/History of Christianity/archive1

History of Christianity


. I've listed this article for peer review because it is a level 4 vital article that is of 'top' or 'high' importance to 6 different Wiki projects. IMO, articles like this should represent the very best of Wikipedia, so I would like to take it to FA. I know that will be difficult for an article of this type, so it needs all the skilled and knowledgable help it can get. I am inexperienced at FA, so I too need all the help I can get.

Thanks, Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Gerda
With some awe do I come to an article of such great scope and dimension. I'll make comments, as I read. The lead makes sense to me, but I'll visit it again after reading through. Don't make changes too soon. I may be the the only one ;)

TOC
 * I see that the level-2-header are mostly just years, which may be hard for someone who really is unfamiliar with the topic.
 * Section titles have been an issue. The GA reviewer found the previous headings confusing, so we went with dates alone, so they could keep the sequence of events straight. I can go back and add something back in. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Some level-3-headers seem to be chosen for shortness, and may not always describe clearly enough what to expect.
 * I hope I have now all of this. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Origins ...
 * "Little is fully known of primitive Christianity." - I hear the term "primitive C." for the first time - which may be just me. - I'd probably write: "Little is known of early Christianity.", or even skip such a sentence altogether.
 * I have changed it to: "Little is fully known of Christianity in its first 150 years." Is that better? Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Beginnings
 * I find the list of see also and further reading a bit overwhelming before the actual beginning, and wonder if some could be converted to links in the prose, and others dropped or postponed. I don't see what a link to Second Temple Judaism would help me before getting into the article.
 * All the blue at the top of every section has been an issue as well. Other editors placed them and I have no real basis for removing them - beyond that there just seems to be too many. Is that valid? The GA reviewer had me change those that claimed to be main articles to see also and further, saying that none of them were genuinely main articles, but there are some that should be. I'll tell you what. I will go through each section and check them all and check for main articles and see what we are left with - today. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC)


 * "Jesus" is introduced, and then comes "Christ of faith" without any help for someone who may not have heard of "Jesus Christ" or know why the religion is called Christianity.
 * Okay, I have now expanded a previous sentence to read: "According to the Gospels, Jesus was the Son of God, the Christ, a title in Greek for the Hebrew term meshiah (Messiah) meaning “the anointed one,” who was crucified c. AD 30–33 in Jerusalem". Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Please check it, but I think this is ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Missions
 * The map is of historical interest, but is unclear in small size, and doesn't get much better when larger. If kept, it could be smaller. The map following is really informative. I don't need the map of Asia Minor. I don't understand the prominence of the map of Gaul and could do without it.
 * I would like to keep all maps. Many outside Europe are unfamiliar with the geography. A lot of the "sophomores" we write for won't know that France used to be Gaul. They can be sized however you see fit. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Removed one, and made Gaul same size as others. ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

''Early ... spread''
 * Why do have Christianity of Syria twice, see also and further reading, and why are some this and others the other?
 * A mistake that is gone now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

To be continued. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Gerda Arendt Bless you, you dear and wonderful person! I had no idea you had started this until I happened to check just a few minutes ago! Thank you Gerda. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much, I understood all replies. About these top links per section: could an article be made tat is practically navigation to these related topics, without repeating in individual articles? Like a navbox? - I don't think you got the sentence "Don't change too much, listen to others also." But fine, - if what I say makes sense to you, then change. - One general little thing: the traditional FA people don't like templates in reviews, not even the "done" template. Just type the word ;) - I have a busy day today, a contralto died, and I want to improve the article now that people are looking. Tomorrow will be travel. Don't be surprised if I don't continue here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's alright. RL must come first. I am sorry for the loss. Anything you do is great - even if this is all there is, it is deeply appreciated. I did get the 'don't change too much' but had already done some of it last night before seeing your post today. Besides, you always make sense. Except I have not a clue what your first two sentences mean - a navbox? Anyway, don't concern yourself. Take care of what you have to take care of and I will no doubt still be here - not using templates... Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I see (only now) that the article comes with 4 navboxes at the bottom, one being History of Christianity. We might argue that no link in that navbox should be repeated in the article, for less clutter. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:13, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I would say that's a brilliant idea except when looking at them, I found very little duplication of article titles - even though the same concepts are covered. Don't ask me to explain how that is possible. I will look at it again tomorrow. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Airship
I'll comment in the near future. Also, pinging others who have the knowledge and skill, if perhaps not the time, to help a first-time FAC nomination of this scale:. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC) More to come.
 * General comments
 * In an article of this scale, you simply do not have the time to deal with individual historians; it is foolish to include quotes, and especially so to quote entire sentences. You are looking to summarize whole schools of thought; any time spent on "[profession] [name] says ..." is time wasted.
 * I agree, however, complying will create a different issue - actually two issues. First, I have been directed in the past to attribute all claims. Religion is a controversial area. People have more than once posted templates with wherever I have failed to include profession and name - and a link when I can. Not doing so leaves everything in wiki-voice, and that is a second problem for many - who will also leave me little gifts in templates. Even if I cut every quote, there would still be this kind of need for attribution. What do you recommend? Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If it is cited, you can remove the template. That is the purpose of citations.  AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I use quotes that I think are the best, most succinct, and to the point, way of stating something, le mot juste, where it seems to me that paraphrasing will require more words and obscure content. But perhaps you are better at summarizing than I, so any suggestions for replacements that communicate the same things, without adding length, will receive loud hoorahs - and complete cooperation - from me! Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The notes are far too excessive, as they were at Historiography of the Christianization of the Roman Empire. They are 5,000 words long (the body is 11,500). Notes are not an excuse to ramble on near-indefinitely about tangential things. At least two dozen of the notes are irrelevant and should be cut.
 * I agree, the notes are long. If I understand the wiki-guideline correctly, one of the legit things to include are . I think that's what's there, but I am certainly willing to cut anything that does not fit the bill. If you can tell me which ones ...?  It would be extremely helpful if you could be specific. Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I repeat what I have said before: "I would request you to consider where the boundary between the explanatory and digressionary lies".
 * AirshipJungleman29 Bless you! Thank you for this.
 * I agree with a point from Borsoka below—if the "pope corruption theme" is a majority view, why is the entire paragraph beginning "Popes of the 1300s..." based on approximately three sentences in a non-specialist source which devotes five pages to arts for every one it talks about history? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your comment on three sentences, and the reference is a history book, but there are plenty of books out there that qualify as specialists, so I can redo that section with more and different sources. I will begin work on that today. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Just having a history book as a source is not sufficient at FAC, . It requires high-quality sources in every measure—weighting, use, and combining. To take an example in the opposite direction, you devote two paragraphs and two lengthy notes to the Albigensian Crusade, and have more than half-a-dozen specialist sources to talk about it. Why?? Just this one section contains three times as many words as the paragraph on the much more influential First Crusade! Use one source, two sentences at most, and hold concision above everything. Otherwise any FAC is doomed to fail. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I will cut that section on the Albigensian crusade and those notes as you suggest, but clearly I am doomed. I thought Albigensia was the result of an altered paradigm and therefore deserved a couple paragraphs of its own. I don't seem to have the right instincts for what to include and exclude. I don't think I can do this. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * But what altered paradigm? There is nothing in the article that suggests it it in any way different from any other military campaign. The text has to justify the detail you are giving it. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "What altered paradigm?" Okay, I assume that is a sincere question asked in good faith. So I will answer in kind. Heresy was originally an accusation lobbed at bishops and other church leaders - the educated. There is an old collection of church law from Burchard of Worms, around 1000 if I remember correctly, and there are no recorded laws concerning any concept of popular heresy anywhere in that record. No one charged an ordinary citizen with heresy when they said stupid and/or heretical things, because they were thought to be too ignorant to know better. Instruction was the prescribed response. In Burchard's day, the general position toward heresy coincides with Wazo of Liège's: reports of heresy should be investigated, true heretics excommunicated, and their teachings publicly rebuked. Excommunication - no death sentence. Then in the mid to late 1100s, a concept of public heresy as "stubborn resistance to the truth" began. The Dominicans were founded in 1216 in response. The Dominicans believed suffering "paid off" sin, and they were all inclusive. They not only believed they had a special calling to locate evil, they believed their rules applied to everyone.
 * So much shifted in the twelfth century, that it wouldn't be too much of an exaggeration to say that, for the church, everything shifted. Between 1150 and 1300, the church rediscovered Aristotle, took up scientific study of the natural world again, became more secular, more independent, founded universities where they publicly debated theology for heaven's sakes, had a fatal falling out with the Jews over the Talmud, and the Dominicans took up torturing and burning people alive. Yes, there was paradigm change! Augustine would have been horrified by the burning of heretics. (Don't throw out Priscillian as a disproof that things changed in the Middle Ages. Priscillian was accused of gross sexual immorality, and acceptance of magic, but politics is probably what got him executed, not heresy.) Where there was no law in 1000, the Fourth Lateran council of 1215 admonished secular authorities in canon 3 to "exterminate" heretics in their jurisdiction. This is a huge paradigm shift. The Albigensian crusade stands as an example of how much the church changed in the Middle Ages. That section is in sequence with the rest in that period, and cutting it entirely seems like a crime against history to me. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but this logic simply doesn't make sense. I ask for a justification of why the Albigensian Crusade deserves 300 words, and your reply is describing what is apparently a massive paradigm shift that it is not connected to in the article? If the Albigensian subsection is an example of the change in attitude to heresy, why is not in the heresy section, and why is it not sinply a sentence saying "an example of this was the Albigensian Crusade, in which..."? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I thought it was connected - in the outline. It is located as a subsection of centralization and persecution. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You've cited the Cambridge History of Christianity numerous times. If I were you, I would have used that as the basic structure. Seriously—two to three sentences for each chapter on average, supplemented with other citations as necessary, and FA would have been very gettable. Instead, you're going to have a hard job justifying the different weighting you've put on each event/period, and you don't have an authoritative source you can point at and say "they did it/they didn't cover it in detail". I wouldn't blame you if you gave up now—it's going to be a really tough ask, especially as you'll have to go through the first-timer's hoops. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I did in fact follow its basic structure. You can access the entire set at the wikipedia library, so let's look at volume one, which is my section on Origins to 312, and allow me to demonstrate. The first chapter is "Jesus Christ, foundation of Christianity" by Frances Young whom you objected to me quoting. Part I covers The Political, Social and Religious Setting. Articles include the Jewish Diaspora and the Roman Empire. I followed that. Next is Jewish Christianity, which I gave a full paragraph. Chapter 8 is the emergence of the written record, which also got a paragraph. There are four additional chapters in this section, on Marcion and self definition which I deemed too detailed for a Wikipedia article - "The self-defining praxis of the developing ecclēsia" - that kind of thing. I don't think omitting that was a mistake. These are not ideas that can be suitably covered in a sentence or two, and they are not major aspects of history. Part IV is regional varieties of Christianity which are 8 full chapters that I summarized in 8 short paragraphs. Part five is the Shaping of Christian theology. Its first chapter is on the construction of the institutional church, which I sum up in one paragraph, and its next four chapters are summed up in early beliefs and practices. Part VI is largely about Constantine which I put in the next section. I did follow their basic structure. I used most of the articles as references. I followed that throughout this article. We can go volume by volume if you would like to be sure of that. I put weight on what they put weight on, only omitting what is inappropriate for a wikipedia article aimed at sophomores. I did exactly what you say would make FA gettable. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:06, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

UC
Airship's kind words aside, I should be clear that this is not my area of expertise (except tangentially for the Late Antique stuff): I'll comment on it from a writing, clarity and general Wikipedia point of view, but I can't give it the subject-matter-expert treatment that it really ought to have before/during FAC.

A few comments below, mostly focused on the pre-600 material. Given the amount that's here and the size of the article, I wonder whether I might be of most use if I treat that section as a sub-article, and work with you to get it as good as it can be, while others take the other parts? UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * UndercoverClassicist Thank you! That section are several sub articles! Anything you have to say will be appreciated. I am perfectly okay with doing one section with you - so long as we agree to keep an eye on length.


 * Agreed with the comments above about individual scholars: most of the statements in such a high-level article are too weighty for a single authority to bear. Consider for instance the idea about the resurrection being at the heart of Christianity -- defining the heart of a major world religion is a big weight, and even Frances Young can't quite carry it alone. (She's also misspelt as "Francis" in one of the citations).
 * OOps on the spelling! Fixed. I do agree, this is a perfectly well reasoned argument. It's deleted. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Given the size of the article and the topic, I think the lead could be a little fuller: remember it's meant to be able to stand in for the article as a whole.
 * Generalissima has also suggested this. So I have now done something. See if it fits the bill for you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest saying something like "Constantine was the first emperor to be baptised a Christian", as there's quite a lot of debate about whether he was one in any real internal sense, and it's something of an unknowable question.
 * This is not an uncommon holdover of old scholarship, but it's not an accurate representation of modern views. Peter Leithart in his 2010 book titled “Defending Constantine: The Twilight of an Empire and the Dawn of Christendom” summarizes the new scholarship on Constantine. He writes that, since 1929, “there has been a growing consensus among English speaking scholars that Constantine was a sincere Christian with a profound confidence that God had chosen and appointed him.” On page ten of the Preface, Leithart writes
 * H. A. Drake in “Constantine and Consensus” from 1995 discusses Burckhardt’s assertion that Constantine's conversion was not sincere in part - and I quote - “because of evidence that the emperor continued to tolerate and even to support traditional religion. Implicit in this approach is the assumption that Christian belief necessarily entails intolerance—one of the more questionable legacies of Enlightenment scholarship… but is this the only option that would have been open to Constantine? To think so is to assume a uniformity in attitude that the record belies… The key to the Constantinian period is an emperor who was Christian, but who resisted pressure from any quarter to use coercion to enforce belief. … The traditional model is unsatisfactory not just because it takes Christian coercion for granted, but also because in doing so it completely misinterprets the changes that took place under Constantine, obscuring that age's most important development… the creation of a consensus in favor of a broadly inclusive monotheism under which both Christians and most pagans could live in harmony.” So that’s Drake from nearly 30 years ago. This is the majority view now.
 * Leithart says this new scholarship began with a study of Constantine's personal writings in 1930, and even though that was a long time ago, these facts have “barely penetrated popular consciousness, or even the consciousness of scholars who are not fourth century specialists.” He adds that nearly everything about Constantine is disputed, but the results of recent scholarship rebut the popular caricatures that are still widespread. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Link and explain (at least as Biblical) the Book of Acts? Done, also note 1 is about Acts. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * : a few things here: Hebrew terms in language template (, I think). We also need to be clear about the belief/fact line: it's pretty uncontroversial that Jesus was crucified, but much more debateable that he was the Messiah.
 * See if it suits now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see more citations for big historiographical debates. The concept/division of the "Jesus of History" and the "Christ of Faith" is a massive part of a massive scholarly field; it's a bit weird to have only a single scholar's voice dominating this narrative.
 * It's in note three. I have been repeatedly corrected on what constitutes too many details, and what can be in text, and what can be in notes. It seems there is no satisfying everyone. But I do think much more discussion of this would be tangential to "history", since this was not part of the debate until the modern era. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I know we're moving lightly over things, but it seems odd to start the history of Christian persecution in 250: it's worth engaging with the Neronian Persecution, if only as a historiographical construct.
 * How? Could you offer more specifics - that will not add a great deal to length? Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Mentioning it would be a good start: it's one of the crucial components of Christianity's own narrative of its early history. For FAC, the article must [neglect] no major facts or details and [place] the subject in context -- missing out the fact/claim that Nero launched a major persecution of Christians would cause us a problem on that front. You don't need to go into the full debate as to whether the persecutions actually happened, but it would be worth a brief gesture towards the fact that it exists. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I would be very cagey about saying "the Church" had anything like agency, intention or ideology in the Late Roman period, and even more cagey about doing so on the authority of a single source from 1870.
 * I don't understand. Could you clarify? Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The article makes the church sound like a coherent entity, with plans, intentions and an ability to execute them as a united institution. This certainly doesn't describe the Late Antique church, with its extremely vague hierarchy, often bitterly contested power structures, and extremely variable beliefs and practises (a point nicely made by Drake's chapter in The Cambridge Companion to Constantine). In particular, the line is extremely anachronistic for pre-600: almost whatever you can think of to define a "state", the church didn't have it. I note that this is cited to an introductory, non-specialist, tertiary source -- given how many classicists and late antique historians have covered the role of the church in the later Roman Empire, I think we really need to be leaning on them.  UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you're right. I will attempt to fix that. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:13, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that's done now. See if it reads any better to you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * A lot of this, at the moment, moves too fast and too lightly: there's far too much "yes, but..." when you know the material. Take for instance : just about everything here is a gross simplification.
 * You are already developing my own level of frustration with trying to get this massive topic down to a manageable size. You have my sympathy. Truly. Yes, it is indeed too fast and too light, since nothing, absolutely nothing can be discussed in any depth without length becoming a breaking point.
 * The publisher's description of Harper's paradigm altering work reads:
 * The paragraph in this article does in fact simplify an extremely complex process. I agree with you. But it does as good a job as any of the paragraphs in this article of making the point of "history" in as short and sweet a manner as possible - which is unsatisfying to those of us who want to explain. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's worth saying from the outset that Harper's book is not uncritically beloved: he is not a specialist in the history of religion, nor on high-classical Roman society. This is a problem when we're asking it to be our only guide to the "before" as well as to the "after". In particular, see this BMCR review for some important caveats on how he handles pre-Christian attitudes to sex and sexuality, and a consistent theme in the reviews is that the argument is energetic but not always particularly well supported. There certainly is a major change in sexual ethics between pre-Christian and Christian ideas, but that has relatively little to do with the idea of . The important and valid point here is that early Christians had a lot of rules for sexual conduct, which often conflicted with those of their predecessors and indeed contemporaries, and therefore that regulating sex played a major role in their discourse, writing and general psychology -- that's the point that needs pulling out here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I enjoyed reading that review. Thank you. I went and read several others as well. There are scads of them! This one [] mentions Peter Brown's "glowing review" in the New York review of books which I could not find. All of the reviews I found are, overall, mostly positive, even the one you reference. She does say, "Perhaps in the end this “deep earthquake in human morality” was really more like a big tremor", which is clever but not really a contrary view.
 * I don't wish to be difficult. I want to cooperate with you. Here is my difficulty: . Okay so far there is agreement. It seems like we agree on the what but not necessarily the why. But that is what Harper asserts, and I can find no one who actually disagrees with the cause of change - not even the review you cite.
 * Pages 14-18 of Harper's book cover the basic argument:
 * Okay, so we agree there was a major change, and that can be observed through the next thousand years, and Harper's probably right on much of it continuing into our modern day, though that is his most disputed point. So we won't say that. I want to accommodate you. I can remove Harper's reason for the change. I can just say sex played a major role in Christian discourse, but a reader will automatically wonder how and why? And why does it matter? I hope you can help me work this through. I am struggling with this one. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * In essence, I don't have too much problem with Harper's characterisation of what Christians believe(d), but the contrast he draws with previous Roman mores (in essence, his characterisation of pre-Roman society) is too stark. Is there a way to focus on the Christian side of things without being too prescriptive about putting all pre-Christian Romans into the same box> UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. That won't be easy, but I will try. It's not an unreasonable request. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, I did something. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:39, 24 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I would tread very carefully with the idea of Paganism, which is really a creation of Christian writers and thinkers -- nobody ever really considered themselves a pagan, and it was somewhat an act of imagination to think of "paganism" as being anything so codified, unified and organised as Christianity was(n't).
 * You are absolutely right, but there is no other common convention among scholars. It remains the shorthand term. If you find a place where I have misused it, please change it, or just tell me and I will do something! Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * See e.g. : if paganism wasn't a meaningful concept, he couldn't outlaw it, so this is a red herring. The ban on sacrifice is much more significant, since that (if followed) made it impossible to worship the traditional Roman gods in the traditional manner. It's tricky to be clear on exactly what he's supposed not to have done, and will almost certainly become anachronistic: we could write something like "never outlawed belief in the pre-Christian gods", but that would have been a completely bananas idea for a fourth-century Roman.
 * I would cut this down, explain what Constantine did, but also find some room for the fact that temples (e.g. Apollo Palatinus in Rome and the Parthenon in Athens) crack on quite happily, at least for a while, the Vestals carry on tending their flame until 382, and there's clearly enough non-Christian stuff going on for Theodosius I to have to ban it in 393, and for Theodosius II to ban it again in 426. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay. I can probably do that without too much trouble. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The view of the "Fall of Rome" presented here is pretty dated -- again, it's a big and complex field, and Averil Cameron can't do it all on her own. Without going into huge detail, none of the issues we outline were particularly new in the C4th, or indeed entirely true even then; the Roman army certainly didn't totally lack decent commanders (Aetius and Stilicho spring quickly to mind), and the tax system was largely taken on wholesale by successor states like the Ostrogoths: if the tax burden was so great as to make the Roman empire collapse, how were they able to manage with it? Moreoever, we don't actually know for sure what the tax burden was: the argument has been made that debasement was used as a means to avoid raising taxes, and that it was this which caused more of the empire's economic problems.
 * The introductory paragraph is intended to set what follows in context. I know there is ongoing debate about when the "fall" occurred - or whether - but there is still majority consensus that a political and military collapse did occur. The empire could no longer defend its people. How would you like to see that intro changed?
 * : the concept of "western civilisation" as having a geography and physical boundaries is more a matter of ideology than fact, and indeed gets into some pretty yucky ideological territory pretty quickly. It's certainly not something we can be writing in an encyclopaedia's voice.
 * It's from a history of the western humanities, and the idea is needed to show the shift in geography that did take place for the history of Christianity. Throughout this article, I organized it by time and also by the geography of where Christianity was most active - where its center of influence was strongest - during each particular time frame. It started in Palestine, moved to the Roman Empire, then to western Europe, split with the eastern church more than once, competed over Eastern Europe, moved strongly to America, and then to the global east and south. That geography needs to be maintained. What would be a better way to say it that doesn't include western civilization which is what the source says? Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The problem here is the term "Western civilization" and the notion that it exists as a bounded concept. Can you frame what you're trying to say in a more concrete way? UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I can certainly make the effort. You may not like it any better, but I see where this comes from in a post-modernist world. You are probably right that western civilization should go. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:58, 24 January 2024 (UTC)


 * We need a lot more between 300ish and 600ish on the regional divergence of Christianity between east and west; we need to somehow thread the needle that we don't formally have the Great Schism until 1054, but that we also have a huge amount of doctrinal, institutional and ritual diversity, which increasingly coalesces into increasingly uncomfortable divisions between how things are done in Rome and Milan and how they're done in Alexandria and Antioch.
 * I cringe at "we need a lot more". We need a lot more of everything - but can't. Thorough coverage of any single topic will break the bank of conciseness. If it's mentioned at all, that's all most topics get. This is a "broad overview" without many details, and so it must be. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There's difficult choices to be made, but the doctrinal pluralism of Christianity, particularly as manifested in the division into east and west, is perhaps the most consequential aspect of its early history -- we can't meet the FA standard to [neglect] no major facts or details and [place] the subject in context if it's not mentioned. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 17:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe I can move something instead of add it. You are right in what you say. I will work on it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I will begin here tomorrow. It's a quarter to 2 and I'm going to bed now. Thank you for your patience. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * : a few things here. Firstly, people in the west were perfectly good at making their own: look at Donatism and Pelagianism, for two early examples which become emblematic of heresy for generations afterwards. Secondly, the framing here is backwards: everyone thought they were orthodox and that everyone else was a heretic. It wasn't like there was an obvious "orthodox" camp and an obvious "heretical" camp: rather, defining which beliefs were heretical and which were orthodox (and therefore which people were "really" Christians) was a bitter and contested matter: the argument has often been made that "heresy" is only created by the effort to define "orthodoxy".
 * Donatism was North African, and Pelagianism was originally eastern, the east merely got rid of it sooner than the west did. The statement reflects the source. Everyone did not think they were orthodox. That's simply incorrect. There was indeed an "orthodox camp" beginning in the second century with writers we know as the church fathers who wrote "Against Heresies" and other works which did in fact define beliefs. Heresy was defined as that which was contrary to apostolic tradition. If you are referring to Bauer's thesis, it is not supported by the majority of modern scholarship. In fact, that's mentioned in the text. However heresy was created, it was responded to early. That is accurate history. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think you've understood my point: nobody in Late Antiquity self-identified as a heretic (that is, nobody thought that their own beliefs were against apostolic tradition, to use your framing). Those labelled as Donatists, most famously, claimed that they were the only true Christians and that those who acknowledged bishops ordained (as they saw it) without proper authority were themselves breaking divine commandments. Tracts attempting to define e.g. Donatism, Pelagianism, Arianism were always written by people outside those movements, and to an extent attempted to create a coherent ideological programme for those groups, separate from Christianity, where the reality was murkier. After all, the whole idea of a church council was predicated on the notion that either side could have been right: if it was obvious from the beginning which view was orthodox and which wasn't, there would have been no need for a council. Brent Shaw is particularly good on this; from another perspective, Rowan Williams has recently made this point in his biography of Arius. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 16:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I will rewrite this. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:20, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * More generally, I'm afraid the section on Late Antiquity needs a lot of love to get it up to speed with modern scholarship. In essence, the article needs to synthesise much more material and get far away from big, sweeping but somewhat meaningless statements like (what does that mean, and how would you go about proving or disproving it?
 * reflects what the source says, and it simply means what it simply says, which seems quite straightforward to me. It is Peter Brown's view, and has become a majority view, and is not generally disputed by anyone.
 * All my work reflects modern scholarship. Saying otherwise is inaccurate and unfounded. If I reference an older work, it is because it is recognized as a classic in the field. If you have something specific in mind, please explain. Otherwise such baseless generalities are unwelcome. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * For most of this period (essentially, after Christianity becomes institutionalised by and identified with the state), there isn't a clear divide between being "Roman" and being "Christian". I think what is meant here is something like "Christianity substantially changed Roman culture". <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 17:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have no source that makes that particular claim of changing Roman culture. It seems more as if Christianity adapted to being Roman. Probably no one from this distance in time can tell if Rome became more Christian - Peter Brown says no, not before Justinian - or if Christianity became more Roman, but the fact that they accommodated each other is what is meant by synthesis. Can we come up with something we can both agree on that says that? Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've also got some reservations about the sources cited and not cited: there are a lot of big beasts not named, and a lot of big statements being held up by works that seem to come from outside the specialism. A few people who really need a bit more prominence:
 * Peter Brown: easily the most influential voice in Late Antiquity and particularly on Christianity -- see e.g. his many volumes of collected papers like Society and the Holy in Late Antiquity, his gigantic Through the Eye of a Needle on Pelagianism (but really on how Christianity worked in the C5th), the much smaller, older but still vitally important The World of Late Antiquity -- he really is inescapable for something like this.
 * Brent Shaw is brilliant on a lot of late antique social history matters -- see in particular Sacred Violence: African Christians and Sectarian Hatred in the Age of Augustine on the Donatists.
 * Robert Markus is a bit dated now, but still has some big books that are never far from university reading lists: see particularly his 1990 The End of Ancient Christianity
 * Check the sources list. Peter Brown has four sources referenced. Brent Shaw's expertise was never used, and won't be, because Donatism is not discussed, and won't be. It's one of those many details that a broad overview cannot include. Markus was cut. He wrote primarily on Augustine, who barely gets a mention in this article, and he was in part of what was cut when taking this article from 20,000 word down to less than 12,000. There were a hundred more sources at one time, and there are over 300 now. Surely with most of them having their own wikipedia pages, you can find some you can respect just as much as your favorites. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * A general point on the responses to these comments, with an eye on FAC: it is perfectly fine to give a reasoned disagreement to comments, or to explain why you've taken things in a different direction to how a reviewer would. Most reviewers will respect that: we're all different people and there are usually many good ways to solve a difficult problem. However, it's unusual to get a support vote out of dismissing all or most of a reviewer's comments, and the tone of some of these replies (e.g. such baseless generalities are unwelcome, I cringe at..., Surely ... you can find some you can respect just as much as your favorites) is not going to help turn an oppose into a support. I know that critical reviews can be tough -- remember that none of the criticism is of you, and that we all want the article to turn out as good as it can be. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 10:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * UndercoverClassicist I apologize for my snarkiness. I will try to keep your admonition in mind. I do feel strongly about my commitment to a quality encyclopedia, and I did get offended at your comment that this does not represent modern scholarship. I took that personally, and I shouldn't have. I don't think it's accurate, but that's really beside the point. The point is that you are trying to help, and I do know that and do appreciate it. With that in mind, please note that I made four of the changes you suggested. I explained why three of them are incorrect, and requested clarification with some specifics on the rest. I do still request those if you are willing.
 * I'm afraid you came with expectations of what you thought you would see in a history of Christianity, and much of it isn't there. I'm also afraid I can't fix that. I have spent the last year being admonished repeatedly that this is a broad overview article that could never go FA because of its length. I spent months cutting and cutting accordingly, so if you will, try and imagine my feelings at comments on what needs to be added. I am sorry to have subjected you to those feelings. My frustration level over balancing thorough and concise is already high - not an excuse - just an explanation, since you have no way of knowing. I'm afraid all this adds up to there being no way for this article to ever gain your approval.
 * The source I used more than any other single source is the Cambridge History of Christianity written by multiple authors in ten volumes. There are about 30 topics in each volume. Each topic runs about 30 pages. In an article like this one for Wikipedia, I found I could not even mention every topic they do. It is extremely frustrating. It is probably foolish to think an article of this type can ever get FA approval. I would say, please don't give up on me, but I am feeling pretty discouraged and feeling like giving up myself. I wouldn't blame you for walking away. Again, sorry for the snark. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This can be a tricky process; I do understand that, and I know it's difficult and frustrating to have different reviewers pulling in different directions. I've made a few replies above, which I hope are helpful. Overall, I don't think the problem is that the Late Antique section is too brief: in most cases, it's a matter of reframing or removing material as much as simply adding it. I had a quick scan down the FA list to see if I could find a comparable example: there certainly are some big topics there, but it's probably fair to say that this would be the biggest. I wonder whether co-nominating it with people specialist in different areas of the topic would be a useful way forward? <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 18:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have no idea about co-nominating, but thank you for your gracious response. I am a specialist of a kind. I have an undergraduate degree in religion, one in philosophy, and graduate study in ethics - and an avocation in history. I have been working and writing in this field for many years. Not that I know everything of course. I will respond as fully as possible to each comment above - with gratitude that you are still making them. I will take your suggestions on Late Antiquity - a currently disputed field - to heart and work on it some more. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Another thought, which you can take or leave as you will -- we recently had another similarly large-scope article (History of military logistics) come through FAC and be archived. We had similar issues there of the problem of deciding between breadth and brevity, and of trying to ensure that a fairly small section (in this case, the ancient/early medieval material) could pass specialist scrutiny. A suggestion I made there, which might be of some use here, was that writing the sub-articles first might be a good way forward: here, for example, starting by trying to create a very good article under the title of History of Christianity in Late Antiquity, History of Christianity to 1054, or something similar. The section on Late Antique Christianity in this article would then be a distillation of that daughter article. It's generally easier a) to get a smaller, more specialised article to FA standard and b) to distil something that already exists, rather than trying to write a concise summary de novo. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 21:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I have had this suggested to me before, and indeed, I have worked on several of the smaller sub-articles and continue to do so. Have you seen how many there are that already exist? There are no doubt still some worth creating. I appreciate the idea. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Generalissima
Great to see this article continuing to develop and undergo some good changes :3 Couple quick notes:
 * I think the lede can be worked on just a little.
 * Done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think the Edict of Milan needs to be name-dropped; if there's any early document that needs to, I think giving the Nicene Creed a shout-out would be the best, as a result of the ecumenical councils.
 * Other editors required it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "return of tolerance" - what specific period was this the norm?
 * It was always an aspect of Christianity. Long history that one all by itself. see History of Christian thought on persecution and tolerance Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd note that Christian societies greatly secularized following the Enlightenment.
 * I did, in the opening to the next "era". Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I would specifically mention Evangelicalism as a factor of modern Christianity's spread.
 * It's in there, because you asked for it earlier, so I put it in - in two places actually! Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Would also specify that Catholicism remains the largest branch depart the relative decline due to Evangelicalism.
 * If you limit Christianity to three branches - Roman Catholic, Protestant and Eastern Orthodox - then Catholicism is the largest of the three, but is that relevant to anything? Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Generalissima I am so glad to see you here! Thank you! I am done for tonight. It is way past my bedtime.  Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Borsoka
I am not an expert in the field although I have read several books about the history of much of the periods covered by this article. Summarizing all relevant aspects of such a complex subject is challenging, so I highly appreciate the work of editors who have completed this article. Nevertheless, I think the article needs significant changes before it can be accepted as a FA.

My general remarks:
 * the article cites too many sources dedicated to specific aspects of the history of Christianity (for instance, at least four books or articles about the Albigensian crusades are listed in section "Sources"), I think the article should be based on more general academic sources;
 * Specialists in their field are usually more knowledgable than generalists. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is why academic sources specialised at the general history of Christianity should be preferred. They indicate what are the most important aspects of the subjects according to specialists.
 * there are too many references to individual scholars' views (for instance, Young is mentioned twice in section "Origins to 312"), I think all references to individual scholars should be deleted and the article should present scholarly consensus or majority views with a short reference to major alternative theories;
 * Attribution is necessary in articles on religion as it is a highly controversial field. I had no space to include minority views on anything, so there are no individual views that are not representative of majority views. I removed Young's original quote. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I do not think so. This article should concenctrate on consensus and dominant views.
 * sometimes highly debatable scholarly PoVs are overemphasized (for instance, the corruption of the high and late medieval Catholic (?) Church or its leaders is mentioned at least three times in section "1100 - 1500 The rise and fall of Christendom"), I think a more neutral approach should be adopted, and religious life in the medieval West should be presented based on specialised works (I would suggest Bernard Hamilton's Religion in the Medieval West, The Western Church in the Middle Ages by John A. F. Thomson, or Marcia L. Colish's Medieval Foundations of the Western Intellectual Tradition);
 * This is the majority view however. There is no debate on whether the church in the late Middle Ages became corrupt. It is universally accepted, even among Catholic scholars. There is no more neutral approach. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I suggest you should read the books I mentioned above. They provide a less simplicistic picture. Furthermore Witte does not verify the reference to the corruption of the papacy; Matthews and DeWitt Platt are not church historians; Whalen wrote of the lawyers' corruption, adding that "most historians would now agree that such pictures of the Avignon popes exaggarated their decadence...". We can hardly say that the article is neutral if corruption is mentioned solely in connection with high and late medieval papacy. If the papacy's corruption is emphasized in this period, our readers should also be informed what changed in comparison with the Early Middle Ages and Early Modern Times, or why all other Churches mentioned in the article remained free of corruption. Borsoka (talk) 02:20, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * several aspects of church history are ignored (for instance, there is no reference to pentarchy and papal primacy, and papal supremacy is mentioned in a quite unusual way; Donatism is not mentioned in the article, while Gnosticism is only linked in a footnote). Borsoka (talk) 03:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Broad overview. Cut the details. I spent the last year being reminded of that again and again. I took it to heart and cut it from 20,000 words down to under 12,000 by eliminating extra details, supporting cast, and everything non-major. That includes Donatism - an interesting side-trip in history but not a major road - and pentarchy, a detail of Justinian's laws. Papal primacy/supremacy is mentioned, but that is all it gets. No unnecessary detail in an article like this one. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Debates over the conception of papal supremacy and pentarchy led to a major schism within Christianity. Instead of emphasizing the corruption of the papacy minimum five times, important aspects of the history of Christianity should be mentioned. Borsoka (talk) 02:20, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

To everyone who has responded
Borsoka, Generalissima, AirshipJungleman29 <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> and Gerda Arendt Thank you so much! I am so overwhelmed by the support demonstrated by you showing up here that I am almost in tears. I am more grateful than I can say for all the input. I will attempt to address each separately in their respective places. One thing to correct: assuming the article and I survive peer review, this would not be my first attempt at FA, it would be my second - my first effort failed - so I do still consider myself inexperienced, though not a first timer, and I will continue to be genuinely thankful for all that is offered here. Thank you all again and again. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)


 * To Borsoka, Generalissima, AirshipJungleman29 <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> and Gerda Arendt  again, thank you, but I think I'm going to pull this. The response here has been predominantly negative, and while I do think this is an important article that for WP's sake should be FA, I doubt it could ever pass. I will still take your suggestions as given in good faith, and do what I can to improve both the late antiquity section and make the 1300-1500s more neutral if possible. But I think I have otherwise done all I can do here, and it just isn't good enough, so I won't be applying for FA. Thank you for your time and interest. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it has to be said that getting the article even to GA status is a massive achievement, and you should be extremely proud of a feat few Wikipedians can match. Thank you for your work. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be so sure that it could never pass - I think you have built a very very excellent base. I think the ideas about co-nomination are really the way forward here; like with published scholarly works, you need someone else that goes in and make changes before publication, because the original academic has spent so much time with it that it can be tough to see what needs to be fixed. Generalissima (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have been holding off on my comments until the general level of input died down a little, and while this article demonstrates - as many do - the gap between GA and FA I don't off hand see why it shouldn't become an FA, and it seems to be in a sound state to serve as the basis for such an ambition. However, I suspect that it would need a lot of work to build a consensus to promote a topic like this. My standard advice to inexperienced editors is to run 20 or 30 articles through GAN before thinking about FAC. (I did 42.) Then nominate 6 or 8 or 10 "straight forward" articles at FAC, staring with a couple of real gimmes, ideally in the same broad subject area as the target "complex topic". Then one may be ready to put some real toughies through FAC. Of course, no one has ever been happy with these suggestions. Sad-tpvgames.gif Gog the Mild (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Pbritti
Hi, just wanted to throw my hat in to do a quick once-over of the article before you close the peer review. I'm also an editor in the chase for their first FA, so doing this PR would be a way for me to cut my teeth a tad. I have a lot experience with Christian history in Catholic (both Latin and Eastern), Anglican, and Methodist contexts here on the encyclopedia and through my undergraduate education, so I'd like to help as much as I can.

Brief comments: Since I don't really see this article making it through an FAC process in the immediate future, I will submit only a handful of minor comments that may be more easily resolved.


 * Monasticism and public hospitals: This section strikes me as both too short and undue in scope. The history and development of monasticism is among the best studied elements of Christianity and contributed substantially to the faith's cultural impact and sustainment in both the East and West. However, the role of public hospitals–while extensively studied–is of less significance to both the historiography and cultural impact.
 * Second Vatican Council (1962–1965): Similar issues. The council exists within a broader context of Christian reforms, particularly in the context of ecclesiastical hierarchal changes and the alteration of the liturgy. These subjects also have their own articles and it might have been nice to see some of them linked.

I considered commenting on other things, but we would be talking about a depth of review that is really inappropriate at present. I think that I can't offer any constructive commentary with the substantial recommendations offered elsewhere. Consider this something of an abortive review on my part. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Recommendations
I went looking for the books you recommended in order to include them and hopefully make you happier with my sources. Now I have a different problem. I found Religion in the medieval West by Bernard Hamilton through the Archive. IMO, this book is a Christian apology, rather than an objective history, that simply omits discussion of anything contradictory to its central theme justifying the church. This book makes no mention of the possible corruption of Popes. It has only one mention of the corruption of monasteries in the tenth century, and nothing at all of the problems of the late Middle Ages. It isn't that it deals with these problems in a different fashion than the references I used did. It doesn't address them at all - as if they didn't happen - yet they did.

I also found The Western Church in the Middle Ages by John A. F. Thomson at the Archive. It also presents its material from a distinctly Catholic POV. On page 91 that "churchmen had mistresses" is mentioned, but virtually nothing more than that on corruption, or what corruption might have involved, is discussed. On page 129, it mentions the famous Bernard Gui but it does so with nothing more than a comment on his understanding of heresy as contempt for the authority of the church. There is no critical discussion of what that authority was thought to be, or why it was thought valid at this time, or how that might have differed from what went before or after - none of it. It makes no mention of opposition that developed against Gui, or why, or what scholars say of him now. It doesn't mention how many people he was responsible for killing. James B. Given compares Gui's rates of execution unfavorably to those of secular courts in France, England, and Italy. Karen Sullivan has argued that Gui was among the more zealous of inquisitors. None of that's in this book. On page 132 the author writes that, "by the fourteenth century, Catharism had ceased to be a serious threat to the church". What constitutes a serious threat? What assumptions underlie that? A lot of them! And none are even mentioned. People were killed because they thought differently. That's a fair criticism of the period, but it is nowhere in this book. There is nothing on the problematic Popes. If you have pages and content that contradicts this, please share because I couldn't find any.

I liked Marcia L. Colish's Medieval Foundations of the Western Intellectual Tradition, but it has virtually nothing on the history of Christianity as such. In the History of the Western Humanities by Matthews and Platt, they include the history of philosophy and the history of religion as well as histories of art and literature. Colish follows a much narrower thread, but whatever it is, it is not a history of Christianity.

These books can't qualify as alternate views on issues they don't discuss. An absence of information does not create a neutral POV.

I am now deeply distressed. It was my desire to accommodate your request and include your favorite sources. I find, through no fault of my own, that I cannot in good conscience do so after all. I am now concerned about this being held against me as a lack of cooperation on my part. Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps because these church historians do not regard the papacy's "corruption" (whatever it means) so important. Please remember that two of the sources you are citing to verify five references to the corruption of the papacy neither verify it, and the third source was not written by a church historian. We are here to present history as it is presented by specialists in academic works. Please also remember if the high and late medieval papacy's corruption is emphasised in the article, it also should be explained why early medieval and early modern/modern papacy could not be regarded corrupt and why only the popes became corrupt among so many Catholic and non-Catholic church leaders. Borsoka (talk) 01:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Not "wanting to emphasize" is just another way of saying "biased" in this case. These are not neutral sources. There is no evidence to counter the other references in the three sources you cite. The absence of evidence is not evidence.
 * What exactly does this even mean: ? Of course the sources verify it, and the sources you recommend don't deny it, they just avoid it. Go ahead and google "was there corruption in the church of the late Middle Ages" and see what you get. It's verifiable a dozen times over.
 * is actually a good argument for that source being un-biased. Church historians mostly wrote biased histories, and that's a fact that all scholars recognize.
 * No, that is logically backwards. The absence of 'something' never needs explaining unless there is good reason to expect that 'something' to be there. The only thing that ever needs explaining is the presence of something - especially the presence of something that should not be there - like corruption in the church.
 * No one makes that claim. The article says virtuous nuns and monks were hard to find and reform movements disappeared as well. Corruption was endemic, not just among the Popes. It was a problem then, but you can't take it personally now.
 * Your reaction to the article was not based on good sources. I don't think you have been unbiased, and nothing you have said here leads me to think you can be in the future. I hope that if I do end up putting the article up for FA, you will stay away accordingly. Otherwise, I will have to challenge your participation. On that basis, I am relocating this discussion to the peer review page, so it won't just get deleted. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)


 * It was my original intent to keep this private till we worked it out, but the response made me rethink that. I cannot use biased sources. If such comments fail the article, then so be it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * (1) You need very good sources to verify that the two historians Bernard Hamilton and John A. F. Thomson  are biased. You need even better sources to verify that "Church historians mostly wrote biased histories", and you should specifically quote WP policies allowing us to ignore church historians when writing about the history of Christianity. (3) No, the referred pages from two of the cited sources do not verify the statements in the article. (4) No, I do not take anything personally. An article should provide readers with a neutral picture. (5) I am absolutely neutral and I referred to excellent academic sources. (6) Our readers should be informed how the saintly/not corrupt (?) early medieval papacy developed into a corrupt institution and later returned (?) to its roots (if this is the case) if the article mentions five times the high medieval and late medieval papacy's corruption in a section. (7) Yes, at present state the article will probably fail as it should have failed during the GAN. (8) Finally, again: we are here to present the history of Christianity as it is presented in specialised academic sources of high quality, not based on our impressions from google researches. Borsoka (talk) 05:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Borsoka, Thank you for responding. I am sure it is intended in good faith. I will respond in good faith as well, then I think we should close this discussion as we are down to arguing opinions rather than facts.
 * (1 and 2) I do not need to prove anything in this case. The choice of what sources I use is legitimately mine. I just need to follow WP policy. (As a personal request, if you are going to correct me for saying something, please include a quote where I actually said what you assert. Otherwise, please do not put words in my mouth.)
 * (3) Questioning the accuracy/reliability of my sources, however, does require that you prove there is some basis for that. The 'History' has been repeatedly reviewed as well as republished 14 times in the last 30 years. It's kind of a landmark in its field. Your three are no doubt reliable as far as they go as well, they just don't go into corruption. IMO, that makes them look biased. Of course, a source can be biased and reliable at the same time, but I can't use what isn't there.
 * (4) "An article should provide readers with a neutral picture". Absolutely agree. I went looking for your sources in order to do exactly that. I fully accepted, on the basis of your recommendation alone, that they were going to provide me with an alternative point of view that would better enable that. Instead I found they didn't mention it at all. A source with no content on a topic is not a source on that topic.
 * (5) Okay, if you say so, but sources that omit facts are not what I think are the best. That decision is mine to make as long as I am the one doing the work, and should not be an issue for a reviewer.
 * (6) The article does exactly that. I guess you didn't read very far.
 * (7) I was pretty sure of your feelings, but thank you for stating it straight out. It's good to have a record.
 * (8) Yes, we are here to present history as it is presented in the best quality sources we can find. Absolutely agree. We all use google books, google scholar, and other research tools to find those sources. Unless you own a world class library, you do too.
 * I do want to thank you. This has spurred me on to do more research, and to rework the section using the multiple additional sources I found. If you deny that corruption existed, then get your sources and add that - or bring it to me and I will. I would have been glad to present that from an alternate perspective, I wanted to, intended to, but your sources would actually have to talk about it to do that. I can't use something that isn't there. If you ever find a source that does say something different, send it to me and I will include it accordingly. Or do so yourself. If there is something to be edited in, just do it. I never object to cooperation. It's what makes wikipedia great.
 * It is always my goal to be thorough, and neutral, and to use the best sources I can find. I am sorry I don't feel the sources you recommend are actually the best. I may be wrong about them, but even if I am, as long as I have quality sources, omitting yours should not be held against me. Now I am done here. There is no point in further beating this dead horse. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * (1) Yes, you may use whatever source you want but ignoring sources that provide a neutral picture of medieval church history is a problem. (I did not put words in your mouth. I quoted your words that indicate that you tend to ignore high quality sources based on your arbitrary preference: "Church historians mostly wrote biased histories.") (3) The problem is that after a short review I found two sentences that are not verified by the sources you are citing (Witte and Whalen). (4) You probably misunderstood Hamilton and Thomson. They show how facts can be presented instead of using labels: they refer to the sale of church offices and indulgences, and several other negative aspects of medieval Catholicism instead of repeating the term "corruption". They also explain how these practices developed. This is how medieval Catholicism should be presented in a neutral WP article. (5) The problem is that "your" sources do not verify your "facts" either as I mentioned under point (3). (6) No, the article does not present either the development of a saintly/non-corrupt (?) papacy into a corrupt institution or the papacy's return (?) to its roots. (8) We should all use academic sources when stating anything but you have not referred to a single source during our discussion. You recommended google searches. (+1) I think a basic problem with this article that academic sources about the general history of Christianity are mainly ignored. That's why the picture provided by this article does not reflect academic consensus. Borsoka (talk) 01:50, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * (1) How does not speaking of something provide a neutral picture? I didn't ignore them because they were neutral, but I've explained already. You have provided no further information to demonstrate I'm wrong about those sources you are so hard over about, so there's no point in going over it again. In Antiquity, church historians Eusebius, Theodoret and the rest were biased to varying degrees. Modern scholars all know that, but they also know everyone was biased, not just the church. The Historians of Late Antiquity By David Rohrbacher is a good source on that. English Ecclesiastical Historians and the Problem of Bias, 1559-1742 by Joseph H. Preston talks about the problem in the renaissance era. There's also Bias in Historical Description, Interpretation, and Explanation by C. Behan McCullagh; Bias in History by G. M. Trevelyan; Bias in Historical Writing by McIlwain, Meyendorff, and Morison, and many more. When I use Eusebius, I always include the questions about his validity. You might note that in the section on Constantine and the temples. My understanding of church historians is valid but qualified - and also really beside the point and off-topic here. Your statement is a faulty leap in logic, is inaccurate, and borders on a personal attack. Please refrain from such comments.
 * Whoa whoa whoa dude. First, there is no Witte and Whalen joint reference. Witte is referenced 4 times. One says The other three are about marriage. What isn't verified? Please be specific. Whalen is referenced 3 times, once about Christendom being a goal, once about the Avignon popes being in Avignon, and once about Christendom failing. There are additional citations with these, which means these sentences are composites - one part of the sentence is in one reference and another part of the sentence is in the other reference. I have checked these and they are correct. There is no such reference as Hamilton and Thomson, either separately or together. What exactly is going on here?
 * (4) That is too much detail for a broad overview article. I can remove the term 'corruption' if that's the issue, but it is what they were accused of by the people and by historians and scholars. Do you deny that?
 * (5) please demonstrate the validity of your claim. Be specific. Give me something I can respond to with sources.
 * (6) What? Did you miss it? It's there. Do I have to go quote an entire section for you?
 * I don't know what happened to 7, but
 * (8) is full on irony: Why would I? Up until now, you have given me nothing but generalities - "I don't like it" because you dislike the mention of corruption in the church. But now you've made two specific claims:  Better look at the source list before making baseless claims! General histories are certainly included - the Cambridge History of Christianity multiple times, more than one Routledge handbook, The Cambridge Guide to Jewish History, The History of the Renaissance World, A Short History of Christianity, and that just gets me through the "B"s. I would dearly love to see you try and prove your last claim. Please. Find a source that says academic consensus is that the Reformation was not begun in response to corruption in the Catholic church. I'll wait for it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Without wishing to weigh in on any of this, neither PR nor FAC are debates: you can't win a support by out-arguing the person who has opposed you. Reviewers here have offered their feedback, as requested: you're welcome to take it, if you wish, or to ignore it, if you wish. Likewise, when it comes to FAC, you're welcome to act on reviewers' comments or not, but you then have to accept their decision to support the article's promotion, or not. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 07:23, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Regarding (3) (5): I specifically mentioned both Witte and Whalen in my above peer review, and quoted text from one of them to prove that your summary in the article does not reflect their PoV. Perhaps you should read what reviewers write before discussing their views. Sorry, I stop discussing this issue with you because I do not believe that our conversation could lead to the article's improvement. I suggest you should request a GA reassessment because for the time being the article does not meet basic GA criteria, such as WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, and its sources should be reconsidered. I suggest you should also read our essay on advocacy. Borsoka (talk) 10:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * UndercoverClassicist You're right of course. I have no doubt trashed any chance I ever had with this - which was never high - but I wanted his position on the record. Now it is. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Borsoka I have redone the section as I said I would before the argument started. I did not use your sources. I only used the term corruption once, and that only in the context of accusation. It interests me that you accuse me of advocacy. I wonder of what? I am a Christian, and this is part of my heritage, but I don't think a pro-Christian bias is what you mean. At any rate, I will now take this to the NPOV board and request a review in hopes of putting this issue to rest. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Editors who ignore scholars who do not support their claims and describe them as biased are usually advocating something. If I were you I would request a GA reassessment instead of starting new discussions on the same issue. Borsoka (talk) 00:59, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * , please try to take a less aggressive tone. As seen at post-classical history and Middle Ages, you have a high bar for the sourcing in articles. That is a good thing, but you will note that in all three cases, your comments have led to stand-offs with major contributors to the article. Take WP:DOOR into account—WP is about working together, not apart. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I always communicate with other editors in the same way as they communicate with me. Borsoka (talk) 04:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)