Wikipedia:Peer review/History of Christianity/archive2

History of Christianity


I've listed this article for peer review a second time. Multiple additions have been made in response to the first PR in an effort to make it less western biased, but it still needs checking from experts in the different eras, and editing for length. AirshipJungleman29, who has already been helpful, has agreed to partner on this, and any input from anyone else interested in helping this article become suitable for FA will be truly and deeply appreciated.

Thanks, Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Airship
I'll comment sporadically over the next few weeks. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC) To continue.
 * You need to be really careful with unnecessary generalisations and superficialities. You saw how other editors with topic-specific editors immediately picked up on sentences and said "this is too basic/vague and cannot fly". Sentences like: are just asking for trouble. what does "new kind of civilization" mean? where is "the West"? "...that merged Graeco-Roman, German and Christian." ... what was merged? ideologies? religions? DNA?
 * Got it. I will go through and look for any and all of these and remove them. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think I found them all. I hope this is ✅. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * are we sure about that?
 * Yes. Do I need more sources for that? Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Well yes, seeing as you appear to have conflated Patrick and Palladius, and as identifying teo individuals in a very lengthy process is a bit odd. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I will check that, but I don't think the source conflated the two. The source used is about recent archaeology, but I will make sure. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I checked 7 different sources, and all seemed to agree with what I now have. So I randomly picked two and published this: While the legend of St.Patrick as a former slave turned missionary grew largely in the Middle Ages, Patrick is generally considered a historic figure by most scholars. Though dates and details are disputed by a minority, archaeology supports the slow conversion of the Irish as beginning in the early fifth century.. It's slightly more focused on HofC and not Patrick. Is that okay? Is this ✅ in your view? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Not really; the source review is likely to question the reliability of sources over half a century old, let alone those published 75 and 92 years ago. I am still not seeing why the first sentence needs to be included at all. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Removed and removed. Went back to Harney only. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The source titled ""Eastern Christianity". Encyclopedia of Religion. Encyclopedia.com. 2024. Retrieved 14 March 2024." has a malfunctioning url or else is not set up correctly.
 * I'll get help! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Did you fix it? It seems to work now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Note 1 is 560 words, cited to one source, and as far as I can make out, entirely unnecessary.
 * Removed. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There are 300 words, three consecutive paragraphs, in the "Eastern Orthodoxy under Ottoman rule" section, which are sourced entirely from the same chapter. Are you sure that this one chapter is so important that more than 2% of the entire article should be devoted to paraphrasing it and no other source?
 * I will get more sources. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Section title removed and content halved. Will that do? Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Added source.Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * And another. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 I know I said take your time, and here I am nagging, but - are you coming back? I have done everything requested by all here. However, the front sections are getting the most attention - of course - whereas it's the Middle Ages that most need it IMO. Could you would you? Please come back! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I am coming back, don't worry; just might take a little time. Got a lot going on in RL at the moment. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, I do understand. Thanx for answering, it makes me feel better. I'll be patient. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Pbritti
I'll add sporadic comments here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Numbers: I see some alternation between expressing larger numbers as words and expressing them with digits. This alternation can be somewhat jarring, with an average of around seventy (12–200) members each a good example. In that particular case, the parenthetical also needs somewhat more explanation. I presume that's the rough range of membership in each household church, but it's not clear.
 * ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Antioch: In the section "Early geographical spread", I recommend a second sentence on Antioch that describes its role in the expansion of Christianity to the Caucasus. Maybe an opportunity to mention origin of Syriac Christianity.
 * ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * In the section "Early beliefs and practices", it's likely worth at least passing reference to the Didache and Apostolic Constitutions, as both are significant texts in interpreting early Christian belief, theology, and worship. The latter text could also fit in a later section.
 * I mentioned Didache in what I just added to Antioch. Apostolic Constitutions belongs in the fourth century, not Origins, but I want to argue against adding it anywhere. That is simply because no other Christian writings are mentioned by title in this article. If I add it, some reviewer will ask me "What's so special about this one that it alone gets mentioned?" and there is no answer because it is not more special than many other great works. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * In the section "New Testament", I think the word canonization could use a definition, as it's something of a technical term. Also consider linking it to an article on the subject.
 * Really? HUH! Okay then. ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Christian Emperors is that meant to be capitalized?
 * Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * In the section "Relations with polytheists", are there any notable exceptions to the bloodless triumph that are notable enough to merit linked mention? In the same section, the note on the destruction of temples is very long, but I like the detail. I would suggest something similar in depth if not length for the canonization process.
 * There are a few exceptions, which is stated. I can add some examples. ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * In the section "Relations between East and West", the sentence ending next 800 years.: I recommend consolidating the citations into a single footnote so that they aren't stacked as much. It would just be a courtesy to readers, so not an imperative.
 * ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That's all for tonight. It's already late here and I have to travel tomorrow. I will finish up next week. Thank you again! Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok, that's enough for now. I'll work through some more of the prose and content later. I'll also look into the references a bit more soonish. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I rearranged and combined sections for these next five. If you like it, these are all ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Same section as above: Theological controversies led to the Armenian, Assyrian, and Egyptian churches combining into what is today known as Oriental Orthodoxy This is another excellent opportunity for a detailed note or at least another sentence describing the most relevant of the theological disputes and the specific period in which they occurred.
 * ✅Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Same section as above: the paragraph starting Asian and African Christians did not have access to structures of power may fit better before the paragraph beginning Increasing diversity formed competing orthodoxies.
 * ✅Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The section "Regional developments (300–600)" feels a bit misnamed, considering the description of regional developments and divisions in the preceding section. Additionally, the sentence ending (who was the first to unite the Frankish tribes under one ruler), converted to Catholicism. is another strong candidate for footnote consolidation.
 * ✅Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The single inverted commas ‘schism’ appear to not fit with MOS:CURLY; also, should they instead be doubled, standard quotation marks?
 * Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * In the section "Regional developments (600–1100)", there is a sentence without definite articles: Gregorian Reform (1050–1080) established new canon law. While it's comprehensible, it feels more like a sentence fragment.
 * Pbritti Home again! Exhausted but still alive! I have now spent over an hour attempting to deal with all of this by combining and moving sections. See what you think. "Gregorian Reform" is the name, the noun, the subject of the sentence. It even has its own link. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh, one more for today:
 * The sentence ending over heresy grew and response to it became more severe. is another candidate for citation consolidation.
 * ✅ Thank you thank you thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok, done for real. Looks like a good candidate to stand again at FAC once some minor fixes are implemented. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Pbritti I am so grateful for all of this. It's wonderful and so, so helpful. I am out of town again first thing in the morning - in fact I am gone more than home for the next month and a half - but I will be back for a few days next week and will fix every last one of these. Once I get going I am usually pretty quick, so feel free to continue to make any comments you like. I am so grateful I can't say thank you enough - but thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I, too, have a lot of traveling over the coming weeks. My comments are offered only with appreciation for the effort you've made and patience for their resolution. Take the time you need. If this article progresses before the end of the year, I'll still be glad for the haste shown. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Continuing
&#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 I am terribly sorry that I forgot to tell you I was going out of town this last week. RL took over, but I am back now and am pleased to be able to say that I think I have ✅ all the above. If not, just let me know.

I also think that, if you agree, I am ✅ adding the East to the rest of the article as well. Every section has something on the East, and it also has its own section now. There are simply fewer sources on the East, both original and secondary, and therefore less information available. This is beginning to change as more studies and valuable new monographs are being done in the new century. No doubt that will enable us to continue to add to this neglected area in the future. I enjoyed this research and learned a great deal from it, so thank you for insisting on it!

We now have the problem of increased length. It's over 13,000 words, and while I am sure you and Generalissima all be able to see where and how to make cuts, I remain attached to every detail as significant and important! I will also accept what you recommend - mostly - of course. Thank you again and I hope to hear from you at your leisure. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I am SHOCKED, I tell you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have no time to waste on misguided friends with nothing positive to contribute. Do some actual work or go elsewhere. That's my new motto for my fake coat of arms. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Please no one get offended! Graebergs and I are dear friends from wayback. This is sarcasm which we both indulge in. He's just better at it than I am. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Seltaeb Eht
I'm not an experienced FA or GA writer or reviewer like some others contributing here or at the last peer review, but am fairly well read on the period 300-1000 and have been becoming more well read on the Ante-Nicene church, so hopefully I can provide some helpful feedback. Kudos for tackling such an enormous subject, and I notice substantial improvements in the article even since the last time I read it, which was around the time of the last review. Some thoughts:
 * You may not be an FA expert but you certainly have valuable insights. I am grateful for this input, and I will address every point. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Sometimes people or concepts come up without being introduced. I realize there's a delicate balance between clarity and word count that needs to be struck. An early instance is: Scholars conjecture that Peter and Paul were killed then. Who are Peter and Paul? A reader without background in the subject would not know, and both are important figures to set up. I'd recommend introducing Peter along with James as a leader of the Jerusalem church and one of Jesus' disciples (Marcus' chapter on Jewish Christianity in the Cambridge History discusses them together in this context), and perhaps giving Paul an introductory sentence in the paragraph While there is evidence...from the start.
 * ✅ in the preceding paragraph with James Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks good! Though, is Sullivan & Sullivan a historical or theological work? Looks to be the latter at first glance. Just want to make sure you're not dinged on it in FAC. I can look for good cites in the Cambridge History if that's helpful.
 * Seltaeb Eht The title of the book is From Apostles to Bishops: The Development of the Episcopacy in the Early Church. It is a history, but I am always overwhelmingly grateful for anyone who actually does some of the work on sources, and if you want to do that I will not turn that down! Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Fine by me, especially for facts not necessarily in dispute. From the Amazon description though: "In this book distinguished theologian, teacher and writer Francis Sullivan examines the origins and development of the episcopacy in the early church...His thought-provoking work will be welcomed by professional theologians and serious students of theology, for whom it will prove to be an important resource for further ecclesiological study." That plus the publisher is where I got the impression it may have been a primarily theological work, even if it adopts a historical approach. I'm good with it as you believe it's the best source to use. On a bibliographic note, is it the work of one Francis A. Sullivan, or two as you've listed it? Everywhere else I just see one author: Francis Alfred Sullivan, S.J.. Confusingly there does seem to be another Jesuit writer, Francis Aloysius Sullivan, but it does not appear that they collaborated on this book from what I can tell via a brief search. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 18:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * On page viii, he writes but there is no doubt the purpose of the book is theological. I don't think it's reasonable to expect to avoid theology in a history of religion. However, I neither discuss nor reference theology. I don't even include the question he raises. The historic roles of Peter, Paul and James are not disputed - I think.
 * Also, Thank you thank you thank you for catching that author issue! I think you are right. Google has both authors in their citation, but the book itself seems to only have the one. I have now that. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks good and sounds good to me! Seltaeb Eht (talk) 19:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * The belief that Christ was both divine and human provided the foundation for Christianity. This doesn't seem quite right, when debates about this very thing raged for centuries. I think the quote from Young being used here is "Yet it is precisely Christology, the dogmas concerning the divinity and humanity of Christ, which have made Christianity what it is." (emphasis mine) This seems to be referencing the gradual process of defining Christological beliefs, not that they were well defined from the start and can be considered the "foundation". Consider revising.
 * There were none of those controversies at the first century foundation of Christianity however. In the second century, Gnosticism claimed divinity - and existence - for Jesus but not a true corporal body, since flesh was evil and Jesus was believed to have been not only divine but perfect and sinless. Then Arianism in the fourth century claimed divinity but of a lesser kind than the Father's. This was followed by attempts to explain Jesus as having two separate natures, one human and one divine, then various other attempts - but none that questioned the veracity of his divinity and existence - not in the beginning and not for centuries after. The debates you reference as "raging" actually began in the 17th century. Rather than go down that rabbit hole, I am deleting it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, as I said I'm just becoming more well-read on pre-Constantine so I'll certainly defer. You may want to find something a little stronger than the reference to Young p. 9, which again speaks to me as some sort of developmental process with variant forms present: "Yet it is precisely Christology, the dogmas concerning the divinity and humanity of Christ, which have made Christianity what it is. The clarification of these doctrines, against all the variant forms of Christianity around in the earliest period, was impelled by the ‘cult’ of Jesus, and by the fact that his story was quickly incorporated into an over-arching cosmic narrative. Both of these features belong to the period of this volume."
 * Seltaeb Eht Preceding that quote on page 8:  And about the Arian controversy: . On page 16:  Emphasis mine. That controversy began in the 17th century and continues today but was not present in the first century.
 * Of course, this is all moot now, but page 34 probably has the two most relevant quotes for discussion of my summary statement (that has been removed): first, And:  Emphasis mine. As you know, this is the Cambridge History of Christianity not a work of theology.


 * I highly recommend reading through Young's article in its entirety. She does a great job of describing the history of the study of this history, especially from pages 16 on. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it's been a while since I read Young's chapter so was just looking at the page cited - need a full re-read when time permits! I certainly could have been reading 2nd C and later controversies back into the 1st C as you said. Again, not necessarily my area of expertise, very much learning here myself. As long as you're confident in it, I definitely don't object to its inclusion. If you add it back, I'd recommend adding p. 34 to the citation. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 17:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I want to avoid as many unnecessary controversies as possible, so this was undoubtedly a wise observation on your part. This is a controversy that doesn't need inclusion, since it is largely a modern issue retroactively applied to the early centuries. I think it benefits the article to simply remove it. Thank you again. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * During these early centuries, Christianity spread into the Jewish diaspora communities, establishing itself beyond the Empire's borders as well as within it. Seems out of place here, perhaps belongs in the previous paragraph discussing the geographical context.
 * ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks good!


 * ...making Christianity a 'missionary' religion from its inception. Is there a more recent source to reference here?
 * de Pressensé is considered a classic work, but all the others referenced there are from the 2000s. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, I'll defer - I just know it may be the kind of question you get at FAC, so good as long as you're prepared.
 * Thank you for the warning. Do you think the above answer is sufficient? Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Having neither the FAC experience (beyond reading reviews) or the relevant source expertise for the 1st C I wouldn't be comfortable pronouncing judgement. Just that to me, and 1870 cite as the only reference for a sentence raises a flag. I'm satisfied, but wouldn't be surprised if other reviewers weren't. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * So I will put off today what might not be an issue until tomorrow. {Smiley}} Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Dang it! I need to be better at procrastinating! :-) I went and added a sentence and a new ref to bolster Pressense. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * The New Testament mentions bishops (or episkopoi), as overseers and presbyters as elders or priests, with deacons as 'servants', sometimes using the terms interchangeably. Maybe swap "The New Testament" for "early Christian writings", as the concept of the NT isn't set up until the next section, and is inclusive of other early writings.
 * ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * looks good!


 * In the first century, new scriptures were written in Koine Greek. Consider rephrasing, as this implies that they were written as Scripture, when at least Paul's epistles certainly weren't. It also doesn't introduce what these works were. Consider something like "First century Christian writings in Koine Greek, including Gospels containing accounts of Jesus' ministry, and letters of Paul and letters attributed to other early Christian figures came to be regarded as scripture."
 * ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * made a copy edit here I hope you're ok with.
 * I liked it. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Church Fathers Consider whether this one-paragraph section belongs better as a paragraph in Early beliefs and practices, which already gives Justin Martyr as an example of just such a proto-Orthodox writer.
 * ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * looks good!


 * Eastern Christianity was becoming more and more distinct from Western Christianity by the fourth century. Seems to cast Western Christianity as the normative form from which Eastern Christianity diverges. Consider "Eastern and Western Christianity were becoming more distinct by the fourth century."
 * ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * looks good! And has the advantage of cutting out a few words (though I still think I've net made you add more :D)
 * And I am grateful for those! Every reviewer so far - in both peer reviews - has found their particular areas of interest to be insufficiently covered and want more. I am trying to be careful to add only what seems legitimate and decline excessive detail - which I am prone to - I personally want to hear all the evidence and include it! If it isn't there, it's probably because another editor with more sense - like &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 or Generalissima - came along and cut it!  Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed - If I had taken a crack at writing this article, it'd easily be twice as long, so any restraint you or others can provide is good! Seltaeb Eht (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * At one point it was over 20,000 words... Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * this meant Roman Popes had to be approved by the Eastern emperor before they could be installed. First mention of the term Pope. I'd consider somehow working into this section an introduction of the concept of the five chief episcopal sees whose bishops came to be termed as patriarchs, and the Roman and Alexandrian bishops as Popes. Especially as the relations between Rome and Constantinople continue to be discussed in coming sections.
 * I'm afraid I am going to argue "too much unnecessary detail" for a commonly used and generally understood term. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair enough! That's the length vs detail struggle. Patriarch may not be as well known though and comes up a bit, so I was trying to kill two birds with one suggestion. Just something to consider. :)

Probably some more to come for the next section Seltaeb Eht (talk) 15:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Good to see you've resumed editing, . &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Got a bit of a kick in the teeth from RL lately which prevented any online hobbies, but slowly getting back. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 15:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Seltaeb Eht Thank you so much for this. Your contributions were all immensely valuable. I look forward to more and thank you for these. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, I have to say that it's remarkable tackling an article of this scope. Great job on improving the balance and especially incorporating more on Eastern Christianity throughout the article, all while keeping to a (semi-)reasonable size. I'll hopefully be able to add more between today and tomorrow. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 14:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you getting tired of hearing thank you? If not, thank you again. I so appreciate the compliment. It's been a long and often difficult two years. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Don't thank me yet, I'm sure you'll be tired of my feedback as soon as we move into the era I'm a little more well informed about :P (just kidding!). Glad you're finding it helpful. FYI It'll probably be until at least tomorrow until I can add any more substantial feedback. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Added a def and link for Patriarch. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Dearheart, Seltaeb Eht, tomorrow is fine. And I never get tired of quality feedback. When you do get to it, would you mind taking a look at the very last paragraph on persecution? Another editor recently came along and added all those newspaper articles. If FAC doesn't like them, I will remove them. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This refers to the last paragraph of the entire article not this section. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Pbritti and Seltaeb Eht Please forgive me for my excitement and lack of patience, but I am dying to know what you think of the revised Regional developments (300–600) section that hopefully incorporates all your comments. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Further from Seltaeb
Very late, but back. First, looking back at the late antiquity revisions you asked me to. Overall, top-notch. Just one note on the Regional Developments section, which has really taken shape since I looked at it!:
 * The three statements under the top section header may be better presented with a topic sentence noting that Christianity was expanding beyond the Mediterranean world. I know it's more words, so feel free to hate me for the suggestion and not take it lol. They just come off a little disjointed as-is.
 * Your timing is perfect. I attempted to do something with this! See what you think. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

As I said, the section on late antiquity is now really excellent. Someone with a finer tooth comb will come along surely, but reads great to me. And now onto the early middle ages:
 * Christianity in the 600s saw itself as established. Phrasing strikes me as awkward - I know Brown rhetorically has "itself" here (as "felt itself") but seems to be too anthropomorphizing. I'd recommend something like "By 600, Christianity was well established in the Mediterranean world and beyond..."
 * You're right of course. On WP we don't do anthropomorphism - jeep I wish there was a shorter word for that! ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "kingdoms of the christened" This phrase occurs in a section header in Van Engen's conclusion which outlines Christianity at the end of the period. Is it best to use it here discussing c.600? I'd recommend dropping it in favor of Brown's framing of the geographic diversity but Christian unity, which I think is what you're trying to get at. Maybe "...and beyond, with a diversity of beliefs and practices in Christian kingdoms but a view of a still-unified "Kingdom of Christ"."
 * ✅?? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The Early Middle Ages...(senior clergy). - Just want to say that this stuck out as a great paragraph - good summary of the source, concise, informative, and well-written ("From peasant to pope" is a nice use of alliteration!)
 * Thank you! I love that you include the positive along with what needs fixing. It is such a breath of. fresh air! I removed the senior clergy because bishops are defined earlier. What do you think? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * confess once a year (after 1215) - since it's outside the scope of the period, is it necessary?
 * ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * bishops (senior clergy) - is the parenthetical necessary? Bishops is used several times in the article prior
 * No you're right. ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * He gave little general direction, and the majority of the few councils that occur in the early Middle Ages were called by kings not popes. - The two/three ecumenical councils during this period were called by emperors, as were all the ones prior. Is this contrasting local councils and synods (called by kings or metropolitans) with what Catholics may expect for a pope-called, church-wide council in the modern period? If so, this could be more clear.
 * Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)


 * In note 4: The papacy sought land to feed the flock. strikes me as a little too polemic/rhetorical
 * You know what? You are right again! I just removed that whole note.Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Regional developments - these four paragraphs above the "Eastern Europe" headline read a bit like a list of non-sequiturs - they certainly don't constitute an intro to the rest of the section. Are they maybe grouped better as a section on developments in "Latin Christianity" or "Western Christianity" as over this period?
 * I added new section titles. Please tell me if it organizes this info better or not. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)


 * East West schism -> East–West
 * Re-titled for above reason. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I'll finish up later tonight! Thank you again. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)


 * For this section in general, I'd recommend leaning more on Kolbaba's chapter on Latin and Greek christianities in the CH. Some specifics:


 * After the age of Justinian, the Byzantine Empire shrank geographically until 1453 due to invasions by the Persian Empire and Islamic Rashidun Caliphate... This led to increasing isolation between the Eastern and Western churches. (Kolbaba pp.213-215). In the 720s...
 * This was an absolutely wonderful suggestion. I have now added Kolbaba and your sentence. Thank you. ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * removed refs Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There were disagreements over whether Pope or Patriarch should lead the Church, whether mass should be conducted in Latin or Greek, whether priests must remain celibate, and other points of doctrine such as the Filioque Clause and Nestorianism. Couple things here:


 * Is study.com a good source for this?


 * whether Pope or Patriarch should lead the Church - there's a little more nuance here I think. Kolbaba and my other reading frames it more that Constantinople sought supremacy in the east/equality to Rome, while the pope sought primacy over the whole Church. I've not seen it claimed that the ecumenical patriarch claimed any leadership role over the west.


 * whether mass should be conducted in Latin or Greek - I don't have Meyendorf, but I haven't seen liturgical language brought up as a major doctrinal issue. Certainly a cultural wedge, but I'm not sure we can list it as one of the major drivers. Ditto on clerical celibacy. For contrast, liturgical difference Kolbaba highlights in the use of unleavened bread in the west.


 * Filioque - absolutely, huge driver of the separation


 * Nestorianism as a controversy really belongs to an earlier, 5th C period. Is this perhaps conflating Eastern Orthodoxy (Chanceldonian, Roman Christianity centered around Constantinople) with the Church of the East (Nestorian, in Assyria, Persia, and eastward)?


 * This paragraph is now re - ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I think this paragraph does a good job of representing the schism as a process vs. a moment in time. However, I think some of the framing on reasons may be off. I only have Kolbaba in front of me right now, but this evening I'd be happy to take a stab at an edit using that chapter and other sources I have at home (in a similar-ish word count!). It's a key moment process in the HoC, so I think it's important to get the presentation right.
 * I would be honored. All articles are improved by knowledgable collaboration, and you have more than demonstrated your knowledge and ability. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

With RL as it has been for me, I can't commit to looking at further sections at the moment. But I will set aside time to help you work on these sections up to 1000 (and not leave you hanging!). Let me know your thoughts on the above. As always, these are just suggestions. It's amazing the amount of work you've done on the article even since I last looked a few weeks ago! Seltaeb Eht (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * These are wonderful! You have put so much effort into helping me that I could just cry I am so grateful. Thank you thank you thank you. I will do every one of these. Bless you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thank you again. Any time you want to show up, anywhere I am, I will be glad to see you. Your comments and corrections have really improved this article, and I can't remember when I have been so impressed. You rock. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Phlsph7
A few observations: WP:EARWIG detects no copyvios.
 * YAY! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The earliest were the University of Bologna (1088), the University of Oxford (1096), and the University of Paris where the faculty was of international renown (c. 1150). needs a reference
 * ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * the paragraph starting with Luther, Huldrych Zwingli, and many others protested is unsourced
 * ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Monter 2020 is listed in the source section but not cited in the article
 * ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * For some sources without a page number, you set the parameter "p" of the sfn template to "n/a". A better alternative might be to use the parameter "loc" instead to refer to named sections where the claims are found, e.g. "loc=§ 1. Introduction" instead of "p=n/a", or to remove the parameter altogether.
 * I will start looking all of these up. It's a good suggestion - I'll be back. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thank you! I will do this from now on. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Both Islam and crusade negatively impacted Eastern Christianity should this be "the Crusades"?
 * Same/same? could be crusading maybe? ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * By the sixth century, there is evidence for Christian communities replace "for" with "of"
 * ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * One of the oldest representation of Jesus replace "representation" with "representations"
 * ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Early Christianity's system of beliefs and morality have been subject-verb agreement error: system ... have
 * Removed system as necessary ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean unnecessary... Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * ordinary people that Roman culture replace "that" with "whom"
 * Thank you! ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * is affirmed in the fourth century Milan edict replace "fourth century" with "fourth-century"
 * ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * First century Christian writings replace "First century" with "First-century"
 * Okay I went through and did all the numbered centuries so they are all alike- hope this right! ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This destigmatized illness, transformed health care in Antiquity, and led remove both commas
 * but it's a list using coordinative adjectives! My Brief English Handbook on page 138 that commas are required. My book is old - have the rules changed? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You are right, I misinterpreted "destigmatized" as an adjective. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * expressing tolerance for all religions, legalizing Christian worship add "and" before "legalizing"
 * Did which legalized - OK? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * went back and added and, you were right in the first place! ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * local leaders and lower level clergy were replace "lower level" with "lower-level"
 * ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about the exact rules, the article keeps switching between uppercase and lower case of the terms "west"/"western" and "east"/"eastern", for example but large sections of the Western church remained unconvinced and doctrinal supremacy over the western church
 * Aaarrggh!! What I get from this [] is when west or east is part of a title - Western Empire, Western Christianity, etc - then it's capitalized, but when it's just a direction, it isn't. I may be wrong. What's your reading of this? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Sounds right. I think when it refers to a specific region, it's also uppercase, as in "Byzantium was more prosperous than the West" while it's lowercase for directions, as in "it was spread east of Antioch". A google search might be helpful to get more details. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * few councils that occur in the early replace "occur" with "occured"
 * That's gone now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * it was the Nestorian churches who were best replace "who" with "that"
 * Hmmm, I actually disagree with this one. A church is a group of people, so who seems more appropriate to me. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think "the Crusades" should always be uppercase
 * As a title? It's not always used as a title, however. It's more frequently used as an adjective describing a type of war, and should not be capitalized when used in this general sense. IMO. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Constantinople remained its capitol and replace "capitol" with "capital"
 * Aargh! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * led folk to believe the end of the world was immanent. replace "immanent" with "imminent"
 * I really am a crappy typist. ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * there are various duplicate links (see WP:DUPLINK) across the article, for example, Roman Empire and Christendom in the lead section. User:Evad37/duplinks-alt might be helpful.
 * Thank you! I downloaded it, and it is highlighting things, but I am having the devil of a time finding the duplicates. I find duplicate terms, but not duplicate links. I must be doing something wrong. Can you help me figure out what? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It marks the first occurrence with a green box and all following occurrences with a red box. For example, in the lead, both the word "geographically" has a green box and the word "Christendom" has a red box because both link to Christendom. The guideline WP:DUPLINK changed since the script was written. Before, each link should appear no more than twice: once in the lead and once for the first occurrence of the word in the body of the article. Now, it can appear once in every major section. So you do not need to remove all the links with red boxes if they occur in different sections.
 * I went ahead and remove most of the problematic links. By the way, most of the links you have to countries like England and India should probably be removed per MOS:OVERLINK. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Phlsph7 Aaah! I did not know this. It is so good of you to do that for me too! Thank you! This helped. Many of the links have been put in by other editors as are all of the "See also" and "Further" article links. I will cull as much as I can. And I wanted to let you know that while I mostly do religion articles, I also occasionally do philosophy - I have some undergrad study in philosophy and some grad study in ethics - so if you ever want another opinion on a philosophy article, I would be pleased to help you in any way I can. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the offer, reviewers of philosophy articles are often in short supply so I'll definitely get back to you on this one. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello again, I was wondering whether you might be interested in reviewing the FA nomination of the article "Existence" since you already peer reviewed it. The article has already attracted several reviews but a coordinator said they would like to have one more review. I understand that you are still busy with improvements to the article History of Christianity so no pressure if it doesn't fit into your schedule. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello! Phlsph7  I would love to help, but one thing needs clarifying first. I thought contributors were not allowed to review, and it's my understanding that peer review counts as being a contributor. If that isn't correct, I will most certainly show up and comment. I would love that. Can you ask the coordinator? I am going out of town in about an hour, but it's just overnight, and I can begin tomorrow afternoon if the coordinator says it's okay. Tell them not to close it yet! I'm so happy for you! Yes, I am currently checking HofC for comprehensiveness - adding then subtracting for conciseness - but there is certainly no urgency to that. No worries! I will be there! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the prompt response. I don't think this should be a problem and I've seen other reviewers do it before, but I asked the coordinator to be on the safe side. The nomination already has several supports so I don't think there is a looming danger of it being archived soon, meaning that there should be reasonable time to do the review without urgency. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The talk page says that the article uses British English. For consistency:
 * replace "center" with "centre"
 * ✅ excepting titles Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * replace "equaled" with "equalled"
 * replace "favored " with "favoured"
 * replace "favor" with "favour"
 * replace "practicing " with "practising"
 * replace "color" with "colour"
 * replace "traveled" with "travelled"
 * replace "behaviors" with "behaviours"
 * replace "color" with "colour"
 * replace "traveled" with "travelled"
 * replace "behaviors" with "behaviours"
 * replace "traveled" with "travelled"
 * replace "behaviors" with "behaviours"
 * replace "behaviors" with "behaviours"

Thank you so much! I'll be able to take care of these tomorrow. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Phlsph7 I am all done with these now - I think! This was incredibly helpful - especially the British English. If you happen to catch anything else, please let me know. This was great. Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Biscuit
Comments to be added. Familiarity is with Christian philiosophy and theology. DMT Biscuit (talk) 10:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello DMT Biscuit! I am thrilled to see a n ew editor here. Thank you for these. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)


 * "The history of Christianity follows the Christian religion as it developed from its earliest beliefs and practices in the first-century, spread geographically in the Roman Empire and beyond, and became a global religion in the twenty-first century." → 'The history of Christianity follows the Christian religion's development, the theology and praxis, and the dissemination that has enshrined it as a global religion in the twenty-first century.' This is purely provisional. Jargon may be unwise but make of it what you will.
 * You're right that I will get dunned for any use of jargon. Plus, this article does not actually follow "theology and praxis". This article approaches history as a record of events. It only mentions a few examples of theology and practices when it seems absolutely necessary because they influenced or were aspects of events. Then I quickly tip toe away... Plus, enshrined is a bit much, don't you think? Really? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah. In this instance its per your discretion.


 * "Enduring ocassional..." - change enduring to withstand. Endure implies something cyclical.
 * I see your point, but "withstanding" strikes me as too pov, and it is not completely accurate since not all sufferers withstood. I changed it to "In spite of persecution...". I hope that works for you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Fine by mine.


 * "He issued the Edict of Milan expressing tolerance for all religions thereby legalizing Christian worship. He did not make Christianity the state religion, but did provide crucial support." → "He issued the Edict of Milan expressing tolerance for all religions thereby legalizing – and providing crucial basis for – Christian worship."
 * This makes it sound like the crucial change is from legalization, and that's inaccurate. The decree did not provide the basis for Christian worship in any way. The kind of support Constantine provided follows in the next two paragraphs.
 * Sound.


 * Wikilink missionary and crusading.
 * ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)


 * "...influenced every aspect of medieval life." → "which had a profound effect upon medieval life." DMT Biscuit (talk) 11:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have no source that measures or mentions the level of effect. That would be an OR conclusion. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Surely, profoundinty, in this instance, is implied by ubiquity. I don't see that requring a direct citation. DMT Biscuit (talk) 22:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * When something has a profound effect, (profoundity is not a word) it is a particular type or kind of effect, one with intensity or keenness that is deeply heartfelt: a very great or intense effect. All the source actually discusses are how medieval life revolved around these practices. Different people probably had different responses, some may have been profound, but I have no source discussing that.
 * Your version might be implied, but that's exactly what makes it unusable on WP. No original research says original research
 * If you want your version in, you don't require my agreement, you just require a source that says so - not one that implies it. Feel free to find and do that any time you please. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Funk

 * I'll try to give a drip-wise look. At first glance, I see a bunch of WP:duplinks, which can be highlighted with this script: FunkMonk (talk) 22:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello! Thank you.  Phlsph7 said they took care of that just above here. I have already downloaded and run this exact link. Please tell me where you found those duplicates. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Running that script still shows me a lot of duplinks for me, especially in the first sections. FunkMonk (talk) 02:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I ran it again and found one, but that's it unless you can point me to more. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of very short paragraphs, I think it's discouraged, and such are usually merged into longer paragraphs.
 * I have gone back and reread [] to check if I remembered correctly. All I can find is I think this article complies with that, but if there is more, please tell me where I can find it.Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I think this is getting enough detailed reviews by experienced editors now that it will probably be fine to nominate it for FAC after those are completed, and I will review it fully there. FunkMonk (talk) 02:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I so appreciate that. I will close the PR accordingly. However, I am going through every chapter of every volume of the Cambridge History of Christianity to check for comprehensiveness. Then that requires cutting detail to make it as concise as possible. I feel like the article needs a good bit more work to bring every section up to FA standards. So, I won't nominate right away. This article has been like wrestling a bear... and I'm not winning yet. Any time you want to lend a kick to that bear, please feel free. I'll appreciate the help. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)