Talk:Christianization/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Willbb234 (talk · contribs) 20:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've read through a lot of the article and assessed some of the sources and have come to the conclusion that the article fails the criteria. Please be aware that I have taken plenty of time to consider my decision and it's a decision I have not taken lightly. Please allow me to explain.

The lede needs some quite significant work to meet the readability standards. The first sentence is written like a dictionary definition - this is not standard in an encyclopedia article. I don't see what was wrong with the first sentence in this version of the article?

Willbb234 What's wrong with that lead sentence is that there are errors of fact in it. It says Christianization (or Christianisation) was the conversion of societies to Christianity beginning in late antiquity in the Roman Empire and continuing through the Late Middle Ages in Europe. But conversion did not begin in late antique Rome, it began in the first century in Palestine, and it did not simply continue into Late Middle Ages in Europe, it continues into our present day around the world. I can say that if you prefer it and move the definition down into the body instead. I'll give that a go and you can see if you think it's better. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:26, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Willbb234 I have rewritten the lead and honestly I can't tell if it's any clearer. Can you look at it and tell me what you think? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:57, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mis-representation of sources

It is stated in the article that For nations, this has historically been associated with missions and missionaries, and is therefore called the mission period, but I see no mention of a "mission period" in the cited source, at least not in p.57 as it is claimed.
The convert's way of life begins to transform.. The sources states that the way of life of the community changes (emphasis mine). It's important to make this distinction.
During this stage, Christianization establishes schools and spreads education, translates Christian writings to local languages, often developing a script to do so, thereby creating the first literature of what had been a pre-literate culture I read through pages 87 and 88 of the cited source [1] and I encountered multiple issues:

None of the claims above are explicitly mentioned as part of this 'second stage' of Christianization.
The source talks about the attempted Christianisation of the Javanese by the Dutch, and not about Christianisation in general. Making claims about the process as a whole from one example is unnaceptable.
The source even states that In reality, Javanese people did not give much attention to the teachings of Christianity and so attempting to claim that this is part of a successful Christianisation process is difficult.
There's nothing in the source about a "pre-literate culture".

many scholars use the terms inculturation and acculturation instead, the source actually states Frequently, instead of that concept, the terms inculturation and acculturation are employed. Nothing about 'scholars' or 'many' of them.
has led contemporary scholars to write that its traditional definition can only be used when both societies involved in exchange have some autonomy again, the source does not mention 'contemporary scholars' in the referenced pages.
there were anti-sacrifice laws, but they were not enforced. Source doesn't talk about "anti-sacrifice laws".
- I'm embarrassed by all of this. I know the text is correct and has good sources - I know I read it somewhere! - but I also know that I get to moving sentences around and do sometimes lose track of the citations that go with them. I am so sorry for my carelessness. I am trying to learn methods that will prevent me from ever making this mistake again. I will fix it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:26, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Readability and style

According to archaeologist Anna Collar, when groups of people with different ways of life come into contact with each other, they naturally exchange ideas and practices. This sentence reads very strange. I wouldn't imagine that Anna Collar is the only person to hold this opinion, and so why is she singled out? It seems like a very generic statement.
'Clark' is mentioned numerous times but only later introduced as 'Anthropologist Jerry E. Clark'.
I have a big concern over the general tone and language used in the first section. I would direct you towards Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal - specifically the part that says "Introductory language in the lead (and sometimes the initial sections) of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic." Using the same terms used by academics in journals will undoubtedly confuse 'the average reader'.
- It's good to be reminded of that. I fall back into it regularly I'm afraid. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:26, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is repeated use of WP:WEASEL words. Referring to 'scholars' or 'historians' in general, particularly when the source doesn't explicitly refer to 'scholars' or 'historians', runs into issues. See the above examples.

- What else should the authors of these books and monographs be called? The text may not say 'all scholars', but the authors are scholars, and most of them discuss other current scholars and their works, so that multiple scholars are mentioned by name. I summarize and say 'scholars', but should all those names be mentioned in the article instead? That seems to create the Anna Collar issue then. What do you suggest so it is not just Wiki-voice hanging out there on its own? Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:26, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, you should refer to specific scholars/historians/archaeologists when an opinion/hypothesis/suggestion is offered in the source. If it's a general observation or statement, particularly one which doesn't appear to be controversial or is quite generic, as is the case with what Anna Collar said, then you can just write this without attributing it to a certain person. The problem with the use of the term 'many scholars' is that the source doesn't mention it was claimed by 'many scholars' and so it would be inappropriate to write this. Also, if the author claims something is true, then this does not mean that it is claimed to be true by multiple scholars. If you would like to write that multiple scholars believe something is true, then you should provide multiple sources from multiple scholars to support this, not just a single source. I hope this makes sense. Willbb234 12:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's numerous examples of close paraphrasing or instances were single words have been changed from sources and copied over. Take this part for example: Up to the time of Justin I and Justinian I (527 to 565), there was some toleration for all religions; there were anti-sacrifice laws, but they were not enforced. Thus, up into the sixth century, there still existed centers of paganism in Athens, Gaza, Alexandria, and elsewhere and now compare to the source: up to the time of Justin I and Justinian, the Byzantine emperor practiced a policy of toleration for all religions and, although there were anti-pagan and anti-heretical laws, they were not always enforced. Thus, up to the sixth century, we still find centers of paganism in Athens, Gaza, Alexandria, and elsewhere. It's almost exactly the same content just with a few words switched around.
- That should be in quotes. I sometimes forget them. Sometimes I put them at the start of a quote and forget them by the end. Sometimes I just forget. I'm old. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:26, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other issues

It is claimed that Christianization has never been a one-way process and when groups of people with different ways of life come into contact with each other, they naturally exchange ideas and practices but later it is claimed that In the case of missionaries and the American Indians, the process of acculturation was purposely one-sided.. Alternative definitions of acculturation are then offered, but this just seems to add to the confusion. There needs to be more clarity regarding definitions, or if sources don't help with clarity it needs to be presented in a better way to show that there are differing opinions here. It also doesn't help that this discussion is separated and so it feels disconnected.

The concentration of issues in this article is really concerning to me and so I must quick fail this article. I find the very close paraphrasing a real issue which steps into the region of copyright problems, something I think a GA needs to stay well clear of. The interpretation of sources is also a concern as outlined above. Kind regards, Willbb234 20:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Willbb234 Thank you sincerely for all of this. I worked on this article for 6 months and I find that sometimes when that kind of focus is required for that long, it is easy to get myopic and miss things. Another set of eyes can make all the difference, and I think you have done that here. I will work at fixing all of these things. I will get back to you when I think I have addressed them all. Thank you again for your input, it will make the article better and that's what matters. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:40, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are very understandable. If you would like me to take a look at some other parts of the article, please let me know and I will try my best, although this will probably take a bit of time to work through. I would recommend having a copyeditor take a look (WP:GOCE) as there are more issues than what I have identified above and you could request some further comments regarding tone and style. Willbb234 23:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do it. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]