Talk:Historiography of the Christianization of the Roman Empire/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Sobre la popular idea errónea de Justiniano cerrando la Academia Platónica

Parece haber un error popular que ha sido desacreditado por el historiador o historiadores de la ciencia. La idea de que la Academia de Platón sobrevivió en 800 años antes de ser destruida por Justiniano en 529 es un mito que se causa porque muchos confunden dos instituciones diferentes. La Academia de Platón fue destruida por Sulla en el primer siglo a.C., sin embargo, alrededor del 410 se estableció una Academia Neoplatónica que NO tenía conexión con la Academia original. La Academia de Platón y la Academia Neoplatónica no son las mismas instituciones. Tienen un nombre casi similar, de ahí por qué la gente los confunde. En 529 el emperador bizantino Justiniano puso fin a la financiación de la Academia Neoplatónica (probablemente porque promovía el paganismo). Sin embargo, otras escuelas filosóficas continuaron en Constantinopla, Antioquía y Alejandría, que eran los centros del imperio de Justiniano. Por lo tanto, la idea de que Justiniano cerró la Academia original de Platón es un error. Soy consciente de que muchos historiadores han cometido ese error porque confunden a las dos instituciones que dan sus nombres, pero es simplemente refutado por los historiadores de la ciencia. Fuente: David C. Lindberg (2007), "The Beginnings of Western Science", University of Chicago Press. página 70. En historiker (talk) 13:32, 16 de octubre de 2018 (UTC) :"historiadores de la ciencia" - ¿eh? — Preceding unsigned comentario añadido por 50.111.14.86 (talk) 12:11, 23 de marzo de 2020 (UTC)

Could you give us the fonts you have to say that?

Anyone! This has been here for 2 years now, and since the archive is set up for anything over 30 days old, I am wondering why it remains. Can anyone explain this to me a non-tech head? Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777 2 factors I know of: 1, the archive on this page is set to leave 5 threads, no matter the age, and 2, I don't think the archiver "gets" threads where the last comment is unsigned. So, if I'm right, this thread will now be archived. After 30 days without comment, of course. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:54, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Praise and gratitude to you and all other gods of Wikipedia! Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:30, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:LEADIMAGE

Tomb of Caecilia Metella (1884), Current lead-image

A gold solidus of "Unconquered Constantine" with the god Sol Invictus behind him, struck in AD 313. The use of Sol's image stressed Constantine's status as his father's successor, appealed to the educated citizens of Gaul, and was considered less offensive than the traditional pagan pantheon to the Christians.

References

I and afaict WP have no idea why the current leadimage is a good one for this topic. I suggest the gold coin in it's place, Constantine the Great and the pagan god is nicely on-topic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:56, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång IDK!! Sure! Would you do that? Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:26, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I have now replaced it with a map of the early spread. What do you think? Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:06, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Have I told you lately that you are wonderful and amazing and that you totally rock? I should just send that to you once a month or so. Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

That's better. I still may insert the coin somewhere. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:30, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. As you wish. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:08, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång All you did with images looks great. Thanx. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:50, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

This bit of Rome is in England, this bit of Rome is in Germany... It's rather fun. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:58, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Kind of awesome when you think about it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Question

This sentence: "Theodosius I passed further laws against pagan worship, but contemporary historians have tended to downplay their practical effects and even the emperor's direct role in them."

So historians contemporary with Theodosius I did the downplaying? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:27, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Fixed - I hope... Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes actually ... Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:13, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777, I'll keep commenting here as I read. At Historiography_of_Christianization_of_the_Roman_Empire#Sixth_to_eighth_centuries, "for most of this period, the papacy had only a limited influence," is the first mention of the papacy in the article, giving it a "what's that/when did that appear" impression. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång Thank you! You always see things I don't and make good comments. When the papacy actually began is disputed. There was always a bishop of Rome - as long as there were bishops anyway - but extant letters between the bishop of Rome and the bishops in other major towns at the time indicate his influence did not extend beyond Rome in any kind of unified leadership capacity before about the fourth century. Catholics dispute that, or don't care, or whatever, who knows, as they assert that the papacy reaches back to Peter - who was not actually even the bishop of Rome. So I don't know exactly when or what to put where. Who the Pope is, is common knowledge, even for atheists, and probably even for people in the far reaches of the world. If there is a list of well-known figures in the world, I would guess the Pope would be among those at the top. His position anyway. I think the Pope was determined in the fourth century after a disagreement with the Irish about Peter having precedence, and I suppose I could write something on that. As inoffensively as possible. Maybe. I'll try.

I have two of the 'citation needed' tags taken care of. Will do other two today - after Pope. Thank you again!Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:24, 1 October 2022 (UTC)'

I just removed it. It was kind of an introductory statement, and in an article this long, was therefore unnecessary. It died a peaceful death. Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:09, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry skipped Theodosius! This is, again, not my sentence, but I didn't like it when I read it either. The other editor is trying to make a shorter summary, I'm sure, and instead is losing hold of accuracy and citation. I will fix. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:28, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Under Historiography_of_Christianization_of_the_Roman_Empire#Possible_reasons_for_a_top-down_spread, the subsections Conflict and violence and Temple destruction seems to go significantly off that topic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:22, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree. I have moved them up under 'Traditional conflict models' where it seems to fit better.Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:01, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Agree. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

"Nameless" long quote in first paragraph at Historiography_of_Christianization_of_the_Roman_Empire#Sociological_model. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:26, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Fixed. Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

This bit:

"On the other hand, the exclusivity of Christian monotheism formed an important part of its success enabling it to maintain its independence in a society that syncretized religion.[322] Classisist scholar E. R. Dodds has suggested that the Crisis of the Third Century led to anxiety that was appeased by a "totalist" creed.[323] "

I get the first sentence, but not the second. Who was anxious and what does totalist creed mean? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

A creed that covers everything I guess, however, since the whole anxiety thing has been disproven, perhaps that should just be removed - especially if all it does is add confusion.  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

This article never ends... Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Ha ha! So true! And I am currently working on another paragraph to add to Constantine and his followers! For the fifth century which so often gets overlooked. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Nor do you quit! Wow! I mean Holy cow! All of your work ... I don't even know what to say. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:03, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, you wrote the thing... Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

and rewrote it ... and rewrote it... I shortened it by removing half of it - then the new guy put stuff back! It makes sense though I think. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:52, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

"But the people doing so are generally diligent and accurate, updating and creating pages out of the kindness of their hearts. Without them, you’d still be quietly seething after not being able to prove you were right about whatever sparked your last pub debate. Wikipedia, what a wonderful world."

That's you he's writing about, Jenhawk. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:20, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Interesting article. Thank you for the compliment. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:56, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I read through it. It's mostly readable, and interesting, in reasonable doses. I get the impression in parts that there is a hard focus on the "things were not that bad for the pagans" side, but this may very well be quite proper per WP:NPOV. I have not tried to check sources nor tried to glean the consensus of historians. GA may be a bit of a challenge, but you know that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:38, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I think the vast majority of current sources do in fact lean in that direction. They all seem to be in the "correcting what went before us" mode right now, so they are all about how things weren't as bad as previously claimed, spending as much time disproving as proving anything. Salzman's article is titled "Rethinking ..." and that is only one of many. Paula Fredrikson has one called "Mandatory retirement: Ideas in the study of Christian origins whose time has come to go". It's the current tide of opinion. It will probably flow back the other way eventually, but perhaps by then I will be too old to be messing about on Wikipedia.

You don't think it's good enough for GA? Too long? Too controversial? What? Give it to me straight. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:08, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessarily controversial per se, but I'm no historical scholar. My impression is that longer = harder GA, or at least that it will take more time. But take as caveat here that I have done no GA:s, you have. Current 84 kB prose is big-ish per WP:TOOBIG. Still, it's less than History of Christian thought on persecution and tolerance currently has. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:38, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

It is currently at 138 kB prose size and toobig says 100 should be split, but there are long articles that have good reasons for not being split. I think this one has several good arguments for keeping all the info together in one place. I will see if I can make those arguments. I am going to do some more reading on this right now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:49, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

This article "Prose size (text only): 84 kB (13451 words) "readable prose size"", I thought that was the relevant one? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:07, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

...Jenhawk thinks "Ohhhh, I can add another 15kB!" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Readable is certainly the first preference, but there are exceptions! See new topic "Too Big" please! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:03, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

So I just had to jump back up here - breaking the rules again - just to say, "see, you are the reason I added 'Differing historiographies'." HAH! And the text is still readable! Whoo-hoo! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:23, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Too Big

Gråbergs Gråa Sång So. If one actually goes and looks at articles that are overlong, one can see a trend: they are often articles containing lists and articles on history. This article is both. It is a summary-type list of theories. It includes a history of events and some history of scholarship. And being all of that, imo, it's actually pretty damn concise!

It needs to be all of that because of the uniqueness of this particular topic and the nature of the literature about it - both ancient and current - that makes separating these impossible - imo. Ancient sources are mostly polemical and hagiographical, which requires interpretation, which is historiography. Current sources have departed from previous interpretations which mostly took the ancient sources at face value, so current secondary sources are historiographical by their very nature. This article has the majority and the minority theories - but in order to do that, there is not a section that does not include some historiography even while discussing history.

Splitting this article would require separating out something: historiography cannot be separated from history as things stand in this area of study. IMO, attempting an article on history alone would require picking a historiographical POV. It would mean WP was taking a stance on which group is right. Because, an article that includes both views of history is an article requiring discussion of current historiography - there's no escaping it for this particular topic at the current juncture in scholarship.

The early centuries shouldn't be separated from the later ones as that produces a particular POV. That leaves discussing one historiographical theory at a time - which would just be confusing and probably also inevitably produce POV forks.

So, please poke any holes in my arguments that you can, because I know that as soon as it is nominated for anything, splitting will be suggested based purely on length rather than content. Content should trump that legalistic rule. IMO, this topic should be on the list of vital topics for WP. It is too important to be less than thorough. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:58, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Your arguments make sense to me. How a GA-reviewer will see it through the The six good article criteria, Sol knows. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

You're right of course. You never know what you'll get. Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:17, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Hey! Gråbergs Gråa Sång Look at this: Prose size (text only): 88 kB (14031 words) "readable prose size" !!! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

...meaning you only added 4kB since October 7..? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

The croc got hungry. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:59, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Third try

Jencroc needs more birds! (picture added by Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC))

Anywikiuser I want to give you a chance to make any further changes you deem necessary before I renominate this article - for the third time - as a GAN. I understand you want to split it, but for multiple reasons, I do not support that. I understand your argument that this article means WP has an article on historiography w/o an article on plain history, and that is clearly true. However, imo, the uniqueness of this topic, the past and current state of both sources and scholarship make it impossible to discuss history without including historiography. History w/o historiography would require picking a POV. Would that history be written according to Gibbon or Brown? All of that argues against a split being able to adequately cover this difficult and complex topic. I hope you can come to see and support that it must remain historiography. We can always take a vote. Perhaps others will agree with you. Otherwise, my only request here is that you edit before I nominate as a courtesy because showing up afterwards with complaints will sink the GA. I hope you agree this article deserves better. A lot of time and effort have gone into it, your efforts included, which have been greatly appreciated. You improved it enough you restored my faith in it. Thank you. I will wait a couple days for a response, then nominate. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your work, and to Gråbergs Gråa Sång as well. I have now finished the most important pieces of restructuring. Sorry for the delay, I'm a bit of a casual gardener when it comes to editing articles.

The only priority is the "Martyrdom" section, which really needs to answer the question of "Did persecutions help or hinder the spread of Christianity, or not affect it at all?" I will try to add this (alongside a few more changes) in the next 24 hours, although I don't have access to books on the subject.

I would still favour renaming it to "Christianization of the Roman Empire" in spite of the historiographical focus, although I will not act on that without asking others. The article is rather long but I no longer view splitting off content as a priority.

I don't think it will pass a GA article nomination at this stage, though I'm not familiar with the process and therefore not the best at predicting it. Though it has improved, the coverage of sub-topics is uneven (e.g. the 6th-8th century getting more coverage than the 2nd and 3rd ones). And as we've just had a major restructure, it won't pass the criteria for "stable" either. GA feedback could still be valuable for improving the article. Anywikiuser (talk) 20:35, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Anywikiuser Yes, Grabergs is wonderful isn't he? You have been pretty great yourself. Your changes take my breath away, they are so bold, but they are always good. You have made the article better. Thank you.

As to martyrdom, I think that section already answers the question you raise, but I will go take Justin's quote and put it back in text, and hopefully that will help. I have access to any source needed, and can do more, but I am not seeing the need you are seeing. Justin and Praet sum it up imo. There are no scholars that argue that martyrdom put a serious dent in conversion. It's an accepted view, especially in discussions of voluntary martyrdom - (though how it could be martyrdom and be other than voluntary is rarely addressed) - that martyrdom increased numbers of converts in the long run. Please explain further if you feel this needs pursuing. Help me understand why this seems insufficient to you.

I am relieved to hear you are not focused on splitting. My page info says "Prose size (text only): 88 kB (14031 words) "readable prose size", so even though it is, overall, a bit large, the text is okay I think.

I would agree on changing the title back but frankly, I'm afraid. I took a good bit of abuse last review over the historiography, and without picking a pov on my own, I can't see how it is possible not to include it. You tell me, in your opinion, do you not think the historiography in the article bears reflection in the title?

I don't agree that coverage of the subtopics is uneven. Each one succeeds in making its own main point or points. In some, that requires that more be said and in others a few sentences are sufficient. That's just the difference in the topic and the coverage in the sources.

Sub-topics do not need to be the same size. That is nowhere a requirement. However, do note that the majority of the sections tend to have 3-5 paragraphs. There are only 3 long sections with 7 paragraphs, and that is an attempt on my part to be very careful with those particular topics, as they also got me beaten up a good bit in the last review.

The second and third centuries are mentioned in multiple places, but they have no section of their own, so I don't see the comparison you make as valid. The 6th to 8th centuries section has 4 paragraphs, just as the section before it, and the section immediately following it.

When you are done, it will qualify as stable! It is, really, now, as there are no conflicts, and current edits are about the details, not content, but I am happy to wait if you won't forget us! Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:10, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I may continue to tinker, but the key tasks are complete. Anywikiuser (talk) 15:58, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

So aside from my few persnickety picky details, which I am adjusting accordingly, I love all you have done. Thank you. I do these big articles a lot. Do you suppose you would be willing to work with me again? I value your skills - genuinely. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:50, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

removed sentence

Anywikiuser

I removed a sentence so we could talk about it. This one: "Some pagan traditions were incorporated into Christianity through religious syncretism. Previous gods—or at least their aspects and roles—were transferred to Christian saints, such as when Demetrius of Thessaloniki inherited the role of patron of agriculture from Demeter and the Eleusinian Mysteries after the latter's demise in the 4th century." I can't check the source as my German simply isn't good enough, and what I know from other sources is, first, that the term syncretism is an emotion packed word, and second, that this claim about the saints is not provable, its a somewhat strained implication, yet it is stated in wiki voice as if it is an established fact. Christianity did, in fact, adopt much from paganism. Christianization worked in both directions, absolutely, and there are multiple assertions that can be made with majority support - from aristocratic ideals and Platonism to Christmas and days of the week, but this one about the saints is never going to be anything but controversial. I am all for including what there is majority agreement about, without using the term "syncretism" which is still argued over - I don't know why. I was willing to leave one sentence but this has now expanded. Let me add something on Christianization being a two-way street - without using the term "syncretism" lest we offend half our readers. See if it will suit your need w/o wiki voice making assertions it can't legitimately make.

References

Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:46, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I have now reworded it while keeping most of what you said, but attributing it to Kloft and not wiki voice. Does it suit you? Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:46, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, that's better than what I wrote. Anywikiuser (talk) 09:42, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Cool. Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:43, 13 October 2022 (UTC)