Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/History of Christianity/1

History of Christianity

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: No consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After receiving GA from Generalissima I asked for a peer review to take this article to FA. In that review, Borsoka had a problem with sources that, in his view, were not general enough to reflect consensus. I have added more general sources, and have used multiple references to find and demonstrate majority views, but in his view this article, still, not only doesn't deserve FA, it doesn't even deserve a GA and should be reassessed accordingly. I am cooperating and asking for the community to weigh in. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the records, I mentioned more than one problems. 2c: It probably contains original research because I found at least two sentences after a quick review that were not verified by the allegedly cited source. Furthermore, the article is not based on works about the general history of Christianty, but on several books and studies about specific aspects of church history. 3a: The article fails to address major aspects of the topic because it mainly focuses on the history of Western Christianty. 3a: In some cases, the article goes into unnecessary details. Borsoka (talk) 09:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please be specific. Which sentences do you think are not properly cited, and what major topics are omitted and what details remain. I've explained that this article covers each era by the geography of where Christianity was primarily centered in that era.Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read my peer review. Borsoka (talk) 13:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have fixed everything you mentioned there. I am still researching and adding more on the East one section at a time, but I am doing that. I meant, is there something else? Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that per the GA criteria, "The "broad in its coverage" criterion is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles. It allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.

Personally, I do feel that the article is rather weak on its coverage of non-Western Christianity. Take e.g. Orthodoxy, which is mentioned in only four paragraphs across the whole article, and nothing between 1054 and the modern era. Similarly, Oriental Orthodoxy is mentioned once in prose and the Coptic traditions not at all. I think the assertion above that "this article covers each era by the geography of where Christianity was primarily centered in that era" is perhaps subconsciously biased; what it should read is "this article covers each era by the geography of where developments in the Christianity we see today were primarily centered".

The "Early Middle Ages (600–1100)" section is especially teleological: it deals near-exclusively with Western Europe (including the Crusades, viewed exclusively through a "Frankish" lens), which is difficult to justify. The sole paragraph dealing with Byzantium, beginning "By the end of the first millennium..." is inexcusably vague and dismissive.

That said, bearing in mind the GA criterion above, which allows "significantly weaker" broadness than that expected from featured articles, I think this article is acceptable at GA. Western-biased, yes, but that's not unusual for Wikipedia, and it's not terrible in the later sections. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of featured criteria issues

Coptic Christianity was originally in the article, was removed as a less than major detail, and is now added back in. The article does focus more on the West than East. I used the Cambridge History of Christianity extensively - it's probably my major source - and it seemed to me like that is what they did, so it's what I did. I want the article to be as comprehensive as possible, and I am also deeply concerned about adding length. I will try to figure out how to fix this with both those things in mind. I have already asked for help from another editor who is knowledgable of Eastern Christianity. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it clearly isn't what they did. Look at the relevant volume of the Cambridge History for that section ("Early Medieval Christianities, c.600–c.1100): nearly every chapter contains extensive discussion of the non-Italian/Western Christianity this article is centered around. If you are deeply concerned about length, you should look at where you are wasting words, such as entire paragraphs cited to single sources, a clear sign of WP:UNDUE material. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I have not read every chapter of that volume. I must be wrong, but I was unaware. I have already been working on doing what you suggest. Please be patient. I was just explaining my previous thinking. Before coming here, I added 3 paragraphs on the East to Late Antiquity, but I'm afraid you still won't like them as they mostly cite one source. It does represent the majority view. It's just convenient, which I suppose is the same as saying it's the lazy approach. It's not an excuse, but I have spent so much time on this article that I'm worn out with the conflict over it. I want to see it through, and I am trying. I am concerned about wasting words. Please, you know I am. And I am again unaware of what you are referring to. It sounds as if "entire paragraphs" should be cut. Please tell me where. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(I have collapsed this section as it does not relate to the GA criteria) In general, with articles of this size, you should not be including information which only one source has seen necessary to mention. Relying for entire paragraphs on one source creates WP:WEIGHT issues you can ill afford: how can you judge "the prominence of each viewpoint" from one source? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the quote. My problem is that this is not a "shorter article", but a large article which covers almost exclusively Western Christianity. I think it should be quickly delisted. Borsoka (talk) 13:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that it comes under "overviews of large topics". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:42, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the text would not allow us to present the history of Germany, France and England in an article about the history of Europe. Borsoka (talk) 02:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this.Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Eastern Christianity across the board will take time. It would be a demonstration of good faith to acknowledge that I am doing that and have done the rest of what you have asked as well. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why not move that material out and this page to History of western Christianity...? There seems to be a consensus that that seems to be what it actually is... ——Serial 19:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no History of Western Christianity article as such - but there could be. There is Western Christianity that contains a short history section. So are you suggesting a sub-article that expands the history section? That's probably doable. It would be a lot of work but that might actually resolve the conflict here. It would also make it possible to keep the size down.

There's actually an awful lot in this article on the East - I guess that could be merged into Eastern Christianity as well - if it isn't already there. I wouldn't mind doing all this if others agree it's the best approach. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have now moved the History of Christianity to the History of western Christianity. If there are any objections, please go to the talk page there. Thank you ——Serial. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does this end the reassessment? Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So a general History of Christianity just doesn't exist anymore? What about the interwikis? I think a move like this really needs a consensus beforehand. Skyshiftertalk 23:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I too think this is a rather strange move. I get maybe there is a lot of detail in the west and east parts that merits its own attention, but there should be an overall history of Christianity page. As noted during the recent DYK run, it also needs a bit more balance in my view, the relative coverage of Christianity in the United States compared with Africa and Latin America is not proportionate. — Amakuru (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly don't see where SN54129 got the idea there was a consensus for the move, so ~~I'll move it back per WP:RMUM and start an RM~~ nope, Amakuru has already asked to do that at WP:RM. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the move. SilverLocust 💬 03:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dagnabbit!! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you SilverLocust for doing the work that restoration required. This article makes a better "History of Western Christianity" I thought and an overview article could easily be recreated from a synopsis of both the western and eastern articles. But if it's consensus to leave it, I will accept the decision of the community.

Now back to the GA reassessment I guess. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jenhawk777: My revert was at the request of the others. I am mostly indifferent about whether it is moved/split, but I agree with Skyshifter, Amakuru, and AirshipJungleman29 that the move needs a discussion beforehand — either by way of a requested move or proposed split. SilverLocust 💬 00:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I appreciate that, but it does seem as if many are willing to make demands about what this article should be without being willing to do the work. When you reverted, you did the work of adding back the refs and so on, so I thank you for that. Since there is disagreement over the move, we should probably deal with one issue at a time, and since the GA issue came first, we should probably address that first. So far, there is one yes and one no. I originally posted this request for reassessment because of that no. They give these reasons:

2c) First, it says two citations that cited the wrong chapter are "original research". I cited the author/chapter after the right one, but the rest was correct, even the page numbers. That's not OR, it's just an error. At any rate, that has been fixed.
3a) The "no" voter says the article needs more general histories. Those have been added. The reasoning given is that only general histories lead to an understanding of majority views, but I don't think that's true. They are only one person's perspective on a very broad history, and they probably aren't experts in every aspect. By using multiple books and articles on specific aspects of history written by experts, it is possible to get multiple points of view on the same events. The "common" view can be found two ways: when multiple sources say the same things - or when one of those specialists report on what's happening in the field. There are plenty of sources of both kinds used here, and I can assure everyone that the majority view is what is in the text.
3a) The complaint that the article has a western bias is fair and is being addressed. It is just taking some time for additional research.
"In some cases, the article goes into unnecessary details". For reviewers on this page, there are two complaints about not enough detail on some topics and one complaint about too much detail without saying where. One way or the other, I am working, with help, to make the article as concise as possible and still be complete in its coverage.
None of these should prevent this article from being seen as deserving its GA. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SilverLocust , ~~ AirshipJungleman29, Amakuru, Borsoka, and Skyshifter. I have now added Eastern Christianity - and am not yet finished adding - but it's already to the degree that this article is no longer the same article that received the GA. It should, perhaps, be reassessed accordingly. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that after a short reading I found highly debatable statements: (1) In what would become Eastern Central Europe, Christianization and political centralization went hand in hand in creating the nation-states of Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia, Poland, Hungary, and Russia. Many of the nation-states listed came into being in the 20th and 21th centuries. (2) [In the Byzantine Empire] The eleventh century was a period of relative peace and prosperity, and Christianity was the ‘glue' of the empire. After around 1050, the Byzantine Empire lost large territories to the Seljuk Turks. 3. Bulgarians are mentioned as living in Asia, Alanians in the lands now forming Iran. I think you should do your homework, and complete this article before demanding new and new reviews from other editors. Alternatively, you may want to complete an article about a shorter period of the history of Christianity, and achieve its promotion as GA and FA. Borsoka (talk) 04:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Borsoka, Thank you. You are right. I should have waited until all the new material was in, checked and polished before asking anyone anything. I rushed because this is still standing open. I expected to come back and continue to add and move things around, because I thought others would be willing to help. Now you have.

The nations listed had their roots/precursors in the Middle Ages, but that is unclear in how it is stated. Thank you for pointing that out. I have now changed it.

That "The eleventh century was a period of relative peace and prosperity," is not incorrect, it is just not a detailed discussion of "relative". If losing territory qualifies as the absence of peace and prosperity, then Byzantium never had any after Justinian, and we all know that is simply not true.

You are right again that Bulgaria would more properly be listed under Europe - except that category wasn't there. Since it's kind of borderline, it can be described as connecting to the Asian continent, and at the time, I had no better place to put it, so I just squeezed it in. I have now changed the section title and moved Bulgaria so it is now with the rest of southeastern Europe - which wasn't there before but is now.

I have added material on the East in every age including creating the entirely new section. Have I adequately addressed the issue of "Western bias"?

Have I adequately addressed all the issues you raised in the peer review? You have been the most critical - not complaining, just noting - but that is why I need an answer from you directly on whether or not I have adequately addressed those issues. If not, I need to know what hasn't been done. I know it's asking a lot, but this article is complex and needs all the input from multiple editors that it can get. I appreciate that you want the article to be the best it can. I share that desire and believe you are well able to help with that. You have, so please let me know. I do need your help and I am grateful for it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add that I have not yet completed the East in the Late Middle Ages. I thought I would have it done by the time you read this, but I am not satisfied with it - mostly because I am now reluctant to put in anything that isn't already perfect - so I am not publishing it yet. You can still answer about the rest of it though, and I will have this last bit in the next couple of days - RL is interfering right now, but I'll get it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I stop replying your queries because we obviously live in paralel worlds: in your world, the loss of more than half of Byzantine territory is the sign of a period of relative peace, in my world it is not; in your world, the Byzantine Empire was continuosly losing territories, in my world, the empire was expanding under the first Macedonian emperors, and later under the Komneni; in your world, Bulgaria is located on the borders of Asia and Europe, for me, it is a clearly European country, etc. My opinion has not changed: the article has never reached the level of a GA. Borsoka (talk) 04:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The direct quote from Jonathan Harris' "Byzantium and the Crusades" is this: One consequence of Byzantine military success is that, especially after 1018, many parts of the empire enjoyed a period of relative peace and prosperity as the threat of foreign invasion, ever-present in previous centuries, now diminished. The frontier districts, particularly newly incorporated Bulgaria, Syria and Armenia remained vulnerable to raids from neighboring nomads, so many urban centers such as Adrianople, Philippopolis, Antioch and Theodosiopolis retained their military function and garrisons. In the interior provinces on the other hand, particularly in what is now Greece and western Turkey, towns were flourishing as centers of industry and commerce. Archaeological excavations reveal that areas of Corinth and Athens, which had been deserted for centuries, had now been reoccupied and built over, and important industries had begun to grow up. ... In general therefore Byzantium was probably a more prosperous and settled society in the mid-eleventh century than the fragmented and localized countries of Western Europe.

Constantine the 5th's reforms brought about a revival that lasted until 1204 and the fourth crusade. From the tenth century on, Byzantium projected wealth. This is in Paul Magdalino's, "Medieval Constantinople: Built Environment and Urban Development". In Angeliki E. Laiou's "The Economic History of Byzantium (Volume 2)"; in W. Treadgold's "A History of the Byzantine State and Society"; and any other history you check.

This is not an error on my part.

It does seem we are not living in the same world. For me, it is fair and reasonable - an act of good faith - to let things go once they've been addressed. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the "Cambridge History of Christianity", volume 2, Bundy says on page 133: "The adoption of Christianity as the ‘glue of empire’ within Byzantium had serious repercussions for Persian Christians."

The Macedonian emperors are political and off topic for this article.

However, I have to say I am surprised you would mention them, since they prove my point and do not support your parallel world. Byzantine Empire under the Macedonian dynasty says ...revival took place in the late 9th, 10th, and early 11th centuries. ... The cities of the empire expanded, and affluence spread across the provinces because of the newfound security. The population rose, and production increased, stimulating new demand for trade. That's exactly what Harris - and all the others - say. It's what I said.

later under Komneni I did say I have not done the late Middle Ages yet.

None of these are legit complaints, except for one, Bulgaria is in Europe, which it is now. The GA criteria says that You are expected to respond to the reviewer's suggestions to improve the article to GA quality in a timely manner. It does not say that if anyone has any suggestions for improvement, that immediately sinks the nomination. This article meets the 6 criteria. You'll have to do better than this to prove otherwise. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.