Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Christianity/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 1 October 2024 [1].

History of Christianity

Nominator(s): Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:05, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the full 2000 year history of Christianity. This is a significant and important topic, and there needs to be a featured article on it on Wikipedia. Please help me reach that goal. It has a GA rating and has since been peer reviewed twice and all requested changes made. It was requested that more on the East be included. That has been done as much as possible, but primary and secondary sources are extremely limited. For example, the Cambridge History of Christianity has 9 volumes and only one is on the East. The Cambridge History is referenced over 40 times, and its pattern has been loosely followed for each Age. There are many notes which "give information which is too detailed or awkward to be in the body of the article". I am happy to delete any that anyone finds excessive. Comprehensiveness has made this a long, long article. I will happily trim anything anyone finds to be unnecessary. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:05, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Jonathan

I just removed the first alinea of the lead; it read as a promo-blurb on how fantastic and influential Christianity has been.
I also don't understand why there first come several alineas on the early growth of Christianity, and only then the start is mentioned: Jesus' ministry.
Furher down I read another promo-blurb, on how influential the Bible has been.
I also noticed a short section on "Heresy":

The teachers, leaders and philosophers of early Christianity wrote about first-century Judaizers,[74] second century Gnosticism and Marcionism,[75] on into the close of the eighth century using the term "heresy" to define theological error and establish Christian identity.[76][77][note 2]

That's a biased view, to say the least, assuming that what is now orthodox always has been orthodox.

"In Late Antiquity, Christianity turned the existing network of diverse Christian communities into an organization that mirrored the structure of the Roman Empire.[91][92]" - was there an entity "Christianity" separate from those communities that exerted a power or influence over those communities? This is some kind of essentialism which is not appropriate for an encyclopedic article.
"figures such as John Chrysostom, Ambrose, Jerome, Basil, Gregory of Nazianus, Gregory of Nyssa, and the prolific Augustine of Hippo wrote using Christianity's internal and external relationships to define its theology, philosophy and politics.[93][94][95]" - what did they write, and how are "internal and external relationships" used to define theology etc.?

I don't think this should be a featured article, and I even doubt the GA-status; incoherent and apologetic. Sorry. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was afraid this would happen. So many people have preconceived views that produce extreme emotional responses on this topic that I half expected this, but I still hope facts will overcome. It looks like anything positive is considered a "promo blurb" but this is the approach taken in all the modern histories. Please look at them. There has been a shift in views, but this accurately reflects modern scholarship.
Please reconsider the lead paragraph that you removed. It explains the notability and importance of this topic. Every item listed - both positive and negative since intolerance and violence are mentioned - are discussed and cited in the body of the text. They are facts, not opinions.
As a history of Christianity, not a history of Jesus, its start is mentioned first.
I can remove the influence of the Bible if others agree, but removing a notable fact could be interpreted as bias in itself.
I cut the section on heresy way down, and I can easily add some back on the polemical nature of the concept, but as it is, it is not biased, it's just not detailed. In the Cambridge History, vol. 2, Rebecca Lyman writes: "Heresiological categories were often a means to establish or maintain common boundaries... Rather than merely a defensive declaration of established belief or power, heresiology reveals the creative theological definitions and social anxieties involved in a continual construction of ancient Christian identity." pages 296 and 297
Robert Royalty writes that "The notion of heresy is ... integral to Christian identity." (page 4) Drake and others all say the same. There is no source that contradicts this.
Again in the Cambridge History, vol. 1, chapter 23, Stuart Hall writes: "By the time of Constantine the church was a sufficiently robust organisation for the emperor to engage it as a partner in unifying the empire. Systems of authority, patterns of belief and control of funds and property had turned the early household communities into an interlinked, empire-wide organisation that increasingly mirrored the structure of the empire itself. It is a telling fact that when Julian the Apostate tried to put the clock back in the 360s, he ‘determined to introduce into the pagan temples the order and discipline of Christianity’."
Without introducing philosophical or metaphysical views on essentialism, this is an accurate reflection of both events and scholarship. I can reword it to be more specific and detailed if you like.
"what did they write, and how are "internal and external relationships" used to define theology etc.?" I thought it was too much detail to list their writings individually, but otherwise, the answer to that is in the body of the text.
"I don't think this should be a featured article, and I even doubt the GA-status; incoherent and apologetic." First, throwing this out without giving me a chance to address issues demonstrates a bias of its own. I am both willing and happy to make any and all changes supported by quality secondary references. Second, please offer some references that support a contrary view of some specific claim demonstrating this is apologetic. Otherwise I can only see this as emotional not factual. Third, this article is not apologetic, it is simply not negatively biased. It reflects the shift in views that has happened in modern scholarship. That is not apologetics on my part. Fourth, I don't understand the statement that it's "incoherent" since it follows the organization of the Cambridge History.
Please reconsider. I can make appropriate changes. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe

Oppose Jenhawk asked me to comment on this article, and while it's an impressive achievement I have to concur with Joshua Jonathan. I think most RS would find both positive and negative impacts of christianity, so the exclusively positive framing of the paragraph in the lead that was removed is worrying from an NPOV standpoint. Additionally, a very cursory examination of parts of the article found additional problems:

First, thank you for showing up and commenting. You know I have tremendous respect for your work here. That lead had both positive and negative. It included the statement that "Christian history includes instances of intolerance and violence". But there has been a paradigm shift in recent scholarship that focuses less on those instances and more on the totality of history.(Marianne Sághy and Edward M. Schoolman; "Pagans and Christians in the Late Roman Empire: New Evidence, New Approaches", page 1) As Augustine Casiday and Frederick W. Norris write in the introduction to vol.2 of the CHofC: "...in keeping with contemporary standards in the study of late ancient Christianity, the presentation in this volume moves away from simple dichotomies and reductive schematisations (e.g., ‘heresy v. orthodoxy’) and toward an inclusive description..." I can make whatever change you want that is supported, but that is current scholarship.Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"In this period [after 1945], Christianity became a global religion" but the text says it has been the world's largest since the 18th century

They aren't the same things. It's about distribution, which is explained in the rest of the section that has apparently been overlooked.Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The #Challenges section is confusing because there are a bunch of different stuff brought up and it's not clear how it ties together

They are only tied together by the fact that they are challenges. That is the category. What else do they need?Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A growing demand for greater individual freedom led to new forms of religion which embrace the sacred as a deeper understanding of the self. This spirituality is private and individualistic, and differs radically from Christian tradition, dogma and ritual Vague and it's totally unclear whether you mean post-christians like Unitarian Universalists, liberal christians, or non-christian alternative religions

In Template:The Spiritual Turn and the Decline of Tradition: The Spread of Post-Christian Spirituality in 14 Western Countries, 1981–2000. It uses data from the World Values Survey to study the spread of post-Christian spirituality (“New Age”) ... characterized by a sacralization of the self ...proves a byproduct of the decline of traditional moral values and hence driven by cohort replacement. .. These findings confirm the theory of detraditionalization,... I can add the term "New Age" if that will clear up the confusion.Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is pentecostalism a challenge for Christianity?

There are two reasons given in the text that follows immediately: that it differs radically from Christian tradition, dogma and ritual... and it has moved away from the Reformation view of biblical authority to the authority of personal charisma Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Pew survey on interfaith marriage cited in the "Diversity and commonality" section is WP:OR and not a worldwide view. In the sources I've seen, this is correlated more to secularism than ecumenism

I don't see how this could be correct. Please do check [2] It is a survey of American marriages, not global, and I will add that. Not everything in this article is global. Some of it's about Africa, some is about Asia; there's America and Europe and so on. Nowhere does this survey say it's correlated with secularization. In fact Drake and Casiday both discuss secularization as a dead theory. This PEW survey never discusses why it's happening. Nor do I. I just note that it is. Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"For the first time since the pre-Constantian era, Christian pacifism became an advocated Christian option" I need to see what the source says. Peace churches mostly date to before this era, and other denominations haven't become explicitly pacifist.

On page 12, in the intro of vol.9, Hugh McLeod says These concerns [about war] have also given rise to Christian pacifism, which became, perhaps for the first time since the pre-Constantian era, a major Christian option in the twentieth century. If my summary isn't close enough, what would you suggest? Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to stop there, but suffice it to say I think the article needs a lot of work before it meets the FA standard. (t · c) buidhe 21:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really do appreciate the input, but I think our time and effort would benefit from a more thorough reading and specific suggestions that would define exactly what "a lot of work" means. I would dearly love having the option to respond and improve the article before being voted down based on a partial reading. Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from UC

I reviewed this or a similar article at a recent opportunity (at PR, I think), and left several comments as to PoV, comprehensiveness and style. Looking at the article as nominated, my concerns remain. My expertise, such as it is, is in the Late Antique material, and I am getting a lot of eyebrow-raises on points of fact. A full review wouldn't be in anyone's interest at this stage, but a few more specific points:

We have lots of vague, sweeping and somewhat dubious statements about how "Romans" (all sixty million or so, on three continents, of all classes, languages, statuses...) felt about the world. See for instance Romans of this era feared civil disorder, giving their highest regard to peace, harmony and order. On the other side of things, the treatment of heresy, as noted above, misses the thrust of contemporary scholarship as to the debated nature of the concept and the process of defining who was/wasn't heretical (ironically, you quote Lyman above, who is making exactly this point).
In groups formed by Paul the Apostle, the role of women was greater than in other religious movements.: this would be news to the many all-female cults in Greco-Roman religion, and it's rather a stretch to present early Christianity as some sort of feminist utopia.
It is well documented that from 250-311, religious sentiment in the Roman Empire rose: this surprised me, so I looked it up (how would you document the level of religious sentiment in a society?). Reassuringly, it's not what the source says: there we have The growing significance of religious sentiment from 250 to 311 is well attested, and it's very clearly an argument that religious movements (specifically Christianity and Islam) and the violent repression of faiths opposed to them, became important parts of historical explanations in ways they hadn't been in previous periods. In other words, we've taken a comment about historiography and turned it into something very different.
Intellectual egalitarianism made philosophy and ethics available to ordinary people and even slaves whom Roman culture deemed incapable of ethical reflection.: again, this would have been news to Socrates, or indeed Cicero, or the numerous Roman writers who defended the humanity of slaves. Cicero even had one as his co-writer for several works of ethical philosophy!
Their altruism created a kind of welfare state within an empire which, for the most part, had no such thing: WP:EXTRAORDINARY most certainly applies here -- a welfare state two millennia early, and we need to rewrite all of our books on ancient patronage and euergetism to get rid of all the people distributing food and resources to the poor? Fortunately, I don't think we do, as one of the two sources cited in support doesn't state the claim at all, and the other is a non-specialist, who cites it at second hand, to a Jesuit-educated journalist.
Christianity in its first 300 years was highly exclusive.: if this means "exclusive" in the everyday sense of "it was very hard to be accepted into a Christian community", we need to rewrite another few shelves of books.

These are not spot-fixes: almost every sentence in that section, and certainly every paragraph, has similar issues. We have had this conversation here before: this is a huge topic, and there is no shame in not being an expert in each individual part of it -- however, at the same time, it's going to be almost impossible to get an article of this scale through FAC unless you are one of a tiny handful of people who can genuinely vouch that each part is fully in line with contemporary academic study.

A small point in the grand scheme of things, but there are numerous typographical and copyediting errors -- before nominating at FAC, you really need to go through an article with a fine-tooth comb, and to me these are evidence that the necessary preparation hasn't happened yet. More generally, I think the point raised above about NPOV is sound: a lot of the text reads as apologetic and as lacking the detachment we need in an encyclopaedic article. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:24, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but there is clearly a consensus that this article is not yet ready for FAC, and so I am going to archive it. There is plenty of advice above for improvements, which can be worked on off-FAC. The usual two-week hiatus will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:28, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:28, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.