Talk:Historiography of the Christianization of the Roman Empire/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Display name 99 (talk · contribs) 16:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I have decided to quick fail this article. I will explain what I see as the biggest problems.

Wikipedia articles must adhere to a Neutral point of view. It must present as facts only things which are agreed upon by a consensus of experts in a particular field. Anything that is someone's belief which is not part of a consensus must be attributed to a scholar making that judgment, and never stated in Wikipedia voice. And yet in this article, there are innumerable places where this article presents as fact things which may easily be challenged because they are not agreed upon as factual. A sampling is:

• Augustine lived in a harsh, authoritarian age of punitive punishment
  • If this represents POV, it represents the POV of Peter Brown, (the historian who is often credited with creating the study of Late Antiquity), and not my own. There is no one with a higher standing in this field than Brown's, and as a biographer of Augustine's, in the article referenced, his exact words are: "Augustine lived in a violent and authoritarian age. The death penalty and tortures were imposed indiscriminately." It's easily verifiable on page 115. My summary is accurate. This is established fact and is not challenged by any scholars I know of. Even MacMullen supports this view. It is further discussed under judicial penalties, but perhaps you didn't read that far.Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• What is singularly significant for Christianization is the recognition that it was the "rivalry between the two factions that caused the landscape of Roman Africa to be ‘covered with a white robe of churches’. Wikipedia cannot say what is "singularly significant." Analysis that goes beyond the bare facts and historical events must be attributed to a scholar. Furthermore, I have no idea what "a white robe of churches" means. Display name 99 (talk) 16:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
  • All right, that phrase can easily be removed, but this is also from Brown and another eminent historian evaluating Brown's claims, Kate Cooper, who also has her own WP page and needs no other explaining. The quote is part of Brown's discussion of the Donatists and what archaeology has discovered in Northern Africa about the spread of Christianity there; the evaluation is Cooper's:
  • From Brown: "Like central France in around the year 1000, the landscape of Africa began to be covered by a white robe of churches. ...In the High Plains north of Timgad, ...the ground is covered with the ruins of churches, 73 were charted in one survey alone of central Numidia. Many settlements eventually came to have three, four or even seven churches... what is evident is the unflagging enthusiasm with which these churches were set up..." Cooper writes that "Brown knows as well as anyone that it was the rivalry between the two factions that caused the landscape of Roman Africa to be "clothed in a white robe of churches"." It is that causality that is significant to the central question of this article mentioned in the lead. These are direct references to how and why Christianity grew in North Africa and they are from well-known eminent historians. In what way can that fairly be called a non-neutral POV? This complaint is unfounded. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
    • This: there are innumerable places where this article presents as fact things which may easily be challenged because they are not agreed upon as factual. is an unfounded and completely untrue statement. I challenge you to find one source that can back up the claim these are examples of non-factual challengeable statements. There are no current scholars who would disagree with either of these statements. This evidences a lack of familiarity with current scholarship in this field.
    • It must present as facts only things which are agreed upon by a consensus of experts in a particular field. That's exactly what this is. Brown and and Cooper have archaeological evidence and represent the majority of scholars in their views. Both these statements are unchallenged facts.
      • You are mistaken in claiming this as point of view instead of fact, but that's easy enough to establish. Check the sources. It's clear that wasn't done before writing this. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Other problems:

• This sentence in the lead: This particular process of religious and cultural change ended sometime in the fifth to sixth centuries either from reaching a saturation point, or from the Fall of the Western Roman Empire (AD 476), from the ending of Ancient Christianity, which occurred sometime between the fourth and sixth centuries when medieval Christianity began, or from some combination of these events. It is extremely wordy and its meaning is incredibly nebulous. Display name 99 (talk) 16:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
  • That is probably a fair criticism, it is nebulous, but easy enough to fix, and not a reason to fail an article. I would be happy to simply remove it.Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• People's names are routinely introduced to the article for the sake of their observations without any effort being made to explain who those people are or why they warrant their views being discussed. Display name 99 (talk) 16:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I have tried to make sure that everyone who doesn't have a link at least has a reference for who they are. If I missed some, that can also be easily remedied, and does not seem egregious enough to be sufficient cause for failure without even giving me a chance to fix it.Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• Instead, it was an age of tremendous activity and change, where the empire reinvented itself; it was an age of cultural and religious ferment comparable to the Reformation of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Um, the Protestant reformation was in the 16th century. Display name 99 (talk) 16:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Um, not entirely, no. John Wycliff, for example, lived in the 1300s and is considered either a forerunner or representative of an early aspect of the Reformation era (depending upon who you reference). Huldrych Zwingli and Bernardino Ochino were 15th century. It is common to limit Reformation to the 16th century, but it is an error in fact. The author I cited was comparing the early reformers, rather than the later ones, with fourth century bishops. This complaint is unfounded. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• The "Women" section is a mess. It speaks a lot about women and childbirth in pagan Roman society but gives no clue as to how the rise of Christianity changed things. The sentence that the mortality rate of women during childbirth being high seems very out of place. Nothing is done to connect it with the rest of the section and I truthfully don't know why it is there. This doesn't seem like something that the rise of Christianity would have changed. Display name 99 (talk) 16:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
  • The opening sentence is "Ross Kraemer argues that Christianity offered women a new sense of worth". Yet you say this section gives no clue as to how the rise of Christianity changed things. Please explain how that doesn't count as a change.
  • ""Against such vehement opposition, the language of the ascetic forms of Christianity must have provided a strong set of validating mechanisms". That would be a change.
  • "Women were considered one of the marginal classes in the Roman Empire, so it is likely this attracted large numbers of those women who were discontented with their lot." That would also be a change.
  • "The practical support the early church provided to those who would, otherwise, have been in destitute circumstances "was in all likelihood an important factor in winning new female members"." That too was a change.
  • The sentence that the mortality rate of women during childbirth being high seems very out of place. Nothing is done to connect it with the rest of the section and I truthfully don't know why it is there. But in that same section there is a quote: "The ascetic life, especially the monastic life, may have provided women with a mode of escape from the rigors and dangers of married and maternal existence, with the prospect of an education and (in some cases) an intellectual life, and with access to social and economic power that would otherwise have eluded them"." More pretty big changes.
  • Does all of that not do what you say isn't done? It seems to me this complaint is unfounded.Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• Men, on the other hand, were allowed live-in mistresses called pallake.[293] This permitted Roman society to find both a husband's control of a wife's sexual behavior a matter of intense importance, and at the same time see that same husband's sex with young boys as of little concern.[294] A mistress is a woman, so what would this have to do with men having sexual relations with young boys? Furthermore, while what the paragraph is speaking about is Ancient Roman society, the article on pallake does not mention Rome but instead focuses exclusively on Ancient Greece. So were pallake a common thing in Ancient Rome? I'm not sure. Display name 99 (talk) 16:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
  • It was not uncommon for Roman men to have concubines, and in the preface of his book on Greek and Roman sexual practices, John Younger defines pallakai as "concubine". This concept is also discussed in more detail on the page cited. Yes, mistresses are by language use female, though pallakai weren't always women, but in these two sentences there are three characteristics of Roman sexuality listed. One item in a list does not need to have anything to do with the other things in a list. This complaint is unfounded.

• The "Gladiators" section is very haphazardly written. It assumes prior knowledge of what gladiator shows meant in ancient society because it never bothers to define them, explain their importance, or even link to another article. Display name 99 (talk) 16:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
  • A discussion of what the gladiator shows meant, etc. etc., would be off topic. This is about Christianization, and really, everyone over five knows about gladiators. It isn't haphazard. It's just short and to the point for this article. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

. The biggest problem with this article, and the reason why I have chosen to quick fail it rather than simply pointing out the problems and allowing you to fix them, is that the entire essay is essentially a historiography rather than a history. Its primary attention is spent not on the events themselves but what scholars say about them. Much of this would probably be fine if the title of the article was "Historiography of the Christianization of the Roman Empire," but it isn't. There is no sense from this article of how Christianity grew and what the defining moments in its history were. The attitudes of the pagan Roman state are discussed very briefly and vaguely in the section "Martyrdom." The Edict of Milan, which was probably the single most important event in the growth of Christianity after Pentecost, and which completely changed the relationship between the religion and the state, is mentioned briefly in one sentence and never defined. The Edict of Thessalonica, which made Catholic Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire, is never mentioned at all. In sum, this article ignores the major topics of its subject in favor of exhaustive and unnecessary historiography.

This article needs to be completely rewritten before it can ever come close to meriting good article status. As it stands, I judge it to be extremely poor. It is written in a subjective and unclear manner, ignores key details, and imparts little real information. Display name 99 (talk) 16:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• • More unfamiliarity with current research: The Edict of Milan, which was probably the single most important event in the growth of Christianity after Pentecost, and which completely changed the relationship between the religion and the state, is mentioned briefly in one sentence and never defined. The Edict of Thessalonica, which made Catholic Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire, is never mentioned at all. This is currently heavily disputed. Thessalonica was eastern and mostly ignored in the West.

• • the entire essay is essentially a historiography rather than a history. I never say anywhere that I am writing about history. If you will please note, the first paragraph asks the question "how" - not "what" happened, but how - and the last line of the lead defines that as "sociological" - not history - as "ideas" and "social forces" - not events. Check the sources.
  • What you are looking for what the defining moments in its history were are events (you mention the Edict, etc.) and that's political science, not sociology. They are covered in several other articles already available on WP. Christianization is one that contains the 'history' of political and economic events. That's not what this article is. The fault is not in the article for not being what you expected it to be.
  • I dearly want to say thank you for taking the time to review this, and learn something from the experience, but this is the worst review I've ever seen.
  • This review didn't bother to check what the sources actually do say before making unfounded accusations of non-npov. There is no POV in this article beyond the sociological and the POV of the scholars cited. This review takes small fixable problems and treats them as egregious. This review doesn't seem to understand what sociology is and how a sociological point of view would differ from the political or what its claims are in this area of study. This review is not conversant with current scholarship.
  • This article is a reflection of current scholarship in the field of sociology on the one single question of "how" Christianization was accomplished - sociologically speaking. Every possible aspect of Christianization will not and can not be included, but that is not a flaw either. It is a thorough and well researched discussion of one thing - the thing it set out to be that is not what you expected. It does not do what you wanted, but it does what it set out to do quite well. I don't think the problem here is in the article. I will wait a while and renominate and hope for a fairer review. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Jenhawk777, I have skimmed through your replies. My mind is not changed. Nevertheless, I wish to respond to what you have said. I am too busy now but will hopefully be able to do so within a couple of days at most. Display name 99 (talk) 21:37, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Jenhawk777, I am ready sooner than I thought. I will respond to your claims piece by piece. I'm sure it's disappointing for you to spend a lot of time on an article and have it rejected so quickly. I've encountered my fair share of disappointments myself on Wikipedia. However, I am unshaken in my belief that this article does not reflect the standards of Wikipedia and is extremely far from being a good article. Display name 99 (talk) 05:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

• You've said that my criticisms of the "nebulous" sentence in the lead and failing to properly introduce scholars may be legitimate criticisms but are not worth quick failing a GA review. I agree with you, but were these the only problems that I had with the article? Obviously not, so your point has no further relevance. Display name 99 (talk) 05:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

• The two POV statements: When a scholar recounts facts and real events, they may be included in Wikipedia voice. But when a scholar interprets these events and explains his or her personal beliefs, we cannot. If the person is a well-established expert in their field with appropriate credentials, their views should be respected, but we cannot treat them as fact. Another scholar, for instance, may disagree. See WP:WIKIVOICE. This policy says: For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action" but may state that "genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil. The idea that genocide is evil is about the most non-controversial thing that anyone can say in today's society. However, because it is a belief which may theoretically be challenged, the statement must be attributed. The same is true here. No matter how knowledgeable and accomplished these experts are, their assessments must be attributed. "Brilliant Roman roads" is another example of this that I missed before. It's impressionistic and personalized and has no place in Wikipedia. Also, in your response, you made no attempt to clarify what the term "white robe of churches" means. I don't understand what that phrase means and I think that the average person would probably have a difficult time with it as well. Display name 99 (talk) 05:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• For the Reformation: It is not clear from the text whether you mean to refer to only a part of the Reformation time period or to the whole thing. You've explained that it was the former, but it felt like the latter to me as I was reading. I also do not know that it is necessarily an error to limit the Reformation to the 16th century. If we include the the time period in which there were "forerunners" to the Reformation as part of the Reformation period, how far to you want to go? The Cathar movement, which began in the 12th century and arguably originated in separate movements centuries earlier, shared some significant ideas in common with the Protestant Reformation: complaints about corrupt clergy and rejection of the sacraments being the two that come to my mind most quickly. Could this be included in the Reformation as well? Now, we've begun to take it back too far, so that the movement is incomprehensible. Because most people, I think rightfully so, think of the Reformation as being in the 16th century, the text should clarify that it was referring to the beginnings, or, even better in my opinion, the preceding period before the Reformation. Display name 99 (talk) 05:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• For the section on women, I acknowledge that the complaint regarding the child mortality rate was unfounded. I should have read more carefully. But aside from this, my point stands. Firstly, the section seems predicated on the idea that large numbers of women became Christians and had a large influence in the Church. But aside from your reference to the Pauline Epistles, until the brief section on widows at the end, I see no part of the section which says that this is the case. It's implied but not clearly stated. Furthermore, I see no concrete details as to how women's lives changed as a result of the Christianization of the empire. Things like "a new sense of worth" and "a strong set of validating mechanisms," unless they come with actual data and anecdotes to substantiate and elaborate on them, give no firm idea as to how women's lives changed. Why did Christianity give women a new sense of worth? How did this new sense of worth change their lives? For the most part, this article does not say. "Women were considered one of the marginal classes in the Roman Empire, so it is likely this attracted large numbers of those women who were discontented with their lot." That would also be a change. No, it wouldn't, because you never explained how them joining Christianity changed their lives. The things which you have quoted are together almost worthless. They say more or less the same exact thing over and over again without going into any actual detail. It's fluff to cover up the fact that, for the most part, there's very little actual information here. Display name 99 (talk) 05:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC) Also, I'll add that the discussion on the exposure of infants is out of place because there is no mention of any change to this practice with the rise of Christianity. Display name 99 (talk) 05:31, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• Pallake: What does the fact that the husband could have mistresses have to do with his relations with young boys not being of concern? Display name 99 (talk) 05:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• Gladiators: Wikipedia articles are written for the general audience. The average person does know what Roman gladiator fights were, but the average person does not mean everyone, and our articles need to be understandable to everyone. A sentence introducing what these were is fundamentally necessary. I'm not an expert on Ancient Rome, but I have studied it a little both in school and independently, and I have a vague sense that there was pagan religious significance of the games. If so, this would definitely not be common knowledge and should be explained. And even if everything that I have said just now is wrong, which it isn't, it does not excuse the absence of a link. Display name 99 (talk) 05:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• On the Edict of Milan and the Edict of Thessalonica, what part of what I said is in dispute? The Edict of Thessalonica, even if it only affected half of the empire, was a highly significant event that must be mentioned. Similarly, the idea that an article supposedly dealing with the process through which the Roman Empire became Christian largely confines its discussions of state persecution of Christians to a single short section with only one paragraph of original content, and only mentions the Edict of Milan in a single sentence, without defining it at all, would be laughable if it didn't reflect so badly on Wikipedia. Display name 99 (talk) 05:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

On to the main point... The problem with this article is that, based on your work here and your comments on this page, you either fail to grasp or deliberately refuse to accept what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. This means that it its articles must address in WP:Summary style all of the major aspects of the subject matter in the title. A person coming to read an article on our website needs to encounter a brief discussion of all of the major aspects of the topic that are given in the title of the article, not simply whichever ones the person writing it felt were the most interesting. Read the six good article criteria. The third one is "Broad in its coverage," meaning that it "addresses the main aspects of the topic." This article clearly fails that criteria. It is an article about a series of historical events which, you have admitted yourself, is not a history. What more can I say? You don't have the right to choose what you're writing about. This isn't a magazine. This isn't your personal blog. It's an encyclopedia. Your job when writing articles is to summarize each of the major parts of the topic as indicated in the article title. You didn't do that. In my judgment, no qualified GA reviewer should pass this article. It is very bad.

If you still disagree or feel that I am being unfair, as I expect you do, I encourage you to go to the Good article nominations page, click on a "Discussion," and open up a new section with a link to this article and a brief post explaining your position. Being able to hear from other experienced GA reviewers about to what extent my concerns may or may not have been legitimate may be better than simply renominating it and taking a gamble by hoping for the best from whatever unknown person picks this back up. Display name 99 (talk) 05:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

• • • Display name 99 My other died yesterday. I will be back to address this steaming mess when I get home.Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Jenhawk777, I checked your user talk page and I assume you mean your mother. I'm sorry to hear that. It doesn't change the validity of anything that I said, but awkward timing I suppose. Display name 99 (talk) 03:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Display name 99 You suppose it's awkward timing? I am deeply touched by the depth of your empathy. Nothing you have said so far in this review or response has any fair claim to validity. Let's go through your comments.

• Let's do this one first. This article clearly fails that criteria. It is an article about a series of historical events No it isn't. You are mistaken. This article focuses on human social relationships and institutions: social life, social change, groups and group interactions. This is not history. Sociology is an analytical science. History is a descriptive science. Sociology is abstract. History is concrete. Sociology is a generalizing science which seeks to establish generalizations concerning social phenomena. History is an individualizing science that rarely makes generalizations. History seeks to establish an accurate sequence of events. Sociology doesn't care about such things. Sociology studies all events from the sociological viewpoint. History studies human events in accordance with time and order. Its approach is historical - by definition. History and sociology interrelate, but are not at all the same things. They do not discuss the same things, not in the same way or for the same reasons.
• Your insistence that this is history is a pre-determination - a bias - that you brought with you.

B) You don't have the right to choose what you're writing about. That's the stupidest statement I think I have ever read on WP. Of course I do. The scope of an article is set by its writers. Its focus is defined by its title - which is also chosen by its authors. The topic of every article on WP has been chosen by the ones who went on to write it. There is no entity that ordains topics from on high. We are that entity. C) Your job when writing articles is to summarize each of the major parts of the topic as indicated in the article title. You didn't do that. Yes, I did do exactly that as defined in the lead.

1) has no further relevance This is simply disingenuous. You thought these things were relevant enough to comment on in the first place; they were part of your "evidence". On my talk page you will see a comment by another editor saying they thought your review did not give fair time to the subject. These two comments of yours are evidence of that. That makes this extremely relevant. 2) The two POV statements: I note the claim here is no longer that this is POV, but that it is not properly attributed. ...No matter how knowledgeable and accomplished these experts are, their assessments must be attributed. The first sentence is attributed in the sentence that follows. Most decent reviewers would take note of that fact and simply respond with, "move the attribution to the front". This is simply another simple fix that is not cause for speedy failure. I am glad to see no more false claims of POV anyway. That segue should have been acknowledged though - in all fairness. 3) "Brilliant Roman roads" is another example of this that I missed before. It's impressionistic and personalized and has no place in Wikipedia. That is actually fact. It is the majority view of Roman roads. It is not personalized in any way. But it is also easily removable. If only that had been allowed. 4) you made no attempt to clarify what the term "white robe of churches" means. Another simple fix, but honestly, this also seems disingenuous - you really don't understand Brown's phrase? 5) If we include the the time period in which there were "forerunners" That isn't for us to decide. You don't get to just make up your own mind on what you think should be a part of that periodization and what shouldn't. Scholars decide that. 6) Firstly, the section seems predicated on the idea that large numbers of women became Christians and had a large influence in the Church. ...I see no concrete details Firstly, this is established: they did and they were. There are no women historians from this period. There are no women's histories. That means there are no histories where the type of 'data' you suggest could be found. Men wrote polemics and histories that criticized the many women that joined Ancient Christianity, but details on 'how women's lives were changed' can only be inferred from those meager sources. The kind of detail you want simply isn't in the historical record. The generalized views that you call 'fluff' are what sociology produces. 7) Pallake: What does the fact that the husband could have mistresses have to do with his relations with young boys not being of concern? Nothing, and it doesn't have to. It's a list of sexual inequities. One doesn't have to have anything to do with another in such a list. It just has to be pertinent to the main topic - sexuality - of which pallaka are just one example. Do you claim not to understand that either? 8) the exposure of infants is out of place because there is no mention of any change to this practice with the rise of Christianity This is backwards. This isn't an article about how Christianity impacted and changed Roman behaviors. Such changes are only relevant if they explain the spread of Christianity. 9) And even if everything that I have said just now is wrong, which it isn't, it does not excuse the absence of a link. You're failing this for the absence of a link? Really? Everything you said is wrong. It's that same backwards historical view again. Stop trying to shove sociology into a history box. This is not about the impact of Christianity on different behaviors, it's an article about how different behaviors - if they can be shown to be real, (and that's the only criteria) - contributed to the spread of Christianity.

• • Focus, scope, topic - these have to be kept in mind by a decent reviewer who attempts to be fair. That is clearly not this review.
  • Of course you have been unfair. You gave no opportunity for correction to this article. These comments are mostly petty, easily fixable minor problems, and yet you quick fail, while refusing to acknowledge what your own mistakes actually show about you and your review. Your insistence this is history, and a complete lack of effort to understand how that would differ from a sociological perspective, are evidence of that unfairness. They show that's a bias that came with you. Why would I follow your advice on how to handle this? I wouldn't. I'm done here now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Jenhawk777, I am glad that you appreciate my expressions of empathy. Yes, that's obviously sarcasm, but I think it's warranted when I tried to say something civil to you and you responded sarcastically. Display name 99 (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

1. By themselves, the POV statements would not have been enough to quick fail the review. But they are part of the multitude of reasons why this article is bad. That is why they were mentioned. Display name 99 (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

2. I do not think that you understand what is meant here by "attributed." I do not mean just that you have a citation, but that rather when you cite a belief that goes beyond simple bare fact, you must say "Scholars say..." or "According to Brown,..." Display name 99 (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

3. The use of the word "brilliant" is designed to make readers admire the achievement of the roads and to think highly of those who built them. It should have been replaced by a less emotional word, such as "effective." I would have allowed you not decided to write the entire article as a "sociology" rather than including all of the major history events surrounding it. Display name 99 (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

4. Correct, I'm not sure I understand the phrase. What does he mean by "white robe?" If all it is is a really fancy way of saying that a low of new churches were built and Christians grew in number, why not simply say that? Display name 99 (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

5. My point is that the language is unclear and seems to confine the Reformation to the period before the 16th century. Display name 99 (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

6. There is definitely something, either regarding what about the way that Christianity was taught appealed to women or what role women had in the early Church, that you could include. And if you really couldn't find anything else, which isn't true, you would need to explain the lack of specific data instead of simply giving vague and generic statements from different writers over and over again all basically saying the same thing to give the impression that you are giving the reader information of value when you aren't. The generalized views that you call 'fluff' are what sociology produces. Well then I guess sociology is fluff. Display name 99 (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

7. You go from talking about mistresses to sexual relationships with boys with no explanation as to how they're connected. Display name 99 (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

8. And how does the pagan practice of exposure help explain the spread of Christianity? This issue right here I think really strikes at the heart of this article's problem. It's full of generalized statements with no real information, and when real information is included, it's frequently out of place. Display name 99 (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

9. No, I'm not failing the article simply because of the absence of a link. You know that, and so in saying otherwise, you are now deliberately lying. Display name 99 (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

The title of articles is chosen by its writers, but the scope must adhere to all major aspects of the topic, not simply one that the writer(s) chose to focus on. That is what you do not admit. This is why I failed the review. It was the only logical course for me to pursue, and I am not bound to change my position simply because some random editor who I am pretty sure I've never even interacted with posted something on your user talk page criticizing me. I do firmly believe, and I know that you may attack me for this, that the field of sociology is complete garbage. History produces generalized views as well, but not by themselves and instead only after thorough research and attention to detail combined with substantial evidence, all of which are wanting here. The difference between history and your definition of sociology is that history has facts and information, whereas sociology has broad impressive-sounding statements with nothing to support them. You said Sociology studies all events from the sociological viewpoint. You're using the term that you're trying to define in the definition. This gives me no clue as what sociology is supposed to be. Again, you aren't telling me anything. But that's not the point. Even if sociology was a worthy field, it would not give you the right to write an article about a subject that includes far more than just that and simply make it all about sociology. The Christianization of the Roman Empire was a historical process, but there is very little history in this article. Hence, it is not broad in its scope and therefore does not meet the good article criteria. Display name 99 (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• • Display name 99 The title of articles is chosen by its writers, but the scope must adhere to all major aspects of the topic, not simply one that the writer(s) chose to focus on. That is what you do not admit. This is why I failed the review. Well then you owe me a repeal of that failure and an apology, because that is not what WP says. Go here: [1]

• • It says: When the name of an article is a term that refers to several related topics in secondary reliable sources, primary topic criteria should be followed to determine if any of the uses of that term is the primary topic. If so, then the scope of the article should be limited to, or at least primarily, cover that topic. For example, the article "Cat" is limited in scope to the primary topic for cat, the domestic cat (which is a redirect to "Cat"), even though lions and tigers are considered to be "cats" in the broad sense of that term. Christianization does refer to several related topics and views. So a primary topic based on the changes in modern scholarship was determined. That means that just because Christianization was also history does not mean history has to be included in this particular article as it is not the primary topic as delineated in the lead. That means this claim of yours Even if sociology was a worthy field, it would not give you the right to write an article about a subject that includes far more than just that and simply make it all about sociology. is incorrect.

• • The article says: The title together with the lead section... of an article should make clear what the scope of the article is.... That this article focuses on the sociological model is made clear in the middle and last paragraph of the lead - which you keep dismissing and choosing to overlook.

• • Article scope, in terms of what exactly the subject and its scope is, is an editorial choice... That seems pretty straightforward and the opposite of what you have claimed.

• • You claim: The Christianization of the Roman Empire was a historical process, but there is very little history in this article. Hence, it is not broad in its scope and therefore does not meet the good article criteria. But in reality you failed me for not including out of scope material. The article on scope says: What reliable sources say about material that is out of scope for the decided-upon subject is largely irrelevant to that article and can be removed or moved to another article.

• • I am not going to bother addressing the rest of this. After all, you have already failed it, and even when confronted with contrary evidence have refused to admit when and where you were wrong. We might have worked together addressing these issues if you had given this article a fair chance. But you didn't, and the only thing that really matters are the statements which make it clear it is not minor problems in the article that caused the quick-fail, it is your bias that was the very apparent reason for it. You say the field of sociology is complete garbage. and The difference between history and your definition of sociology is that history has facts and information, whereas sociology has broad impressive-sounding statements with nothing to support them. "My definition of sociology" was taken off the internet. I expected this kind of response, so I used those definitions that are cited and posted by scholars rather than try and explain it myself. You can search for them and see for yourself. Your assessment of sociology is as incorrect as your assessment of this article - and as incorrect as the claims you make on WP's behalf - but they are revealing, aren't they? It seems quite obvious that such attitudes would make it impossible to give a fair review of an article based on sociology. And it is clear you haven't. Please don't bother me anymore. I am done with this and with you. There is no point in arguing against someone's biases. It is a waste of my time.Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:19, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Jenhawk777, the policy that you quoted from discusses choosing a primary topic in reference to the title of an article. This means that the article should discuss the primary aspects of whatever the article title indicates. Periphery details may be overlooked, but all of the main aspects of the subject matter must be discussed. If there is more than one primary topic, in order to be broad in scope, the article would have to address all, not simply choose one at random. The primary topic behind understanding the Christianization of the Roman Empire is history. You ignored it. Let's say that I was writing the Wikipedia biography of Nazi Germany. Military expansion is among the primary topics of Nazi history. So what you're saying is that I could write the entire article about that and not mention the Holocaust or anti-Semitism once, as long as I made it clear in the lead? Obviously this would be insane, but this analogy aptly demonstrates what you've done here. This will be my last comment. Display name 99 (talk) 19:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Display name 99 The primary topic behind understanding the Christianization of the Roman Empire is history. This is only your personal opinion, and it is unsupported by modern scholarship. Modern views of Christianization focus on other aspects of the topic that contradict past historical interpretations as inaccurate and non-representative of the totality of evidence about the time period. Sociology was not chosen at random. It was chosen because that is what contemporary scholarship has produced as a primary view. I have sources that say exactly that in the article. You have no source that claims what you say because you are wrong in the assumption you have made.

Your claim that this analogy aptly demonstrates what you've done is nonsense. This analogy is crap. You begin by defining the topic as a "biography of Nazi Germany" which is by definition a broad history - much broader than a sociological view and nothing I did in Christianization. It's also a crap analogy because there is no contemporary scholarship contradicting the historical interpretation of a "biography of Nazi Germany" - as there is with Christianization.

An article on the sociological view of how German society of that time developed Nazism and anti-semitism, that focused exclusively on what aspects contributed to the holocaust, and did not discuss the rest of the military history and battles that did not matter to that limited subject, would be comparable, but that isn't what you suggested is it? You begin by suggesting a broad history, then compare history to sociology, and conclude with a criticism of sociology for not being history; this is what you have consistently done throughout this entire review. Can you not see that?

I can only conclude that the failure of this review is due to a bias concerning history vs. sociology and the accompanying refusal to accept the scope of what this article actually covers.

This will be my last comment. I can only hope this is true. I would hope any additional comment would be an apology and an acknowledgement of error, otherwise there is nothing more to be said. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh look, there are a number of articles on causes of the Holocaust, which all seem to include some sociology, and do not include all military history - yet none are on Wikipedia. Perhaps I will correct that oversight. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC)