# Talk:Massacre of Thessalonica

The lead section states: the massacre was a retaliatory action by the Emperor against the citizens of Thessaloniki, but then later in the article it states that angry Gothic troops massacred the citizens for murdering Butherich, a fellow Gothic soldier.  Did the Emperor order the troops against Thessaloniki?  From the article it sounds as though they were acting on their own.  The bishop certainly seems to have blamed the Emperor, but I don't see where he really got invovled. --ErinHowarth (talk) 02:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The Emperor ordered them into Thessalonica; they may then have gotten out of control, but that was unsurprising. He did not order the massacre, but he could have averted it; that was Ambrose's complaint.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

… seems a little vague. The article appears in the category of "Sexuality in ancient Rome," but doesn't actually provide any information on this topic, such as what the offense was. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, I hope I satisfied your curiosity, pal.Romanus451 (talk) 20:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
"he tried to rape a male cupbearer"? The reference cited should actually contain that information, but it doesn't. Sozomen 7.25 only has "When Buthericus was general of the troops in Illyria, a charioteer saw him shamefully exposed at a tavern, and attempted an outrage; he was apprehended and put in custody.". 107.200.10.45 (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

This article appears to be based entirely on original sources indicating original research.  It needs inline citation to secondary sources that actually say what is said here.  I don't see anything incorrect, but it still needs proper sourcing. Please. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:35, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello to all who have cared about and contributed to this article. I am adding some new information that will address the concerns mentioned above and will hopefully bring quality contemporary scholarship into the article a little more. 
I will also be checking all the current references. I will do so a little at a time with an eye toward replacing material the copyright detector says has been directly copied from this blog: [[1]] Blogs are not considered a reliable source by WP standards: [[2]] And copyright violations are taken seriously on WP.  That material has to go before Diannaa comes along and wipes out the whole page.   
Then there's also this one: [[3]] copies from Wikipedia which is also not allowed without attribution, see: [[4]] which says: Do not use articles from Wikipedia (whether this English Wikipedia or Wikipedias in other languages) as sources. 
And this one: [[5]] which is also a blog. 
If anyone has any problems with anything I contribute in its place, please say so here.  My additions and subtractions are aimed solely at improving this article and making WP a more dependable and accurate encyclopedia, so if you think that has not been accomplished, that matters. I will do everything in my power to work with you and address any and all issues. Even if it's just that you don't like my writing style--any sentence can be rewritten--as long as it accurately reflects quality sources. Thank you. I look forward to our collaboration. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

The deed is done, if there are any changes you think need to be made, offer good sources and we will make them. Thank you Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Please note that if you run the copyvio detector, what it picks up as violations are quotes, so they are not actual violations. [[6]] Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Massacre of Thessalonica/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Llywrch (talk · contribs) 20:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Review undertaken by llywrch.
Some minor copy edit points. More to come as I do the needed background research:

I noticed this article used both single & double quotation marks, jumping from the British style to the American & back. That needs to be made consistent.
Thank you for catching that!  I think, I hope, that now you will find the only place individual quotation marks are used is when it is a quote within a quote. All British style now as well.Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
The bibliography needs some grooming.  Sozomen's Ecclesiastical History is cited in two different ways, & Liebeschuetz, et alia, Ambrose of Milan Political Letters and Speeches appears in two separate entries -- which is unnecessary in the citation style you use here. (Seeing how you have footnotes & also have a bibliography, I'm not certain the style used here is the best choice. I'll need some time to think of a better solution.)
Sozomen done; my control-F function finds "Ambrose of Milan Political Letters and Speeches" in one place only; it's a book by Carol Hill, so I am unsure what the problem is here. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Ahah! I found it! Fixed! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
In the 2nd paragraph of the section "Commentary", you lump Rufinus in with 3 others as "5th century historians". Rufinus published his history in 401, & this alleged massacre happened during his life time (either 389 or 390). I don't think the implication that Rufinus was inaccurate about this due to the time that passed between the event & when he wrote. (Maybe for other reasons...)
Well, that's a fair point. I will see if I can reword that without having to get into a long discussion of reliability.Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
See if that works. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
More when I have a chance to do the needed research. -- llywrch (talk) 20:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Llywrch awesome!  I am so glad to see you, and thank you so much for doing this! :-)  These are good comments, and I will endeavor to fix them all as immediately as possible.  I only have 5 minutes right now, but I will be back and work myself to the bone later tonight I promise!  Thank you again, this is great! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
llywrch Sorry it took awhile - RL is interfering with my WP!! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Llywrch So, how's it going?  Any sign of a return anytime soon? Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi Jenhawk777, sorry I've been silent. I'm getting a handle on thing at work, so I can devote time to this review. One problem I've had is figuring out exactly what the reported accounts of the Massacre were: just yesterday I finally found a copy of Rufinus' account of the Massacre, only his Latin is a challenge for me & putting it thru Google Translate only makes it worse. Another problem is that there are two other aspects of this event that merit inclusion in this article. One is that there were a number of riots in the Late Roman Empire around this time, but beyond mentioning it (Doležal at p. 101 provides a succinct account worth using to address that), I would only address this detail if you wanted to make this into a Featured Article. The other, which I believe needs to be included is that the Massacre was important in the relationship between Emperor Theodosius I & bishop Ambrose of Milan.In the last decades of the 4th century, Ambrose was a powerful figure, pushing the agenda of the Church in Imperial politics. For this reason Gibbon devotes several pages to this event, far more than to other, better recorded urban riots & their violent suppression of this period. Some accounts portray this relationship as one where Ambrose gets the upper hand; some explain this with a bit more subtlety, that Ambrose knew he was best served by supporting Theodosius & his acts were reinterpreted within a generation of his death as victories. But to insist that you include this information, I need to help you do this, & this requires research work on my part.There is also the matter that I have to keep in mind that this is not my article, & I need to give thought about how to offer comments. After all, I am simply offering opinions here, & you always have the right to ignore what I say -- or to take my comments & go in another direction. So while it may appear I am doing nothing, I am at work on this. -- llywrch (talk) 01:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
llywrch Hi! Wonderful to hear from you, but I have to say, some of this confuses me, as everything you mention here is pretty much already discussed in the article. In the second paragraph of the commentary section, I discuss that figuring out what actually happened is near impossible, so you are not the only one with that difficulty. There is no need for you to do primary source research - unless it is simply for your own interest. None of it could be used here as it would be OR.
I can't say I understand what value 'other riots' would add. It seems off topic to me. This is not an article on 'ancient riots' but is specifically this one riot alone. Perhaps you feel a section on other possible causes, beyond those mentioned in the sources that wrote about it, is called for. I can do that if you feel strongly about it, but I retain my reservations. For me that is off focus.
Nearly the entire section 'Aftermath' discusses Ambrose. Any more would make it an article about him instead of the massacre.
There is no need for you to feel you need to help me write this article. It's written. Your job is simply to review it according to the GA criteria [7]; it is not to write or rewrite the article for me. If as an editor you have something you want to add to the article, that's perfectly fine of course, but that would automatically disqualify you as a reviewer.
And I do fully understand if you don't have time after all to do this. RL things changed for you right after you got this, and no one would fault you for passing it on. We all have that from time to time and have to back off of WP. I certainly have. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Llywrch You accepted this review at 20:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC). It has now been a full month with no actual review having begun. I have no doubt of your good faith and that you are well intentioned, but I request that you either begin an actual review or pass it on to some one else. Thank you for trying. Things happen to us all. No hard feelings, I just need to move on with this. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:17, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
My apologies for not responding sooner. There are some issues besides my unexpected increase of duties at work that caused this. Let me explain.First, one of my practices in reviewing any article for GA is to perform some research on the topic in parallel. My intent in doing that is not to write the article, but to get a sense for how much material on the topic is out there, & a sense for the accuracy of the facts. Doing so, I can tell you have done a lot of work performing research for this article, for which you deserve praise. (For one thing, you alerted me to just how useful Research Gate can be. I looked at it several years ago, & did not find it that useful then; clearly it has improved significantly since, & I should give it another look.)Another thing I do is to avoid articles which I feel are flawed or in need of some blunt criticism. As I wrote, you have spent a lot of time on this article, & are proud of what you did; too much criticism of a GA nomination can discourage the recipient, & be seen as a personal attack, even when it is clearly focused on the article. (I know I have made this mistake in the past.)
So what is my criticism about this article?
First, as the article is currently written, it appears that this incident is notable for being an imperfectly known event. There was a riot in Thessalonica, & the garrison responded with a massacre of the inhabitants, & Ambrose blamed the actions of the garrison on the emperor Theodosius -- this is what the article tells us happens. The Cambridge Ancient History presents one version with extensive details of this. However, there is nothing about what is disputed about this event. This is what I spent time researching: what were the different accounts, & what is disputed? I don't see any of this dispute clearly set forth. I do find hints about what might be disputed, but no where can I read, "This is the account of Ambrose; this is the account of Rufinus; this is what Theodoret wrote; this is what Sozomen wrote." I would even settle for secondary sources being presented to show the disputed facts. And reading Doležal's paper, I find he has reported some of what is disputed about this event, for example the date of the massacre.

So, more specifics of the details of the disputes? More beyond the mention of the fact the sources contradict each other, because the sources are biased and include the writer's own views of what might have happened; more beyond that the event is not mentioned in the pagan histories, and the discussion of the charioteer and whether racism against the Goths was part of the riot or not, the dispute over numbers, and whether Theodosius ordered it, and the disputed date which is mentioned in the last paragraph, just as the disputed law is? More than that? I am unsure what more that would be. All of that is already spread around in the article. I will try to make it all clearer in the lead which it seems is all you read. If that's all a reader reads, which is often the case, then it will not be clear, so I will fix the lead to better reflect these controversies. Otherwise I am at a loss. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Along these lines, I encountered a problem that none of the authorities writing about the massacre seem to have mentioned: Theodosius could not have had direct involvement in the massacre, due to slow communications of the time. Ferdinand Braudel's The Structure of Things has a set of very enlightening diagrams showing just how long it took news to reach Venice from various locations in Europe, before the start of the Industrial Age (pp. 426f). According to these diagrams, it routinely took news from the region around Thessalonica 4 weeks to reach Venice; one could conclude from this that it would take that long to reach Thedosius in Rome under normal circumstances. Excluding how long he & his court spent deliberating what should be done, any official response might have reached Thessalonica two months after the initial riot. We could argue that news reached Theodosius by the imperial post -- a relay of messengers on horse & by ship between Thessalonica & Rome -- which traveled an average of 5 miles an hour, 24 hours a day; the distance from Thessalonica to Dyrrhachum then Brundisium then Neapolis & at last to Rome is about 600 miles; so it would take 5 days for urgent news to reach Theodosius. Much quicker, but still an official response would come about 2 weeks after the original riot. Add to this the objections Doležal raises about Theodosius actually ordering a massacre of the city's inhabitants (pp. 99f), & it becomes doubtful that Theodosius did order a massacre. Which leads to a problem I'll bring up in a moment.

Well, it's a perfectly reasonable deduction, and if I can find a source that says what you have concluded, then I can add it, but otherwise it is original research, and I can't use it no matter how obvious it seems to you and I. I have already included Doležal's objections, along with the others, in the discussion of whether Theodosius ordered the massacre or not, and I agree, it is doubtful he ordered it. But that is already in the article too. Theodosius was not in Thessalonica when the massacre occurred, the court was in Milan, and it is unclear whether he ordered or simply permitted the massacre as a response.[1]:223 Historian G. W. Bowersock, Stephen N. Williams,[11] and his co-author Gerard Friell think that Theodosius ordered the massacre in an excess of "volcanic anger", "choler" and "wrath".[3]:95[12] Church historian Theodoret puts the number of dead at 7,000, saying:
   The anger of the Emperor rose to the highest pitch, and he gratified his vindictive desire for vengeance by unsheathing the sword most unjustly and tyrannically against all, slaying the innocent and guilty alike. It is said seven thousand perished without any forms of law, and without even having judicial sentence passed upon them; but that, like ears of wheat in the time of harvest, they were alike cut down.[13]

McLynn puts all the blame on the Emperor.[3]:103 However, "the reports of Rufinus, Sozomen and Theodoret are mutually exclusive",[3]:96 which has led other scholars to the opposite conclusion concerning Theodosius' anger. Historian N. Q. King says the Emperor may very well have been angry at first, but he would not have made a decision until his anger had passed and he was thinking clearly.[14] Doležal also argues for the unlikelihood of Theodosius ordering the massacre in a fit of rage. He references Peter Brown, who points to the empire's established process of decision making, which required the emperor "to listen to his ministers" before acting.[3]:95 In Doležal's view, Theodosius must have listened to advice from the counselors in Milan with him, but what advice he received is unclear.[3]:98

  Ambrose, Paulinus, Augustine and Theodoret, (but not Rufinus or Sozomen) either imply or openly declare that the Emperor was somehow misled or duped in his decision by his officials.[3]:95 Ambrose is quite enigmatic, speaking of the “deceit of others”, which caused the Emperor’s guilt (deflevit in ecclesia publice peccatum suum, quod ei aliorum fraude obrepserat), while Paulinus only mentions some “secret negotiations of the officers with the Emperor”, (with which Augustine concurs), adding that Theodosius was “compelled by the urgency of certain of his intimates” (tumultu quorundam, qui ei cohaerebant). Sozomen knows of no such involvement, and the church historian Rufinus blamed no persons either, but a “demon” instead (subreptione quadam daemonis).[3]:98

As I said above, this event played an important role in the relationship between Ambrose & Theodosius. This was quite clear to me when I read Paulinus' Vita of the life of St. Ambrose. It was clear from Edward Gibbons' Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire -- in chapter 27 Gibbon mentions the massacre in connection to the conflict between the bishop & emperor. It was clear when I read John Matthews, Western Aristocracies and Imperial Court, AD 364-425 (pp. 234-236), who includes it as an event in Ambrose's repeated manipulation of the emperor. And it was clear to me in reading Alan Cameron, The Last Pagans of Rome (pp. 80-82), where Cameron argues that Paulinus misrepresented his sources, & that instead of dominating the emperor, the bishop was offering him a means to save face over the garrison's massacre of the city's inhabitants. In short, the reason this massacre is not only important, but meets Wikipedia's notability standards, is because it was an event in the relationship between the two men. And therefore needs to appear in the lead.

I don't know that it is proven this event did in fact play an important role in the relationship between Ambrose and Theodosius. Paulinus was not an unbiased source, and as it says in the article about the histories of the period: they were written "to evoke appreciation for ecclesial action and imperial piety"; writings about Ambrose present him as an icon of the best of bishops. Paulinus used Ambrose's letters, and it is unclear how accurate Ambrose's personal view of his own importance in those events actually is. Gibbon is certainly not an unbiased authority either, and his interpretation of Ambrose in the worst light is just as questionable. It is not a sure thing either way, and all of this is already discussed in the article. I could copy paste the entire Aftermath section here, because all but one paragraph discusses this, but you could instead just read and evaluate it. Of course, I explained this previously when you mentioned Ambrose before, so if you find the discussion inadequate, please offer specifics that don't include something already in the article. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Which brings me back to the problem I mentioned in the paragraph before: why did Ambrose hold Theodosius responsible for something he apparently had little to do with? While Ambrose is frequently portrayed as manipulating Theodosius like a puppet, it would be hardly fair to hold him responsible for every botched response by an underling some distance from Rome. Did Theodosius decide to avenge a murdered general, as Gibbon & others argue? Or was Ambrose's role more of an advisor, suggesting a possible means to save face for a messy situation? (Doležal explains why this was a crisis for Theodosius.)

This is in the article. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
I've gone on at length about this article. The short version of my criticism is that while there are lots of facts from reliable sources (which I am confident are correct), there is no answer to the numerous whys of this subject. Why is this massacre notable? Why are the details disputed? How were Ambrose & Theodosius involved in this massacre? Why did Ambrose force Theodosius to do penance for this massacre? I'm not pushing my own opinions here about any of these questions, but as an informed reader, I would like to find these questions acknowledged & addressed. And I believe you have collected the material that would help you do that in this article. -- llywrch (talk) 06:40, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

llywrch Well, this is the most unusual review – peer, GA or FA – I have ever experienced. You have not gone on at length; indeed, there is no prose review, no source review, and the comments you do make lead me to think you have not read the article with an eye toward detail because you have asked for the inclusion of details that are already there.
As to the last comment: there is no answer to the numerous whys of this subject. I must say, that statement is correct - no one knows or can know the whys. Why did Ambrose force Theodosius to do penance for this massacre? Is this not enough of a discussion of something that will always have inadequate historical detail?   Mclynn says that in the aftermath of the massacre, “unable to impose discipline upon the faraway troops, [Theodosius] was compelled by the much-proclaimed myth of imperial omnipotence to accept [responsibility himself]. The best face he could put upon the situation was of a hasty order countermanded too late".[3]:103 Scholars such as Boniface Ramsey think these events occurred during a period when Ambrose was banned from Theodosius' presence.[16] As Ambrose himself says in letter 51, "I alone of all at your court have been stripped of the natural right of hearing, with the consequence that I have also been deprived of the power of speaking".[15]:262 Ambrose hadn't been there to offer counsel when the riot and massacre occurred. However, in the aftermath, Ambrose was informed of events, (probably secretly), and when he heard all that had happened at Thessalonica, he wrote Theodosius a private letter. In that letter, according to McLynn, Ambrose offered his emperor another way out, suggesting what Carole Hill describes as "a consciously planned publicity triumph".[15]:263
This still existing letter, according to McLynn, is "unusually" tactful for Ambrose, and it offers a way for the emperor to "save face" and restore his image. Ambrose tells Theodosius that he cannot give him communion while Theodosius is unrepentant for the massacre. Ambrose urges a semi-public penitence using the example of David and Uriah.[17]:12 Wolf Liebeschuetz says "Theodosius duly complied and came to church without his imperial robes, until Christmas, when Ambrose openly admitted him to communion".
Washburn says the image of the mitered prelate braced in the door of the cathedral in Milan blocking Theodosius from entering is a product of the imagination of Theodoret who wrote of the events of 390 (probably sometime between 449 and 455)[18] "using his own ideology to fill the gaps in the historical record".[1]:215 Peter Brown also says there was no dramatic encounter at the church door.[19]:111 McLynn states that "the encounter at the church door has long been known as a pious fiction".

Why are the details disputed? Because of the conflicts between the sources - which is explained in the article.
Why is this massacre notable? That is self explanatory, obvious and apparent: if it happened, it's obvious why that's important, and if it didn't, it is still notable that it went down in history as if it did. Besides, that discussion has no place in the article itself.
I will add to the lead to reflect more of a summary of the various disputes. Beyond that there is little here for me to respond to. I have waited a month only to be deeply disappointed. Your comments indicate you haven't read the entire article, which is just embarrassing for both of us. Please don't waste more of my time or yours by posting things that you would know if you read through the article, carefully, as a reviewer, with your questions in mind. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Then I'm sorry to have disappointed you. -- llywrch (talk) 05:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
llywrch  I doubt you are even half as sorry as I am. I have just wasted an hour posting repeats of the article itself here. I have adjusted the lead, beyond that, there was nothing here I could do a damn thing with. I don't need apologies. I need actionable suggestions, or a conclusion of your review. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:28, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Despite what you think, I have read the article, carefully & several times. Since you disagree with my comments, I suggest you seek a second opinion. That would be more productive of your time than arguing with me. -- llywrch (talk) 16:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
All right, llywrch I stand corrected, so now I am just confused. Your critique is broad. How are five paragraphs discussing Ambrose insufficient? That is a sincere question - what of the Ambrose debate remains uncovered? Paulinus and Gibbon can be added, but their views are already represented by more contemporary scholars, so wouldn't that add verbiage without value? What disputes are missed being discussed somewhere in the article? I added to the lead as you requested, so there is now a better summary up front, but I do not know of any other disputes beyond those already included. I don't mean to be argumentative, but I am at a loss as to what to do. I want to cooperate. I always cooperate with anything a reviewer asks. I just don't have a clue how to do what seems already done. Please help me to understand more concretely what it is you are looking for that isn't there. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
llywrch I have added more section titles in hopes of clarifying the discussion and also added Dolzáls review of the sources. Does any of this address your concerns? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


### Second opinion
Jenhawk777 and Llywrch: I'm glad to provide a second opinion, but before I do that I'd like to have a slightly better understanding of what's actually at issue here. The relevant criterion seems to be number 3a, which requires the article to cover "the main aspects of the topic". The footnote declares that comprehensiveness is not required and that articles that "do not cover every major fact or detail" are indeed permitted. From that perspective, I'm having a hard time parsing what main aspect the reviewer feels is being omitted. The article seems to cover the massacre and its consequences quite thoroughly, incorporating a wide variety of scholarly views on the subject. But the reviewer has looked at the research much more thoroughly than I have, and so I'd appreciate it if he could articulate a bit more clearly what major part of this event he feels is missing from the article. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Extraordinary Writ Thank you so much for showing up and doing this. I am more grateful than I can say. I agree with your assessment, but it does seem as though Llywrch and I are talking past each other. I have now added some to the source discussion, section titles that are hopefully more descriptive of content, and some to the lead. Perhaps these additions will help. I am trying. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
I've looked at the revised version, & it's clear there is a lack of understanding. Let me discuss the revised version to explain my point.First, the new section headers did help me to understand the article better. The subsections "Theodosius' accountability" & "Aftermath and Ambrose" cover those aspects of the event satisfactorily.Nevertheless, the subject of these sections -- how this event played a role in the relationship between Ambrose & Theodosius -- is not at all mentioned in the article lead. Without it, this article seems to be about some historical oddity of questionable notability. The discussion about the two men is buried in the body of the article.Were I to rewrite the opening paragraph, I would write somewhat as follows:The Massacre of Thessalonica was an action by imperial soldiers that ended an urban riot during the reign of Roman emperor Theodosius I. The details of this event are disputed by modern historians, but innocent Thessalonicans were amongst those killed. This massacre had an effect on the relationship between the emperor and Ambrose, bishop of Milan and later saint, and has been cited as an example of the bishop's influence on the emperor.FWIW, the second paragraph in the lead would better fit in the "Sources" section. If you wish to keep it.Next, I may an outlier with this opinion but I believe we need to use some thought & common sense in our selection of sources, be they primary or secondary sources. I mention this because there are some unintended contradictions in the material presented. Let me present two examples that jump out at me. One is the account of the massacre quoted from the Cambridge Ancient History. While the CAH has a lot more credibility than I do, familiarity with the primary sources would show it is clearly based on the account of Sozomen, who wrote 40-60 years after the event. (And about which Doležal has raised questions about its accuracy.) It is worth noting that the sources contemporary with the event have the least amount of detail, while the later versions are the most detailed. Understanding the primary sources -- even if not cited -- helps to better judge the secondary ones. So I don't know if I would cite the CAH here, but common sense dictates if it is cited, at least point out that it presents one version of the disputed facts. (Or maybe it should be kept since it may be the most familiar version of the event. And it could be argued Sozomen drew on oral tradition. If used, its use should be explicitly justified.)Another instance where common sense is needed is in Doležal's assertion, "None of the pagan historians of the period mention the Thessalonican massacre at all." Knowing a bit about this period of Roman history, I find it hard to list more than a few "pagan historians" who might have possibly mentioned this massacre. Only three come to mind: Ammianus Marcellinus, Zosimus, & Procopius. Now Marcellinus ended his historical account long before the date of the massacre, & likely even laid down his pen before then, so he can be excluded. While Procopius does mention events in the 4th century, his primary focus is on events during the 6th century; he may have known about it, but considered it irrelevant & excluded. This leaves Zosimus, another 6th century historian. So Doležal's number of "pagan historians" is one. He has engaged in  a bit of hand-waving here; it is the weakest of his arguments, & is best excluded. IMHO, it doesn't effect the plausibility of his argument the massacre was not historically significant. (For the record, there is at least one Christian historian who also omits any account of the massacre, the author of the Chronicon Pascale.)Does this better explain my points? -- llywrch (talk) 07:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
llywrch I have now changed the lead using as much of your wording as I know is supported by sources. The massacre did not end the riot, it followed after it, and the influence of the event on the relationship of the two men is not established, but with those two alterations, and the removal of the second paragraph, the lead is now yours.
I believe an evaluation of the CAH within the article would be out of place and lead down a rabbit hole of book reviews and discussion of quality standards that would have nothing to do with the massacre of Thessalonika. It would be the only contemporary source evaluated, and I have never seen such an evaluation in any article on WP. The fact the other two sources in the same section contradict the detail in the CAH does in fact point out that it presents one version of the disputed facts. I trust the reader to see the point without the need to hit them over the head with it.
I originally made the decision not to include all the detailed discussion of the primary source material – what is in each one, what isn't, how many pagan sources there would likely be, and so on – as irrelevant to a WP article. Our readers are likely to be sophomores who need a broad overview with enough detail to go look up elsewhere if they want or need to. Bogging this down with minutiae will not improve the article in my opinion. I feel strongly about this point, and it is what common sense tells me.
So as far as I can tell, your response here indicates there are no main points excluded, only different levels of detail desired. If you want to add more of those details, you are certainly welcome to do so as an editor, but I don't agree they are needed. The lead now includes a mention of Ambrose. Those are the only changes I see, and they are now  Done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 13:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Allow me to summarize my thoughts on the matter. There doesn't seem to be much of a dispute about criterion 3a, broadness. It does appear that the article discusses "all main aspects of the topic", including the facts of the massacre, Theodosius' role, Ambrose' response, and scholarly perspectives. While the desire for more concrete answers to the "whys" is certainly understandable, the article can only include what the sources will bear, and original research is of course proscribed. Since the article needn't be comprehensive, I would thus conclude that it passes 3a as written. There does appear to be a bit of a disagreement about the part of criterion 1b that pertains to the lead. Jenhawk777 has attempted to resolve the issue, although the lead's size shrunk to three sentences in the process. I'd recommend bulking up the lead a bit more, giving at least a sentence to each subsection. That being said, I'm reasonably confident that this can be resolved without my intervention. The main impasse would now appear to pertain to the due-weight portion of criterion 4. When the scholarly literature is so seriously divided, giving each source appropriate weight is difficult. I feel that the article doesn't rely too heavily on the CAH: it immediately explains why that account is "murky", and it thoroughly analyzes perspectives on the story's accuracy in the next section. The citation to the CAH is effectively a plot summary, giving the most common rendition of the story. The remainder of the article takes a much more critical look at that summary, explaining why many scholars doubt some or all of the details found therein. That seems to be a reasonable way of, to quote WP:GANOT, "provid[ing] the reader with information, allowing them to form their own conclusions." I'm therefore fairly confident that this article meets criterion 4, as well. I have not assessed any other criteria; there do appear to be some prose issues that will need to be resolved. I trust that the nominator and reviewer will be able to complete this review amicably, with helpings of WP:AGF on both sides. I hope my perspectives are helpful, and I'm glad to provide clarification or further assistance if it is needed. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
I believe Jenhawk777 might be happier if I withdraw from this review & find another person to take it over. -- llywrch (talk) 23:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

llywrch no, no, please, that is the exact opposite of what I have wanted all along. I want more not less. You cared enough to show up in the first place, and that matters to me. It's since then - when things have been hard for you at work in your RL - that I didn't hear from you for a whole month, and when you do show up it is - well - it is what it is. Surely you can understand my frustration. But I don't want you to go away - I want you to engage more not less - and if you are unable to do that, I just want you to be up front about that.
I do understand that this is a volunteer job that has to be a lower priority. I want what's good for this article, but I also want what's good for real people, and that includes you. I want the quality review it seemed you were ready to give when you started this, but I also want us both to be practical and have enough common sense to recognize if someone is overextended.
I am fully confident you are a great reviewer when you give it your full attention, and I am happy to continue with you if you think you can hang in there and do that here - give the article the GA review, according to the criteria, that it deserves - but I also understand if you need to let this go. You need to decide what is best for you.  Don't feel bound and trapped in this. The article will survive to be reviewed another day.  It's okay.  What I need, and what I want, is for you determine if you can be all in, or all out here. I need you to decide what you have time for and what you don't. You are the volunteer here. I will be happy with whatever you decide, I promise, but that decision can only come from you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Extraordinary Writ Your perspectives are helpful. They are focused, on point, concrete and workable, and I am deeply grateful for your participation and your input. I don't know what llywrch  will decide, but I do believe the right to decide is hers, not mine. I am grateful when anyone volunteers to help others like this, and both of you have my full esteem. I am rewriting the lead - and checking the prose - per your suggestions. The article will be better for your input. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
llywrch Please respond. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant to respond last night. I sincerely think that the best move would be for me to step away. I just think at this point trust has been broken & we not likely to be listening to each other; nothing productive will come of this. Please don't think I'm blaming anyone about this, & I wouldn't have suggested it had it not been for Extraordinary Writ being available to step in. In any case, about the only further substantive comment I have is to suggest another photo to go in the infobox at the top: at first glance the subject seems to be the modern apartment building behind the ruins of Galerius' palace. If there were photos of the remains of the hippodrome, one of those would be the best choice, but after looking thru Commons I could not find any. -- llywrch (talk) 04:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
llywrch All right, I don't much like it, but I said it was your choice to make, and I accept your decision. Extraordinary Writ you kindly showed up to offer a second opinion and have now been dumped into the fire. Are you available to do this? I understand it is more than you signed up for. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:44, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
That'll be fine, Jenhawk777, albeit a bit more than I was anticipating. To keep everything procedurally in order, I'll mark this review as failed; you can then renominate the article and I'll review it. (This is an approved procedure: see WT:Good article nominations/Archive 24#Change of reviewer.) Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 Extraordinary Writ Thank you, I appreciate that this is more than you anticipated, and I am overwhelmingly grateful for your willingness to take it on. I am not up on the proper procedure, plus I am not sure that I followed what is said in the reference you gave - credit? What is that about? How is marking it failed the best way to go? I thought there was a waiting period required between a failure and a new request, and worse, I thought there was a requirement that the article be substantially changed before it can be renominated - I am guessing I must have that wrong - could that be for FA instead? I tried to look up the rules for renomination and didn't get anywhere, I must not be looking under the right heading, so I remain totally clueless, feel like an idiot, and now I am worried as well. If I'm correct about these requirements, I don't see how this article will survive a failure because I don't see how it can be "substantially changed" and ever qualify for renomination. 
I will follow your lead and do what you say is best, of course, but I am now officially wringing my hands in distress. I've never had this happen to me before. I usually get a prose review, a source review, an image review, and I'm passed. I've never had a failure before. All part of experiencing the wonderful world of wiki huh? I'm sorry, I know I'm going a little crazy here, but I promise not to inflict it on you - well, after today anyway. :-)  Tell me what you need me to do and I will do it. How and when do I renominate and are there qualifications for renomination that I need to meet?  
Thank you again. I am totally turned upside down by this and can't tell you how much it means that you are providing a landing place. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Extraordinary Writ Okay, I nominated it again. It looks really weird to have the nomination and the failure together at the top of the page! :-) I am feeling completely cross-eyed by all of this but attempting to carry on, Captain!!  Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Massacre of Thessalonica/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Extraordinary Writ (talk · contribs) 22:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
I'll be glad to take this up; I should have comments in the relatively near future. While I'll consider the points made in the previous review, I'm not bound by them: all GA reviews begin on a clean slate. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I look forward to working with you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)


### Comments
The citation to Cotten (currently number 17 15) is a masters' thesis. Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, masters' theses "are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence"; this one doesn't appear to meet that standard. Since it's only used once, replacing it shouldn't be too great a challenge.
 Done
I'm not sure what citations 8 and 11 add - they don't support anything in the text, and there's really no need to give us the author's web page. Let me know if there's something I'm missing.
When I first started on Wikipedia a very dear and helpful friendly editor would repeatedly put a citation saying  next to my citations of people without WP pages telling who they were. He suggested I include some information on them to explain why they should be paid any attention to, so for awhile I added references for the scholars themselves. Wonderful and amazing buidhe has been gradually breaking me of the notion that this is a good idea. I forgot these were here. They are gone now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Looks like Buidhe kindly took care of this. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
I think we both tried to remove them at the same time - but whoo hoo!! buidhe showed up!!!  We are cookin' now!  Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
You have a link in-text to Stephen N. Williams, but I can't imagine that theologian wrote a book on Theodosius. Assuming our Williams is the same as this Williams, he should have been born in 1942, not '52.
You're right. Link removed.  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
I'll have more for you briefly. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:57, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Extraordinary Writ Thank you. This is wonderful. You rock. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Cameron, Averil; Garnsey, Peter, eds. (1928). The Cambridge Ancient History, Late empire, A.D. 337-425. Volume 13. Cambridge University Press. — This book has individual authors for chapters. You should indicate the author and chapter you are citing. (t · c) buidhe 04:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 05:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
And while you're at it, could you check the year? GBooks says 1928, but the copyright appears to be from '98 and the editors hadn't even been born in '28. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:49, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
1998 is correct. I'm so glad to see you! I know now that between the two of you, everything's going to be okay. We'll get it fixed up and runnin'! Bless you both! Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
It would probably be useful to provide a background section, telling the reader a bit about Theodosius, Ambrose, the previous interactions between the two, religion and politics in the fourth-century Roman Empire, and/or anything else that you might find relevant. Brown (p. 111 and whereabouts) has some useful information on that front.
I am working on that in my sandbox right now. I write 6 paragraphs, then delete down to one, so it takes me awhile, but I will get something that is appropriate to this topic and doesn't go - too far -- off into the weeds soon. I hope. I will.
In the paragraph beginning "Daniel Washburn writes", there seem to be some issues with the quotations. Washburn says "...intentionally or not, ended in a massacre", but you've changed it to "...intentionally or not, produced the 'massacre of Thessalonica'". Since you're quoting, stick with the original unless you want to modify it with brackets.
 Done I should never attempt to quote from memory... thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
The final sentence of that paragraph (beginning "While the precise date...") is a verbatim quote from Washburn, but it isn't in quotation marks. It might be better just to paraphrase - there's nothing special about the wording.
 Done
Is there a difference between citation 5 (Drake) and citation 8 (Biennial Conference)?
Oh no! Big oops!  Fixed Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:15, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm concerned about WP:OR in the template {{Campaignbox Fourth Century Roman Civil Wars}} since the article never states that this event was part of a civil war. If that can't be substantiated the event should be removed from the template, and the template should be removed from the article. (t · c) buidhe 08:51, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
It was in the article before my arrival and while I noted the problem, I didn't remove it immediately and then forgot about it, so thank you for reminding me. It's gone now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
In the sentence beginning One peculiarity of the story...: The citation is to page 95, which doesn't seem to back the sentence up. Page 100 seems to discuss it.
 Fixed
Theodosius' accountability: I'm not sure if "accountability" is quite the right word for that section since it talks mostly about the degree and motivation of his participation. Perhaps "Theodosius' role" would be a better summary?
 Done
Citation[s] are needed for the majority of the paragraph beginning Historian Daniel Washburn says.
 Done
Sentence beginning According to Washburn, Sozomen gives: You refer to Washburn, but the cite is to Doležal.
 Fixed
The explanatory footnote appears to be mostly verbatim from Doležal, but it's not marked as a quote. Again, a paraphrase would probably be preferable, and you might even consider bringing it up into the text.
First it was a quote; then I didn't like its prose so I changed some of it to read better and removed the quotes, but it is too close to the original not to quote, so now it is back as a quote with brackets for my additions. I like it being in the text. Good call.
De civitate Dei - Since the source also uses the English, you might as well make it easier on the reader and just write (and link) The City of God.
 Done
This article contains a lot of quotations. I certainly understand why: when scholars have such a diverse range of views, giving the various perspectives directly to the reader can be helpful. But we are a tertiary source, and MOS:QUOTE is clear about the dangers of over-quoting. I think it would improve the fluency of the article if you looked at each quotation and asked yourself whether a paraphrase would be just as good or better. If the wording is particularly useful, then by all means keep the quote. But there are plenty of places where it doesn't really add anything: e.g. The bishop of Cyrrhus, Theodoret.... If you wouldn't lose anything by summarizing, it's better to summarize.
You're right of course and buidhe will tell you she keeps trying to break me of my unnatural obsession with quotes, and I am trying to cut back, honestly I am, but I love them! I am addicted to quoting!! :-( I know you're right, really I do; it's a character flaw... I changed the bishop quote. :-) It looks so sad and bedraggled without the panache of a quote, but I will cope. I will change any you see fit. My problem is that whenever I remove one in one place, I tend to add one in another - I tell you it's a sickness!  I am a recovering quotation-aholic. Please be patient with me.
The usual prescription for treating quotaphiles (and victims of various other modern-writing ailments) is a perusal through this. Once you've read through it, you'll never even be tempted to quote again. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:23, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Okay, Extraordinary Writ, I am laughing out loud! What a terrible un-followable mess! There's no text to hold those quotes together and explain them! That is not at all like me, no sir, not at all.  I would never misuse quotes in such an abusive manner! Let me quote a doctor ... nevermind. ;-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:19, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
As you're going through the quotations, make sure that they're all attributed in-text. There are a few places (e.g. "The reports of Rufinus, Sozemen and Theodoret are mutually exclusive") where the text doesn't make clear whom you're quoting.
 Done
are generally believed to have occurred in April of 390. There doesn't seem to be a cite for this (the nearest one, Brown, doesn't discuss it). You say earlier in the article that general consensus places it in the spring or summer of 390 CE, so I'm curious about how broadly accepted the April date is.
Added some content on that.
As you probably can tell by now, my reviews proceed in no particular order. I appreciate your responsiveness to my suggestions, and I look forward to analyzing the article further in the coming days. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:23, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Darlin', Extraordinary Writ you write whatever you want, in whatever order you want.  This is wonderful. You and dear buidhe are the kinds of editors that make other editors better, and I can't tell you how much I admire and appreciate that. I am truly grateful. Thank you thank you thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:59, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
You're welcome! :) (t · c) buidhe 05:00, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
According to Doležal, the bishop of Cyrrhus, Theodoret wrote... - this makes it sound like Doležal is the bishop of Cyrrhus. You already explained who Theodoret was two sentences prior, so you can just remove the "bishop of Cyrrhus" clause.
 Done
The articles on Sozomen and Theodoret are each linked twice, and both in the same paragraph. (There's a wonderful script that detects these.)
 Done
Stanislav Doležal says these problems... - it's attributed in-text to Doležal but cited to Washburn.
 Done
I should have more for you soon. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:23, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you!  This is great!!!  Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:17, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

had gathered in the circus of their town - I'd link circus just to prevent any misapprehensions.
 Done
Paragraph beginning Doležal summarizes the disparity of views: You can probably dispense with the names, years, and page numbers of the works that Doležal is citing - just the author will be adequate.
 Fixed
The sentence beginning Paulinus, Ambrose personal secretary, is a bit long/clunky; the fluidity would likely benefit if you split it into two.
 Done
Ditto for the sentence beginning McLynn writes that the relationship.
 Done
Ditto for the sentence beginning John Moorhead says that Ambrose.
Rewrote that one because it wouldn't divide easily
And ditto for the sentence beginning Washburn says the image.
Sorry, missed this one earlier. I have semi-divided it - using a semi-colon - because otherwise it would require a repetition of the attribution and that would just be weird. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
In August of 390, Theodosius is alleged to have issued a law - this wording suggests that scholars dispute whether he issued the law at all. I think the "is alleged" is referring to the date; if so, you might try something along the lines of "Theodosius issued a law, allegedly in August of 390, ordering..."
The Thessalonian code was a collection of disparate laws, many of which had been issued by others at earlier times, so there is some dispute over whether it came from Theodosius or was a re-issue. I think the alleged represents what the sources say better than a conclusive 'Theodosius did it' does. If you feel strongly about it, I will look up more on this particular law and we can come to some kind of consensus on it. Otherwise, I request that we leave this one as it is.
That's fine. If the sources permit doing so, you might want to add a sentence about it. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
consensus agreement - redundant; pick one word or the other.
 DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 18:23, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Extraordinary Writ I have now added the historical background section you requested, though I feel I should apologize for adding more on top of what you have already done. I had a hard time not writing a whole history of the Roman empire! I finally focused on the two main characters and was able, then, to cull the rest. I hope you find it adequate. If not, tell me what else you think might be required, and I will do it. That cooperation is at least partly because I think you might be the best reviewer I have ever had. You're quick, thorough, focused, reasonable and pretty much always right on in your comments. Being on the receiving end of that is truly awesome. :-) Thank you again. Cheers back at ya'! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Why, thank you. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Sentence beginning He was a man who radiated strength - I would preface this with "According to Hebblewhite" or some equivalent. I realize that you just gave in-text attribution in the previous sentence, but I think it's important to make clear that this sentence isn't in wiki-voice.
 Done
Same thing for the sentence beginning He was accepting of different customs.
 Done
Neil B. McLynn, Fellow in Later Roman History... - your new background section already introduces him, so this subsequent reference can just read "McLynn".
 Done
Do you have access to Cambridge Core (either through TWL or otherwise)? If so, this book chapter might be valuable. (If you don't, WP:REREQ might be able to get it for you.) I can't see very much through GBooks, but it looks like it has quite a bit of interesting information, especially considering how recently it was published.
I will, but right now my browzer couldn't open that page and I have to go, but I will be back later tonight and check this.
I see we have an article on one of the paintings you use. Linking it in the caption might be useful.
 Done
Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Ditto! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Something is wrong with cite 23 (MacMullen) - it looks like some piece of template syntax is missing.
 Fixed
Any reason for keeping the two McLynn cites (3 and 14) separate? I see that they have different years and ISBNs, but they would appear to be the same book.
No, my bad.  Fixed
The quote beginning The people of Thessalonica revolted seems to deviate quite a bit from Washburn's text.
It was one of those that went from a quote to a paraphrase, then I decided it was too close a paraphrase and added the quotation marks back without checking word for word content.  My bad again!  Fixed
Since we seem to be getting toward the end of this review, I'd encourage you to go back and expand the lead a bit more. MOS:LEADLENGTH recommends "two or three paragraphs" for an article of this size, and you've added a good deal of content since you last worked on it. A decent guideline might be giving each section/sub-section two or three sentences in the lead. This allows for both thorough coverage and a leisurely pace in the article's most important part.
 Done I hope...
Also in the lead: the present wording "an action by imperial soldiers in Thessalonica taken against civilians" is a bit opaque. I'd recommend being  a bit clearer about what particularly is alleged to have happened. Then, of course, you can clarify the scholarly concerns with that narrative. (The body does this well, so it's just a question of doing it in the lead.)
See if you think it's any better now.
This article has seen lots of progress, and I anticipate being able to wrap the review up in the next few days. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

It has seen a lot of progress thanx to you. Stepping up like you have, giving this very excellent and obviously needed review, and your many valuable and on point comments have brought this article to another level. I am so grateful I could pop! You have been wonderful, this review has been excellent, and I hope we become the best of friends forever after! I want you to review everything I write from now on! I cannot say thank you enough. Is there such a thing as a review board?  Is there someone I can tell how great you are? I will if I can. You deserve it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:06, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
That's very kind of you to say. Your generous comments, as well as the knowledge that my review has improved the article, are a sufficient reward for me. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
The Gibbon factoid in the lead appears nowhere else in the article. Per MOS:LEAD, everything in the lead ought to appear in the body, so I'd either add it in (with a citation, of course) or remove it.
Moved him down to the body with the other naysayers. :-)
I'm not sure how much the paragraph beginning According to Henry Smith Williams adds. It doesn't really provide background since it speaks mostly to the effect of the massacre on Theodosius' reputation. Additionally, Williams is not a modern source, so his reliability is perhaps questionable. I'd recommend just axing that paragraph; the article wouldn't lose anything.
Well, I liked the symmetry with the paragraphs about Ambrose. Plus it indicates how important this event was in history and our understanding of the emperor. Instead of removing it, I added a sentence on modern scholarship. Would that be an acceptable compromise?
Hmmm. The background section is supposed to provide background, i.e. things that the reader needs to know before reading about the massacre. This paragraph would seem to belong in a sort of "legacy" section, i.e. discussing how the massacre made a difference in history and impacted our perceptions of Theodosius. If you want, you could certainly consider tacking on such a section at the end; you could also discuss there the impact on Ambrose' historical reputation and on church-state relations more broadly. But that's not really my concern: I just want to make sure that the background section is providing actual background, not conclusions. (Put another way, it doesn't make sense to talk about the massacre's effects before you've even told us what happened.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:11, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Extraordinary Writ Well I feel compelled to say that's a really good argument and I have to agree. Except now I have no idea of what history is actually pertinent to these events. It wasn't part of the Arian controversy. It had nothing to do with anti-paganism. It may have been about the Goths but probably not. It wasn't about the empire being in decline. Theodosius did sponsor a massacre once and he did offer clemency at two other points, do you think that qualifies? This seems like an isolated and unique incident, so I cannot see what history might have led up to this beyond the character of the men involved. Please help! Should I simply delete this stuff or move it to Aftermath maybe??? Yikes! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't have an issue with providing information to situate the event and its key players in their historical context, which I think is what is happening here. As long as the section is limited to things that happened before the massacre (which, with the exception of the Williams paragraph, it is), I think it's useful in providing a preface of sorts to the reader. The article could survive without it, but I think explaining 1) where the Roman Empire stood at that point in history, 2) who Theodosius was and what he had done previously, and 3) who Ambrose was and what he had done previously is valuable to the non-expert reader. So I'd say just cut the Williams paragraph (and, if you're so inclined, replace it with more info about Theodosius) and this section will be good to go. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Extraordinary Writ  Uh-oh!!!  I moved it to the bottom section!  It is now in two places in the article. I don't want to mess with reverts so if you would please, decide where you think it should go - or not - and remove at will! I will leave it to you. It's okay to remove it completely if it's off topic. It's kind of relevant to Ambrose' influence over Theodosius I think, but I thought you were right about it not being background.Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Sorry had to move this - wrong place! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right again and just the Williams paragraph should be moved or removed. Aaarrggh! As you wish. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
All right Extraordinary Writ. I can live with that. Poor Mr. Williams is non-compat. :-) Thank you for fixing that. SHEW! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
The in-text attributions for citation 20 vary: some of them attribute it to Hill and others to Liebeschuetz. From what I can tell, Liebeschuetz wrote the notes and Hill simply helped. If that's the case, I'd attribute the quotes solely to Liebeschuetz. (If that's right, just use control-f to find all references to "Carole Hill" and replace them with references to "Wolf Liebeschuetz".)
I think I used Carole Hill where she was referenced in other sources, but looking at this particular book, I think you're right that referencing it means using WL instead, so  Done
I'd say you could probably still expand the lead a bit more. You have three paragraphs, but they're all very short. I'd recommend bulking them up – say, to five or seven sentences each – so as to give a thorough summary (an oxymoron, I know) of the contents of the article. You have room to explain what Ambrose' role was, what Theodosius' role was, the circumstances of Butheric's death, and the intentionality (or not) of the massacre. Obviously, there's no clear consensus on any of these issues, but it's just fine to provide the most prevalent explanation with the caveat that it's not accepted universally. If there's no prevailing explanation, you can just say "Some scholars believe X, while others argue Y." The main idea is to ensure that the lead "gives the basics in a nutshell and cultivates interest in reading on" instead of just saying "It's all a mess and nobody agrees about anything." While the latter is probably true, that shouldn't stop you from giving the reader enough information to identify the main perspectives. Writing the lead is difficult! That's especially true when you're dealing with a situation in which scholarly opinions are so divided. Hopefully this is of value; I can try my hand at it too if that would be helpful.
Please feel free! I would love it if you would try your hand - that gives me the opportunity to revise you! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
We're almost there! Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Extraordinary Writ I took a stab at redoing the lead.  See what you think. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
I think that's a solid improvement. (I was also working on rewriting the lead, so I'll put what I came up with below in case it's useful to you.) I'll have some more comments for you briefly.
Well dang, now I like yours too - in some ways more than mine. Can we combine them? I will try in my sandbox and see what I can come up with. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
That would be great. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:55, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Extraordinary Writ Done. See what you think. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

With regard to your request above: I kept most of the relevant material in the original background section. I just think it makes more sense there; otherwise, we have to stop telling the story halfway through to introduce Ambrose and Theodosius. Of course, feel free to change that if you like. I just removed Williams because I couldn't find a logical place for it to go. As I said above, it would only really "fit" in some sort of "impact" or "legacy" section at the end. I would say just keep it out for now; that's probably the easiest thing to do. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:26, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Extraordinary Writ Thank you for fixing this! I accept your revision and like the result. I have nothing to add to the content. Mr.Williams can go take a nap. :-) I like what we've done. And all the sources are correct now thanx to you. I write in my sandbox, then copy paste and often end up with duplications. I need to get better. There's probably a quote I could use about that... :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:41, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
was a massacre of civilians by imperial troops under Theodosius I - to me, anyway, this reads as if Theodosius was actually there leading the troops. I don't have a firm opinion on how to resolve it: either reword the sentence or just remove Theodosius from it. I'd also mention in the first sentence that these are Roman imperial troops.
Hatnotes on historical background section: I'd make them both "see also", e.g. "see also: Theodosius the Great and Ambrose". Unless I'm missing something, there's no reason why Theodosius is the main article.
probably the local magister militum - since this is the lead, you might want to just say "garrison commander" or something like that. Per MOS:INTRO, technical terms should be avoided in the lead if possible.
I'll give the article a thorough read-through tonight or tomorrow, and then we should be ready to go. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Extraordinary Writ These are all  Done. I'm going to miss you when this is done. Can I come visit some time? Ask you for special favors and reviews and stuff? :-) As long as I promise not to quote anyone? Seriously, you have been incredible and done a great job and I thank you from the bottom of my heart - and the top and the sides and pretty much the whole darn thing. If you ever need anything, please ask. I will be glad to give back even a little of what you have given here. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
I appreciate that. Yes, you're always welcome to pay me a visit. I don't do a lot of formal content reviewing, but I'm glad to give articles a perusal on request. Of course, your quick responses and your hard work were also essential to improving this article, and I'm happy that you didn't give up after what must have been a difficult previous review. Wishing you the best in your future endeavors, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
For the reasons below, I'm prepared to pass this article. Here are a few additional non-GA suggestions that might be helpful if you choose to work on this article further:

Per MOS:CONTRACTIONS, no contractions.
Okay, I found four and fixed them. I read throiugh and also used control-F for every contraction I couod think of.  If I missed any - please just fix them! :-)  Done
Add MOS:ALTTEXT.
 Done
Make sure words are linked the first time they appear in the body and not at some later point. (For instance, Theodosius and Sozomen aren't linked until their second occurrence in the article. This is likely because this article has had, to say the least, a lot of reorganization.)
Theodosius is linked in the lead. Sozomen is fixed now - since his first mention got moved. I think I got them all. If I missed any, please follow request per contractions. Done
As is true for most articles, a copyedit from WP:GOCE/REQ would likely be useful in ironing out prose issues, inconsistent citations, MOS concerns, etc.
What?!? What prose issues do you refer to kind sir - besides your feelings about quotes? I thought we had all the citations ironed out - what remains? Plkease advise on any MOS issues. I know we are done now, but I am still eager to learn and improve - while not completely losing myself and becoming a robot - so I would be glad of any input you have. I probably will never do everything exactly as you would, but I would like to meet WP's requirements in my own way if that's at all possible.
That was more of a general statement that someone with copyediting expertise would likely find things that both of us have missed. It's nothing personal: just a recognition that additional perspectives improve everyone's writing quality. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
You rely pretty heavily on Washburn and particularly Doležal. While they're both great sources, the article would probably benefit if you were able to diversify the sourcing a bit.
The fact there are 27 sources is evidence of hours and hours of searching over weeks and even months. I never stopped looking even while we were doing this review. There are lots of books on Ambrose. There are lots on the fourth century and the emperors. But in those books, this event is often little more than a sentence or a footnote, and there is simply not a lot out there specifically on the massacre of Thessalonica. I was afraid someone would have a problem with how much Doleźal is used, but honestly, he was the best source and the source of half the other sources I found. The one you sent me on rhetoric referenced Sozomen mistakenly in one place when what he referred to was actually in Theodoret, which shook my faith in his scholarship, but honestly, he didn't say anything I didn't already have. I usually look at twice as many sources as I end up using, and this article was no exception. Much of what's out there is too old to use - like Williams - it's been OBE by now. If I run across anything, I will add it, but I won't be holding my breath on this one. It isn't laziness that produced a limited number of sources. That's the reality out there. It was frustrating, but there it is.
I certainly understand that. Of course, you shouldn't worry yourself too much about it: in this section, I'm just pointing out issues (or non-issues) that might come up in higher-level reviews. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
And yes, I'm sure there are still some quotes that could go.
Hah! You and buidhe! :-) I love using quotes, because they keep me grounded in what the scholars actually said, instead of my interpretation of what they said, which is always slightly different. I like that. I like the specificity a quote reflects. To me they are like using statistics. They reflect accuracy. There is great comfort in knowing that I am not getting the author's intent wrong or adding my personal views into the mix.
You guys can continue to work on paring me down! :-) I did cut out some and shorten others though, just because you asked, and I will acknowledge that is probably a good thing. There is no doubt your input improved this article, so perhaps with some perseverance you could manage to improve my writing as well. I love WP. I won writing awards all through college, but wiki is a world unto itself isn't it?  It isn't like any other type of writing I have ever done. So, don't give up on me. Keep trying. It may get through my. thick skull one of these days.
Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Again, I certainly understand that too. (Some people don't; see WT:MOS#Policy should be stricter.) But, to employ a quote, "Everything that exceeds the bounds of moderation has an unstable foundation." Even good things like quotes lose their valence when overused. There's certainly no easy answer, but it does seem important to emphasize that, as an encyclopedia, our job is to summarize the consensus, not to reprint the opinions. But I definitely agree that some carefully chosen quotes can clarify the issues at hand, as well as giving the reader a brief break from the dull prose that Wikipedia sometimes rewards. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Extraordinary Writ Thank you!!!!! I think these are all  Done now. Thank you for your skill, your focus, your perseverance, all of it. You have been wonderful - you did not just give me an easy pass, you gave a serious and careful review - you were prompt in your responses, always on point, and really just excellent in every way.  Please note I am saying this after you have already awarded the GA. :-) It is one of the best reviews I have ever had. I am genuinely and deeply grateful. I don't know what I - or this article - would have done if you hadn't shown up. Thank you again and again. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC)


### Review
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

As discussed below, I conclude that the article in its present form meets the good article criteria.
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
Each sentence's meaning is clear enough to be understood without difficulty. While there are plenty of wrinkles that could still be ironed out, the prose quality is good enough for GA purposes.
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 
All content is cited to reliable secondary sources. Primary sources are only used to supplement them.
C. It contains no original research: 
My spot checks of citations suggest that the content does indeed reflect what the cited sources say.
D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 
All quotations are marked as such, and I'm reasonably confident that there are not so many quotations as to constitute a copyvio. See WP:NFCCEG.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 
The article seems to do a pretty good job of addressing all of the questions that the sources raise.
B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 
A wide variety of perspectives are presented, and the article does not seem to elevate one over another. Since scholarly opinion is so divided, there aren't any due weight issues: the article permits the reader to decide which explanation (if any) is most persuasive.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
The first and third images, being centuries old, are obviously in the public domain, and copyright doesn't vest in photographs of two-dimensional public-domain works. The second image has a valid CC BY-SA 3.0 license.
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Thanks again for your great work on this article! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)