Talk:Christianity/Archive 32

message: Please do not use websites like those I removed from the article. Also, please be careful about the books used. May I ask why do you think "Chambers, Mortimer, Crew, Herlihy, Rabb, Woloch (1974). “5”, The Western Experience Volume II: The Early Modern Period, 1st, Alfred A. Knopf, Inc" is a reliable source? 
I am going to temporary delist this article from the good article status. --Aminz 11:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aminz, slow down, and do not remove references without brining it up here with reasons.  Going down this path will incur the wrath of Caesar. Lostcaesar 11:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you answer my question above please. Lostcaesar 11:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: They are not published by university presses on the basis of blind peer review by qualified scholars. Everybody can publish books. Even Spencer can do it. See this for more information about some particular publishers by Prof.Carl Ernst --Aminz 12:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have already linke to it and I have already have read it. Seems to me that the "distinguished" professor isn't that distinguished after all. That doesn't make Spencer better or worse, but your running roughshot here is unacceptable. Str1977 (smile back) 12:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: And note: it is not WP policy that only "university press" published books can be used here. Peer review is a good and important thing and it works via published reviews and not through restricting ourselves to certain publishing houses. Everyone can publish a book and these can in turn be used here. Str1977 (smile back) 12:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't speak for most of the references, but on the "Their Blood Cries Out" one (which I think I added) it doesn't matter whether their university level books or not, unless their claims are verifiably and notably controversial, I don't see why to doubt the reference. Homestarmy 12:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If a claim supported by an unreliable source is not controversial, we let the sentence remain in the article and add the "citation needed" tag to it. If a claim is controversial and supported by unreliable sources, we remove it per wikipedia policies. --Aminz 12:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, if a sentence has no or only insufficent references then we add the citation needed. Not simply because you deem the reference insufficent (on very questionable premises) ... and especially not if you removed the reference in the first place. Str1977 (smile back) 12:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, something might be clear to you, but not to me. There is no universal standards on that. If something is referenced to a junk website, it needs to be replaced with a good one. If the sentence is disputed it should be removed. --Aminz 13:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are "no universal standards" but your whim should decide? I don't understand. And these junk websites, as you prefer to label them, were nothing of the kind. Not that what they referenced was in any way controversial. Str1977 (smile back) 14:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: But it is reliable. There is nothing in policy raising the standard of all references to university level books. "We" certainly don't let the sentence remain and strike the reference, you might Aminz, but I won't. Homestarmy 12:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS#Using_online_and_self-published_sources. One can find all sorts of information in non-peer reviewed books. --Aminz 13:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The Western Experience, by Chambers et al., is a standard US undergraduate history textbook, as a quick web search will show. Tom Harrison Talk 13:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm having a hard time taking the idea that Marshall is a bad source seriously when we look at his bio here and the organization he works for.... http://www.freedomhouse.org/religion/about/staff.htm Homestarmy 13:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: To Homestarmy. I didn't say that Marshall is a bad source. I am saying that his work is not peer reviewed. There are lots of academic books on this topic which we can/should use. --Aminz 13:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: All those sources talk about the Edict of Milan, at least one or two sentences if not a lot. They are not directly relevant. I wanted to use them. It is apparently wonderful why are people bothered by having some academic references there even if not used. Strange. --Aminz 19:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Using some larger work which is only party relevant to this article is okay, if it is used as a reference for the detail in question (though I think we have already overdone the "who legalized Christianity when and where ... thanks to User:CodexSiniaticus), however it is not fitting for the "literature" section of the article, which is for books on the whole topic or at least some substantial chunk of it. Str1977 (smile back) 19:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Those sources might be useful in Edict of Milan, which looks like it needs some. If you add ten references for the edict of Milan, how many will we need for Diet of Worms, Salvation, Irresistible grace, Baptism of Kievan Rus', or any of dozens of other topics? It is natural, I guess, to think the things we know most about are of primary importance, and to want to put everything in the top-level article, but it is not practical. (I appreciate that Aminz is not trying to add something to the first line of the introduction.) But this page covers 2000 years of complex history, and dozens of different cultures. It must necessarily over-simplify. That is why we point readers to other articles, and to further reading. This is just Christianity, not History of Christianity, Early Christianity, Persecution of Christians, or Christianity and world religions. It is certainly not Dhimmi, or Historical persecution by Muslims. Tom Harrison Talk 20:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The reason I added those sources was that I was in the middle of rewriting the whole section. I gathered those pieces of information from those sources but didn't have time to put them together. As I am not going to do this anymore, it is okay with me to have those sources removed. Again, I think no reader really reads the source section. It is just a reference to the books used. But it is okay to remove them as they are no longer useful. --Aminz 20:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: I have to say, this section has become very corrupted.  Let me just point to some problems.  It has no citations.  It introduces denominationalism, which is totally anachronistic in this passage, and it a ecclesiological pov that should be stricken from the section.  The inquisition and witch hunts are complex events over generalized here.  There is a difference between a mob sweeping through the streets, a government backed suppression of heresy, and a legal trial for someone accused of a crime.  It is not much of a model to work with.  I will try and work a temporary fix to at least remove the over generalities and anachronisms to some extent. Lostcaesar 14:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Str seems to disagree with your change :/. Homestarmy 14:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "dissenting denominations" bit was supposed to cover both supression/persecution of heresies (and alleged ones, see Constantius) as well of the later denominations (that are basically successfull heresies) - the heresy bit got dropped somewhere, probably because of NPOV concerns. I will see what LC is coming up with and get back to this later. But I am hopeful. Str1977 (smile back) 14:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Guys let me say that I did not mean to step into anything controversial here, and I think, considering the matter above, that further controversies should be avoided.  I though that this section would soon get more attention (as per discussion above), and I wanted to help a little in some preparatory work.  My point is that denominationalsim does not really describe either the persecutions of antiquity, or the wars which took on religious overtones such as the Schmalkaldic League wars, since none of these groups saw themselves as denominations or understood Christianity in denominationalist terms.  But if this is going to be controversial I will step back and bring all this up at a time when we can focus energy there.  Sorry if this has been a problem.  Lostcaesar 14:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to worry, LC. The one bit I would (and did) restore was the "denominational" in strife, as it pertains to that later historical period where we can safely speak of "denominations" and it was the conflict between them, apart of course from ulterior motives, that lead to wars. Str1977 (smile back) 16:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persecution by Christians