Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State church of the Roman Empire - Wikipedia


Article Images
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Consensus here to proceed in any one direction seems unclear to me, but further discussion of merging and such is highly encouraged on the article's talk page. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

State church of the Roman Empire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This history article has only been in existence for 10 days but has been queried by several experienced editors from the start. The title has already been changed from the original Roman imperial church. The subject is supposed to cover the church, both Latin and Greek, from the time of Constantine I in the early 300s AD to some unclear ending point, perhaps in the 9th century, perhaps in the 11th [now clarified below; it runs to 1453!] - several centuries after the end of the Roman Empire as it is normally defined anyway. The article is, given the enormous topic it has set itself, extremely brief, and pretty random in what is given a section and what is not. There is no discernable emphasis on the relationship between church and state. The sourcing is poor; of the 28 citations, 8 are over a century old, which really should not be necessary in this very well-covered area - the rest seem pretty random, with few works used more than once. The article has a noticeable POV, which might not be a insuperable problem if it filled an actual gap. But in fact this area is already very well-covered, perhaps too well, with a number of far better articles including: Constantine I and Christianity, Roman church under Constantine I, Constantinian shift, Caesaropapism, History of late ancient Christianity, History of medieval Christianity and Christianity in the 6th century, Christianity in the 7th century, Christianity in the 8th century, Byzantine Papacy, Byzantine Iconoclasm, and many others, hardly any of which are even linked here. The article amounts to a POV fork of several of these, and should be merged as appropriate to them, although to be frank I don't think much will need adding. It is founded on a premise, which few if any historians would accept (in relation to the end of the period at least), that the church in this period (whatever period it finally decides it is talking about) was so different from what went before and what came after that it was a different church. However most of the article consists of very broad sections on the rise of Islam, Charlemagne, Church councils etc, some of which seem to include unattributed copying from other WP articles. The creator has not been very responsive to the many people on the talk page - at least he responds, but does not accept any criticism of the main concept. Johnbod (talk) 23:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands, one editor had suggested deletion but withdrew that opinion after the name change. Of all the editors who have particated in any way, only two editors, Rflammang (7 edits until Jul 9) and Johnbod, maintain their desire for deletion on the talk page. I note that the latter having resorted first to exclamations used in anger,[1] then made accusations of bad faith and threatened [2] an AfD if he couldn't get anywhere by mere discussion.
The editors who oppose deletion form no block and have expressed disagreement with each other on several issues
There is, so far as I know, no article which deals with the state church of the Roman Empire as a state church which existed as a unified entity from the Edict of Thessalonica until the political split formalized under Charlemagne and the formal split in the Church with the mutual excommunication of 1054. During that time there was one church of the empire and no one has shown that any other article deals with this time.
The objections above are irrelevant to the validity of the article as a defined, unique, and notable topic.
The fact that eight sources out of 28 in a topic 2,000 years old are themselves over 100 years old implies what?
Or that the topic supposedly has vague beginning and end points implies what? (Given our evolutionary continuity, should we therefore merge the article Human into Fish)?)
The article deals with the established church of the Roman empire from its origins, at a time when it was neither Roman Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox, but simply that church which had been established by Rome, until the schism of the state was reflected in the schism of the church. The fact of the establishment at Chalcedon and the schism in 1054 is not disputed. The fact that the church during some or all of that period has been called the imperial church by notable works is not disputed. The fact that different dates 311, 380, 476, 800, 1054, 1453, with different significances are mentioned hardly proves that no state church of the Roman empire existed or can be usefully and meaningfully treated.
Johnbod lists a dozen articles which he says partially overlap this one in some way. Is any of them even close to this one in focus and extent?
And how is the fact that Johnbod, as he himself says above, doesn't approve of the way Mcorazao responds to his complaints, reason that the article be deleted?
If there are valid complaints of incivility let them be made.
If it is believed that items need to be better supported, why have they not been challenged with a fact tag?
There have been threats on the talk page that this article would be subject to an AfD if a certain editor were not taken seriously. Where was the good faith effort of that editor to tag the article for citations, to note any specific sentence of it as biased, or in any way to address the issues which he intuited but did not communicate concretely to those actually working on the article?
And this constant assertion of a POV is absurd.
If there is a POV then can someone please say what it actually is?
I myself came across the article as listed in the DYK nominations and was extremely skeptical. (Mcorazao and I do not agree on everything, and there is a current dispute between him and me on the focus of the lead section.) Yet I read the article and found it well written, and with no trace of Catholic or Orthodox or Secular bias. (I am the atheist child of a mixed Roman/Orthodox marriage.) My only substantive objection was the name (Roman Imperial Church), which, since it was capitalized, seemed to imply that there was a church called the "Roman Imperial Church." (FYI, as it is alternately defined by scholars (whether from Constantine I (313) to Charlemagne (800) or from the Edict of Chalcedon (380) to the Great Schism (1054) or otherwise) the actual term "imperial church" gets 12,100 hits on Google Books, 2.230 of them as titles of books.) The author graciously accepted the argument that State church of the Roman Empire, if less concise, was accurate to the subject being covered and less subject to being misinterpreted. The fact that the title was changed in light of consensus is a credit to the article, not a strike against it. One cannot exactly improve the name of an undefined topic which does not exist.
To summarize the standing objections:
  • We have the complaint that the article is not yet perfect offered as a reason why it should not be perfected.
  • We have the complaint that it apparently needs more references, even though no fact tags have been added, or time been allowed for the research.
  • We have the complaint that since an 25,000 character article (which happens to be only on the state church as a state church) is not "comprehensive" no time should be given for work on it.
  • We have queries by established editors like myself or Esoglou offered as reason for deletion when those objections were debated, addressed and acted upon, as if consensus seeking were a bad thing.
  • We have editors who express their resentment at lack of attention from other editors as a reason for the deletion of an article.
  • We have no plausible claim that the subject is not notable.
  • We have no article shown to cover this same subject with this same focus.
  • We have the assertion that a name change reached by consensus amounts as a strike against the article rather than an implicit endorsement of the fact there is some reality which the article singles out and addresses.
  • We have absolutely undefined and unsupported accusations of of POV.
What we have is a whole mess of unanswerable personal feelings, arbitrary assertions, and simple non-sequiturs. The complainants should either work within the article toward identifying actual specific definable flaws, and areas of improvement as they see them, or, if they find themselves incapable of this, they should apply their efforts elsewhere.μηδείς (talk) 05:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion.μηδείς (talk) 05:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The POV is clearly a Evangelical Protestant one (or for all I know Anabaptist, LDS etc), which I note you exclude from your list! With very eccentric historical thinking thrown in. The claim that the "state church" was a new foundation, rather than a continuation of an already somewhat hierarchical organization, is one sign of this - "This 4th century form of Christianity was one among several descended from the earlier Christian fellowships that had existed since the foundation of the Christian religion" is one dog-whistle here. The same is true at the other end of the time-frame. You talk about focus, but the article doesn't have one at all; it ignores all the main aspects of the relationship between church and state, as has been pointed out several times. I don't say the subject, properly defined as covering a far shorter period, is not notable. It is, and we have several articles that cover it far better; the more the article is improved, the more it becomes a POV fork. I said on the talk page that the change of name was an improvement, mainly in the hope that this would focus the subject, but this has not happened. The name is mentioned merely for those who might not have seen the new name. These unfounded personal attacks do not help your case! Johnbod (talk) 11:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also believe that the claim "This 4th century form of Christianity was one among several descended from the earlier Christian fellowships that had existed since the foundation of the Christian religion." is subjective point of view, and should be removed from the article, but this still doesn't look like a reason to delete the article. Cody7777777 (talk) 14:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral (while awaiting discussion here and possible improvement of the article). Delete, on the basis of the discussion below.
At an earlier stage I wrote as follows. Take: "The state church would refer to itself by many names during its history, notably the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, a designation disputed by other Christian communions". This suggests that this "state church" considered that others were not the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The initiator of the article distinguishes what he calls the church as a spiritual body exceeding the limits of the state from the "state church", which for him is an "organizational body" that was "integrated" with the state. Did that "organizational body" consider that it alone was the one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church? When Theodosius I founded, as the article seems to say, this "organizational body", did it consider that the church outside the frontiers of the empire (e.g. in Ethiopia) was not the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church? At a later stage, did it consider that the church in e.g. Ireland was not the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church? If the article is to be kept, it should, I think, present the "organizational body" almost entirely in terms of its relations with the state into which it was "integrated", and should not deal with it in itself, as if it were an essentially distinct church. What it should deal with is the "integration" that is supposed to define the "organizational body": how the "organizational body" saw its relations with the emperors and how the emperors saw their relations with the "organizational body"; the actions that the emperors took in relation to the "organizational body", calling councils or issuing personal decrees with the aim of imposing articles of faith, Arian or Nicaean, professing one nature of Christ or two, one will or two, outlawing icons or approving them, etc. (I also see much merit in Rwflammang's merge proposal.) Esoglou (talk) 10:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wrt to the questions on "One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church" there is a valid question here (though not really relevant to the Afd but I'll respond briefly). The Roman church (and the Roman state) attempted to exert influence outside the Empire by having a concept of a "church" that extended beyond the Empire. In a general sense the emperors kept their relationship to the church a little ambiguous just for that reason. There was a distinction, however, in the dioceses the emperor had the authority to manipulate directly (those within the empire) and those which he did not. The reason I only mention those other names but did not attempt to name the article using these is because they do not uniquely identify the topic. --Mcorazao (talk) 17:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I agree that the article currently focuses a lot on external factors as opposed to internal factors (the "organizational body"). I have not claimed that the article is complete. I focused more on the external factors initially since I felt one of the most important factors in defining and clarifying the topic was to distinguish it from related topics (which is why I talked a lot about the schisms). More content on the internal workings of the church needs to be added. --Mcorazao (talk) 17:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As indicated above, I have come down on the side of Delete.
The article also suggests that the papacy kept alive the ideal of a state church of the Roman Empire, at a time when the papacy could be seen as insisting instead on the idea of a universal church not limited to any one empire, kingdom or state. Esoglou (talk) 11:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct that the papacy began insisting on the idea of controlling all of the "universal church", but in that case we can just remove the claims that the the papacy kept alive the ideal of being part of the imperial church. I do not think this a reason to delete the entire article. (But, it should be noted that papacy later (when it was independent from the empire) did wanted the Empire to adopt "Roman Catholicism" as its state religion.) Cody7777777 (talk) 11:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP THE ARTICLE. There are enough sources, which speak about a state church of the Roman Empire (or of an "Imperial Roman church"). But, the title of this article is mainly a descriptive title, the purpose of this article is to discuss about the state church of the Roman Empire (which refers to the Church supported by the Roman Emperors, and they didn't always supported the same Church, the state church had changed its doctrine several times, most of the time it was orthodox/catholic, but other times it was arianist, monophysite/miaphysiste, monothelite, iconoclast, etc). And we do not have another article about this (entire) topic, the articles mentioned above, do not cover the entire subject of this article, in fact some information from those articles could be added in this article (but not the other way around), and I have to say that I do not see any POV fork here. And there is also no problem if this article ends in the 9th or 11th century, and in my opinion it should actually end in the 15th century. (A simple "google books" search can produce many significant results claiming that the Roman Empire ended in 1453. The date 476 is usually considered the end of the Western Roman Empire or of Ancient Rome, but I do not think there is any historian who would explicitly claim that the entire Roman Empire, or the state church of the Roman Empire, had collapsed on that year. I do not have any problem mentioning that date in the article, but there would be no sense discussing only the period from 380 to 476, it would be too short, and also subjective point of view, since a neutral article needs to neutrally represent all points of view, but these issues can be discussed on the article's talk page.) Cody7777777 (talk) 10:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You will find all the sources refer exclusively to the period from Constantine to 500 at best. To carry on to 700, and even beyond, under this title is not supported by sources at all, let alone the 15th century. Plus the article would then be a needless fork of even more articles, several of far higher quality. Johnbod (talk) 11:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While there are sources which speak about the establishment of a state church after 380, I have to say that I have not seen the sources which make the explicit claim that the "state church of the Roman Empire" ended in the year 476, 500 or 700 (or that the "Roman Empire" no longer had a state church after these dates, and in the "Google Books" search, I had also seen the following claim "The imperial Roman church survived in the Byzantine empire until the latter's fall in 1453"). But, this title is actually a descriptive term (not a proper name), it is about the state church of the "Roman Empire" (which accroding to a significant number of sources ended in 1453), it is not about some institution officially named "state church of the Roman Empire". (If you think the article title is incorrect for its purpose, we can discuss another one, and I would actually have preferred "Imperial Roman state church", although, I do not really have any problem with the current article title. However, in my opinion, this is still not a reason to delete the article, and renaming the article can be discussed on its talk page.) Cody7777777 (talk) 14:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am skeptical about the subject the article purports to cover, and as it now does not even cover that topic I believe it should be deleted. The only way in which the idea of a "state church" has a meaningful distinction from "Catholic Church" is in the relationship of that entity to the Roman state. Even were this article about that topic (which it is not), I would still be sympathetic to arguments for deletion. I see that while many sources refer to a notional state church, from my searches I see that no serious historian has actually written a book on that topic. Furthermore, whatever the Roman Catholic Church has been over the centuries, including briefly the state church of the Western Roman Empire, it makes no sense to me to devote an article to every possible model of it, and to then extend that model to an unreasonable degree--beyond the bounds of the political situation which gave it any meaning at all--in an attempt to have matter to fill out an article makes even less sense. Revcasy (talk) 12:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a minor note, this article is not meant to discuss about the "Roman Catholic Church" in the "Western Roman Empire", the article is meant to discuss about the state church of the (entire) "Roman Empire" (both western and eastern). Cody7777777 (talk) 14:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So it is about the Eastern Orthodox Church? Are you saying that the Western Empire did not cease to exist until 1100? If you mean the church as it existed under the united empire then the article should end in 476, or perhaps before that, since the separation between eastern and western empires (with some brief periods of union) pre-dates the Edict of Thessalonica, as does the divergence of the eastern and western churches. If there was not one empire, how can it be the church of the entire empire (a non-existent entity)? On the other hand, if you mean the Eastern Empire, how can you be talking about the Catholic Church? How can Roman Christianity be said to be the state religion of a state that had to re-conquer all of Italy, and Rome itself (not once but twice) under Justinian I in the 6th century? When Italy was finally re-conquered it had been out of the hands of any empire for almost 200 years, and Rome did not stay Byzantine for long, certainly not until 1100. There were essentially two separate churches and two separate empires before this article even begins, and they remained essentially separate throughout their history. The so-called Great Schism was a long overdue acknowledgment of a fait accompli, the last in a long series of poor relations between the separate ecclesiastical bodies. Revcasy (talk) 15:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not claiming that the Western Roman Empire ended in 1100 (I'm sorry if I gave that impression), in the 5th century only a half of the Roman Empire fell, not the entire Roman Empire, (the Roman Empire fell when both halves were gone, and there are a significant number of sources which claim that the Roman Empire fell in 1453, and NPOV requires us to mention all points of view in a neutral way, and we cannot claim that only the Romans from Italy were the only true Romans, the people living in the east also considered themselves "Romans", and although it is off-topic, I would also add that "in the Middle East even today Greek Orthodox are usually referred to as Rum (or Roman) Orthodox."). (Regarding, the date 476, I should also mention here, that it is somewhat contested by some historians, for example the historian John Bagnall Bury even claimed that "No Empire fell in 476", but of course, the article should also mention about 476, but it should not end there.) And this article does not refer only to the "Eastern Orthodox Church" or the "Roman Catholic Church", it refers to the Churches which were at various times the state (or official) church of the Roman Empire, most of the time this was the undivided Catholic/Orthodox Church, but there were times when the state/official church was following Arianism, Miaphysitism, Monothelitism or Iconoclasm (and even persecuted the catholic/orthodox christians), it largely depended on who the Emperors supported. Cody7777777 (talk) 15:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So perhaps the article should be titled "State churches of the Roman Empire". Then the problems are condensed to two: 1)is the article really about what it claims to be about? and 2)should it not be two separate articles? I am familiar with the history of the Roman Empire, and the History of the Byzantine Empire. I know that the Byzantines called themselves Roman, though they spoke Greek throughout most of their history and by the end more resembled a Turkish city-state than a Roman empire. If the article is about various churches, why does it end with the Great Schism, when it could go on to 1453, as you say? I do not agree that most of the time the state Church of Byzantium was the undivided Catholic or Orthodox church. The eastern and western churches were separate long before 1054. If not, why was Rome not appointing the patriarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria, as it appointed bishops of various other sees throughout the west? Why were they even called patriarchs rather than bishops? Why did western churches speak Latin, while the eastern ones continued to speak Greek? The easy and obvious answer is that they were separate institutions. Even the Edict of Thessalonica itself can be seen as a failed attempt by an increasingly divided Empire to bring the eastern church in line with Roman or (more appropriately) Nicene orthodoxy. Revcasy (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As also said somewhere else earlier, the article does not yet cover all it should, but please note that it is still under construction, however this is not a reason for deletion, in fact it is more a reason to keep the article, so that it should be improved. I'm not sure if it is necessary, but I would like to emphasize that the concept of "state church" is more similar to "state religion" (and since we're talking about a christian "state religion", we use the term "state church"), it does not necessarily refer to a single specific Church (regardless, which Church it is). I realize I wasn't clear in the above post, the official christian religion (or "state church") of the Roman Empire after 380, most of the time could be said to have been Nicene and (after 451) Chalcedonian Christianity, but there were times when the official christian religion (or "state church") was Miaphysitism (anti-chalcedonian), Monothelitism, or Iconoclasm. And it would not be useful to split the article at the end of the 5th century, since the religious events regarding these periods are linked, for example the decisions taken at the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451 influenced the decisions taken at the Ecumenical Councils of Constantinople in 553 and 681. Also, after Chalcedon, the concept of the Pentarchy (the five Patriarchates, (Elder) Rome, Constantinople/New Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem) became more clearer, and all the patriarchates that followed Chalcedonian Christianity considered themselves to be part of the same Church (even if they were distinct/separate entities). Initially all of these patriarchates where within the Roman Empire, but during the 7th century the Empire lost Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria, and later in 8th century, because of the iconoclast policy initiated by the Emperor Leo III the Isaurian, the Pope Gregory II revolted against the Empire (when the Emperor unsuccessfully attempted to impose iconoclasm on Rome), from that point Church of (Elder) Rome became independent from the Empire (and then the Emperor transferred Illyricum (along with Macedonia and Greece), southern Italy and Sicily to the jurisdiction of Constantinople/"New Rome"), from that moment only the patriarchate of Constantinople remained under imperial control (sometimes, they temporarily re-established imperial control on Antioch), but (Elder) Rome continued to remain independent even after the Seventh Ecumenical Council of Nicaea (787) (when iconoclasm was condemned). Chalcedonian Christianity became definetly splited in the 11th century, into what would become known as the "Roman Catholic Church" and the "Eastern Orthodox Church", and after that point, the Empire usually supported "Eastern Orthodox" Chalcedonian Christianity as its "state church" (or official christian religion), however there were some periods, after the councils of Lyons (1274) and Florence (1439) when the emperors tried to impose "Roman Catholic" Chalcedonian Christianity as the "state church" (or official christian religion) of the empire (so they could receive military aid from the west), and it was also the last "state church" of the empire, and the Patriarchate of Constantinople officially rejected the "union" of Florence after the Eastern Roman Empire fell to the Ottoman Turks. (However, the reasons to continue the article until the 15th century are simple, because there are sources which claim that the final end of the Roman Empire was in 1453.) Cody7777777 (talk) 13:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To respond to the earlier statement, trying to discuss the "Roman Catholic Church" (in the modern sense) during antiquity or the Middle Ages is blantantly biased. It is fine to talk about the viewpoint of the modern institution in the Roman Catholic Church article (as that institutions viewpoint) but there is no consensus viewpoint among historians that supports the notion that the modern institution existed as a distinct entity at that time (other than the fact that the see of Rome by itself was a distinct entity). Similarly, though there is merit in talking about splits in the state that start back in the 4th century, people still saw the Empire as one even when it was administered separately. And that was not simply theoretical. The diocese of Rome for its part ruled many parts of the East long after the 5th century. It was not until the 8th century that Rome was recognized as officially severed from Constantinople. It is certainly valid to discuss the fact that Rome and the rest of the empire and the Church were gradually separating from the 5th century onward but to say that 5th century marked the end of any connection of Rome to Constantinople is fabrication. --Mcorazao (talk) 16:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, the 5th century did not mark the end of any connection between Rome and Constantinople. The two churches continued to have tumultuous relations right up to the Great Schism. The fact of their relations does not however make them a single entity. Yes Rome claimed authority over some eastern diocese (and as an official policy over the entire eastern church), in some cases it even exercised that authority. This still does not make the eastern and western churches one entity. I never claimed that the Catholic church of the middle ages or antiquity was the same as the modern Catholic church, obviously a thousand or two years, give or take a few hundred changes any institution, so I am not "blatantly biased" so much as I am being argued against with blatant straw men. Revcasy (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, first, it is correct to characterize that the Edict of Thessalonica as one of the failed attempts to unite the Empire. That was very much part of the intent and it certainly did not succeed as planned (which is the point that I made to some others who claim there was one single united Christian body). Nevertheless that Edict did have an effect even if not as far reaching as its intent. Second, the article does not "end" with the Great Schism. The topic ends somewhere between the fourth crusade and the last fall of Constantinople depending on your prespective (1453 is a conventional date but that was only when Constantinople became Muslim). There was some debate on what periods the article should cover in detail but that is a separate issue.
Regardless, "State churches of the Roman Empire" is not an improper statement but that is like saying the article Catholic Church should be renamed Catholic Churches because there are distinct governing bodies for the individual dioceses and congregations. That may all be true but the point of the article is to discuss the topic as a whole, not as a set of parts.
I think a lot of what you are wrestling with is a lack of historical knowledge about the Empire. Some of what you are stating is Renaissance propaganda that modern scholars have discredited. There is some truth in the East/West distinctions you are making but the conclusions you are reaching reflect the propaganda and not the scholarship. --Mcorazao (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that I lack knowledge is an ad hominem attack. I take offense at the implication of ignorance, and will not let it pass without comment. In fact, not only is it ad hominem, it also reeks of argument from authority (your own). What precisely about what I said is "propaganda" (a loaded word)? Which scholars have discredited what I am saying? Argue against my arguments, cease the ad hominem, and reply with specifics backed up by sources. Only those who cannot win with facts resort to such tactics. Also, I realize that I am correct about Thessalonica, I do not need you to validate my correct statements. You will be doing well if you can invalidate my incorrect ones (particularly since there were not any). Revcasy (talk) 21:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh ... you took what I said in a way I didn't intend. In any event I did not accuse you of trying to promote propaganda. Since you seem to have crossed the point where you cannot take what I am saying in the way I intend it I think continuing this thread is not useful to either of us. Sorry I offended you. --Mcorazao (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Byzantine Papacy looks like what this article should be. It actually has information on Church-state relations. It covers a precisely defined era. This article, by comparison, is a mess. In significant parts it deviates in an ahistorical (and arguably POV) manner from what the sources actually say. It suffers from a severe lack of a well-defined scope. And it suffers, per Revcasy, from a lack of certainty whether its subject even existed in the way the article asserts. Huon (talk) 13:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Byzantine Papacy would refer only to the relation of the Eastern Roman Emperor with the Pope of Rome, but this article is meant to include the relations of the (Eastern/Western) Roman Emperor relation with all the Patriarchs (Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem). Cody7777777 (talk) 14:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are two problems with this interpretation: One, that's not at all what the article currently covers, and if it's supposed to cover that topic, we'd need a rewrite so extensive that deleting it and starting again from scratch seems easier. Two, I doubt whether such a wide scope is useful. The relations between the Byzantine Emperor and the Patriarch of Constantinople and those between the Western Roman Emperors and the Popes (and those between the Pope and Charlemagne, which the article currently also briefly mentions) are almost unrelated topics. Huon (talk) 15:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that the article does not cover yet all of its purpose (and please note, that it is still under construction), but in my opinion, keeping the article can help encourage more improvements (after all, wiki articles are never really finished, and they are being written every day). The article is also meant to discuss about the roles the Emperors had in calling ecumenical councils (and the reasons they called these councils), and also how (and why) some of them imposed their "heresies" (Arianism, Miaphysitism, Monothelitism, Iconoclasm, etc) as the state church of the empire, the reasons behind their choices (which did not had always just religious implications, but also had political ones, for example imperial support for miaphysitism or monothelitism were attempts to prevent Syria and Egypt from rebelling (since, they were prosperous provinces), iconoclasm was an attempt to weaken the influence of monasteries), in my opinion I think the article is useful from a historic point of view, it could make it easier for readers to understand this period of Christian history, and how and why it affected the Roman Empire (both in the east, and in the west). Cody7777777 (talk) 17:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, Huon, I cannot see that any of your statements are true. The article does not focus on the Rome's relations with the emperor (though a well meaning editor has inserted a little bit of extraneous detail on Rome in the lead). I don't even know what to say about the suggestion that the how the different bishops interacted with the emperor, particularly in the context of the state's official religious stance, are not related. The Pope/Charlemagne discussion is important as it led to an important schism. As you mention it is brief and should stay as such. I would request that you offer an actual reason for your stance. --Mcorazao (talk) 16:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cody7777777, you are certainly correct that the article is incomplete. But that's not really what Huon has said (perhaps, though, that is what Huon meant; still I cannot see what that has to do with Afd). --Mcorazao (talk) 17:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a clarification, I didn't mean that this article in some way is a subset of what the Byzantine Papacy article covers. But the latter is a good article on a specific era of Church-state relations. We could probably write a similar article about the early church and its relations to the western Emperors following the Edict of Thessalonica. That subject is unrelated to the Byzantine Papacy by a century in time, and because of the complete breakdown of the western Empire in between. Those are effectively different Empires (though one is considered the continuation of the other). The history of the Orthodox Church after the Great Schism and its relation to the Byzantine Empire may again be worthy of an article, but this time it's a different church (though again a continuation of parts of the earlier). Why should these disparate subjects be forcibly grouped into a single article? Huon (talk) 18:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The people who were part of those "subjects" did not see them as disparate at the time. They saw them all as one and the same. Historians as well discuss a continuous entity (though they also discuss discontinuities too). I'm not saying that distinctions cannot be made but arguing that the unified topic has no merit doesn't make sense. --Mcorazao (talk) 19:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. This seems deliberately confusing. There was only one Christian Church at the time. Whether it was "official" or not is irelevant. The "Pontifex Maximus" title passed to the reigning pope in Rome. As a separate article, this article seems mischievous IMO. Student7 (talk) 14:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Setting aside spiritual perspectives and one-sided claims there was no "one Christian Church" at that time. That is fabrication. --Mcorazao (talk) 16:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article covers an important topic that is not directly addressed by any other article. Certainly many other articles cover parts of this topic and others that cover Christianity as a whole but none that address this. Whether or not you can cobble together information in this article by reading dozens of other WP articles is immaterial. But to address a few of the other articles mentioned:
To be clear the actual time period of the topic is the 4th century to the 15th century. I had proposed only having detailed coverage up to the 8th/9th century (and limited coverage beyond that) since that is the timeframe of the Rome becoming substantially independent of the Roman state and that also coincides roughly with the period in which many historians say Constantinople went from being the Roman Empire to the Byzantine Empire. Other authors suggested that there was too much bias in limiting the article that way so we agreed to extend full coverage to the 15th century (something Johnbod is aware of but conveniently chose to omit here).
--Mcorazao (talk) 14:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I hope that people are picking up on the fact is that WP's coverage of Christinity as whole in antiquity and the Middle Ages needs more coverage of topics apart from the Roman Church. --Mcorazao (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm grateful for the clarification; there is nothing on the talk page that indicates "we agreed" on this, or anything else really! And the only coverage relating to after 1054 is in the "Legacy" section. Of course this means that the number of articles of which this becomes a fork is vastly extended, and the title becomes still more anachronistic. Do you have any examples of the "many historians" who only talk of the Byzantine Empire from the 8th/9th century? All the ones I have ever seen use the term from far earlier. Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some references that talk about a 7th/8th-century transition to the Byzantine empire:
--Mcorazao (talk) 15:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But see p. 201 of Spielvogel, who very conventionally talks of Justinian & his period as Byzantine. Smith is frankly too old to bother with, and I can't see Ostrogorski, but I doubt he is any different. Johnbod (talk) 15:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't know what any of your statements are supposed to mean. I am simply making the point that this is a conventional historiography as the references indicate. Regardless, I don't know how this is relevant to the Afd. --Mcorazao (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the articles you name, Mcorazao, are related topics to or could be cover under the "state church of the Roman Empire" does not make them sub-topics of it-- nor does not mean that they should be covered under the state church of the Roman Empire. For example "Caesaropapism" is a term that people will look up to find out what it is-- but I don't see anyone expecting an article by the name "State church of the Roman Empire". şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 15:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The question of what names people are most likely to search for is irrelevant to the merit of any particular article. The issue you are avoiding addressing is that this topic has gone by a lot of different names, many of which are claimed by other entities. As such it is difficult to say any one unique name is more correct than the others. But again, that is irrelevant to the Afd. --Mcorazao (talk) 16:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
People will look under other article names and those articles will cover the topic they are looking up-- because "state church of the Roman Empire" is an artificial concept. This "topic" is realy a description of the Christian Church as it existed under certain conditions in certain locations-- but this "state church" has no clear begining nor clear end. şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 04:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you want to pretend something doesn't exist doesn't make it so. Wikipedia's standard is scholarly consensus as reflected by published literature. If you want make that argument you'll have to start with the references. --Mcorazao (talk) 06:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That this article should, for example, be conflated with Byzantine Papacy when it deals with the church established by the Edict of Thessalonica which says that "It is our desire that all the various nations which are subject to our Clemency and Moderation, should continue to profess that religion which was delivered to the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter, as it has been preserved by faithful tradition, and which is now professed by the Pontiff Damasus and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria," is bizarre.

I note that not one single specific rationale is agreed upon by those who wish to delete the article, some editors not even, apparently, providing a reason. Arguments that this article is really about Roman Catholicism or really about the Byzantine Church stand in direct contradiction to the article as defined and written, ignore the fact that notable writers refer to the imperial church as separate from Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, and, frankly, reveals a current of Catholic or Orthodox partisanship.

I note that not one single person has explicitly said what the supposed POV of the article is, even though the accusation continues to be made. That's like accusing someone of being criminal, but not producing the charge of any actual specific crime - something one expects in kangaroo courts.μηδείς (talk) 17:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have not personally raised the issue of POV before, but I will take a crack at this. The article takes the double POV, first that there was a single empire from the Edict of Thessalonica until some ill-defined point, possibly 1453, and secondly that there was a monolithic church which was endorsed by this empire and that in-turn endorsed it, and that all of Eastern and Western church history must therefore necessarily fall under this enormous ideological umbrella. This POV would have found favor certainly with the Byzantines. Parts of it would be looked on with acceptance by the proponents of Paleo-orthodoxy. To make extraordinary claims such as these, and then affect surprise when others find them less than neutral seems a bit disingenuous, but I am willing to assume good faith. However, both of the POV problems I have listed are not what I would call the scholarly consensus, and both are fundamental to the article (i.e. they cannot be corrected short of a massive re-write starting from different premises). Therefore, deletion/merger seems the appropriate way of dealing with the issue. Revcasy (talk) 16:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not only is the material is covered much better elsewhere, but this article assumes an entity, "The Roman Empire," which simply did not exist as a single entity for most of the period of time covered. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's like arguing because the empire of the United Kingdom has been largely disbanded there is no longer a UK. One can say there are important differences between the UK of the 19th century and the UK of the later 20th century but to imply that they are discontinuous or that there is no longer a single entity justifiably called the UK would be fallacious. --Mcorazao (talk) 19:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • A better parallel would be an article on the Anglican churches around the world, which called them the "State Church of the British Empire," and continued into the 21st century. That would be a clear anachronism: there no longer is a British Empire, and countries like Australia and the USA cannot be accurately described today as "part of the British Empire." Nor is it accurate to suggest that the "Anglican church" is a single organisation. Not to mention other problems. -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Better coverage of the fourth century than any of the proposed merge targets, and clearly a topic of its own. I would say less about Charlemagne and more about Byzantium, since at that point there came into being two Empires which did not acknowledge each other - and Orthodoxy did not cease to be a state church in 1054. But that is normal editing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree strongly with Johnbod. The best solution is to userfy this page and merge anything with a source into another article. The thrust of the problem is that this article foists an enormous degree of interpretation onto an enormous period of history, implying that centuries of Christians throughout the entire Mediterranean were far more unified and endorsed by the state than they ever were. I think it would be preferable to delete the article than to leave it anything like its current form. However, I do think some of the content could be useful in existing articles or in new articles of more modest scope. I myself was planning on writing an article about the Bishops of Rome during the Roman Empire ("Catholic Church," or even "pope" would be anachronistic) about the Christian community in Rome and its environs that viewed the Bishop of Rome as the leader of their religion. From Constantine onward, there is also a possibility for an article about the relationship between the Eastern Roman Empire/Byzantine Empire with the Patriarch of Constantinople. Otherwise, the current Early Christianity and its subarticles are adequate. As it stands, the article is a POV fork, repackaging history to argue that there was a "state church" in the Roman Empire, or even that all of the people and events discussed in this article can be described as a single, unified, "state" church. Savidan 00:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Userfying might be a practical alternative to deletion. Merging would not, in my view, be practical, given the POV issues with this article, the obviously false fundamental premise (that there was a unified "Roman Empire" and a unified "State Church" through till 1453), and the enormous number of potential merge targets. -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The name of this article is not "State church of the unified Roman Empire", but "State church of the Roman Empire", so the article does not refer just to the unified Roman Empire (but also, to the Western Roman Empire and Eastern Roman Empire). There is a significant number of sources which claim that the Roman Empire ended in 1453 (and there are also some historians which even claim that "No Empire fell in 476"). Also, we cannot end in the 5th century, because the religious events of these periods are too linked (for example, the decisions taken at the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451 influenced the decisions taken at the Ecumenical Councils of Constantinople in 553 and 681). This article is about the christian state religion of the Roman Empire, (and since we refer to a christian state religion, we use the term "state church"), it does not refer to a single specific Church, but to the Churches which were the "state church" (or christian state religion) of the Roman Empire. And this "state church" (or official christian religion) was not always the same, most of the time after 380, it was probably Nicene and (after 451) Chalcedonian Christianity, but there were also times when it was Miaphysitism (anti-chalcedonian), Monothelitism or Iconoclasm. Later after, Chalcedonian Christianity became definetly separated in the 11th century into what would become known as the "Roman Catholic Church" and the "Eastern Orthodox Church", the Empire usually supported "Eastern Orthodox" Chalcedonian Christianity as its state religion (or "state church"), but there were some periods, after the councils of Lyons (1274) and Florence (1439), when this "state church" (or christian state religion) was "Roman Catholic" Chalcedonian Christianity (and it actually was the last state religion of the empire, since the Eastern Roman Empire fell to the Ottoman Turks, and it was after the Empire's fall that the Patriarchate of Constantiople officially returned to Eastern Orthodoxy). Cody7777777 (talk) 11:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be careful not to go in too many directions. The topic of the article is the church body directly affiliated with the Roman state. There was a larger body of faith more loosely affiliated with that body which is a related but technically independent topic (something that perhaps deserves more clarification in the article). There are some valid questions to debate as far as what was or was not part of the Roman state at any point in history, but the editors attempting pretend that there was no Roman state in the Middle Ages are promoting historical fiction. And those questions about what should be considered part of the Roman state are appropriate topics for the article talk page but are not really relevant here. --Mcorazao (talk) 14:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that not all agree that the church body was "directly affiliated" with the Roman Empire (quite a strong statement), rather than one that had to adapt to the prevailing circumstances in that empire as to the other historical and political circumstances in which it has found itself, whether in states that aimed to control it (as in Catholic Spain) or that aimed to suppress it (as, it could be argued, in the Soviet Union). Esoglou (talk) 16:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Church under the Later Empire was funded by the state, its appointments were approved by the state, its charity was regulated by the state (it had to maintain the pagan poor, too), its creed was enforced by the state. If this is not "direct affiliation", what would be? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Better define your periods carefully; according to this article the "Later Empire" is about 1300! Johnbod (talk) 17:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So what's the problem? John Lascaris ruled a much Later Empire, and his regulations doubtless affected the Genoese heretics, and presumably the Lithuanians, not the worshippers of Cybebe; but I do not see that he disestablished the Church. If I had said Earlier Empire, this might have had a point. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a minor note, the historian John Bagnall Bury uses the expression "Later Roman Empire" for the entire Christian period (from the 4th century to the 15th century). Cody7777777 (talk) 12:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He is just following Gibbon. But for the last 150 years or so, "Byzantine" has been standard, if only to avoid the sort of confusion this article creates. Johnbod (talk) 12:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. By "directly affiliated" I am not implying any specific level of control. I just mean that the state recognized the church and was involved in it and influenced its operation in an exclusive way to some non-trivial degree. --Mcorazao (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment -- I am the author of Byzantine Papacy and Bishops of Rome under Constantine I. These articles are reasonable daughter articles of history of the Papacy. They have a defined breadth (the Popes, or—before they can be called popes—the Bishops of Rome) and scope (537–752; reign of Constantine I) that make sense given the summary style article that they build upon. They do not share the WP:NOR and WP:POVFORK problems of this article, in that they do not attempt to conflate the popes with the entire Christian community over an arbitrary time period. If this author wishes to write about the whole Christian community, he or she should work from the History of Christianity article and its daughter articles, rather than creating a new article to push the hypothesis that there was a "state church." Savidan 00:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure, if it is necessary to mention here as well, but "state church of the Roman Empire" refers to the christian state religion of the Roman Empire (and since we're talking about a christian state religion, we use the term "state church", and obviously the Roman Empire had an oficial christian religion supported by the state), it does not refer to a single specific Church (but to the Churches which at various times, became the christian state religion of the Roman Empire). Please read the earlier posts more carefully. Cody7777777 (talk) 11:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I could perhaps tolerate an article about Roman imperial religious policy. However, the current article purports to be about an organization, and is thus a POV fork of history of Christianity and its subarticles. Savidan 14:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the article is still under construction, and it still needs fixes and improvements. If the lead introduction gives wrong impressions, I think this can be easily fixed. Cody7777777 (talk) 12:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would be a little careful. The articles you are referring to have some non-trivial POV issues. People in glass houses ... --Mcorazao (talk) 02:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you are referring to, but you can feel free to bring up any issues on those articles' talk pages. I respond here to note that if the problem were only talking about "POV issues" then AfD would not be an appropriate remedy. Original research and POV-forking are in a different class. Savidan 02:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You made it an issue. Now you're saying it is not an issue ... --Mcorazao (talk) 14:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:POVFORK. Savidan 15:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Read it a long time ago. Have you? --Mcorazao (talk) 22:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please identify supposed POV of article

edit

I note that among various unspecific innuendos of POV we have an accusation that the author of the article is supposedly an Evangelical Protestant. That does not identify what the supposed improper POV expressed in the article is. If you believe there is an explicitly POV claim in the article - e.g., someone's viewpoint expressed as fact without being attributed to him - please identify it explicitly. To make accusations of POV without explicitly identifying them amounts to an arbitrary slur.μηδείς (talk) 20:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not that specific text exhibits a POV, but that the very subject of the article is a POV fork. Rather than incorporating this content into the existing articles on the History of Christianity organized by period and geography, the authors created a new article to promote their own theory that there was a state church of the Roman Empire. As is apparent here, they have not completely decided which Mediterranean bishops and their followers were part of that state church or which Eastern and Western emperors were in continuity with the Roman Empire. In any case, this article alternatively writes about the bishops of Rome and their followers, the bishops of Constantinople and their followers, and the entire Christian community—to fit the author's perceptions of who exactly was part of the "state church." The appropriate course of action would have been to write about the influence of various emperors on various Christian communities within existing articles or to start a more modest article whose breadth and scope do not require such an enormous degree of subjective judgement. Savidan 21:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, 'State church of the Roman Empire is not even the author's creation. He created the article Roman Imperial Church and graciously submitted to a change of name following the argument that the latter name might be misconstrued. But very idea that the existence of the concept of state church of the Roman Empire or of a (Roman ) imperial church is his idea is false. Both terms have wide scholarly use and are used in the names of books and their chapters and in scholarly papers. The focal entity to which that term refers is the church of the Roman Empire from 313 to 476, but various authors use the term in various ways an it is appropriate for this article to deal with those matters.

The evidence in no way allows us to pretend that this article is based upon the author's imagination.

We await responses from others who have made the accusation of POV.μηδείς (talk) 21:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those references refer specifically to the time of Constantine. Some refer specifically to the Byzantine church. None refer to the supposed single 4th-century-to-fifteenth-century "Roman Empire" which is the subject of this article. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The focal entity to which that term refers is the church of the Roman Empire from 313 to 476" is something of an understatement! What references use the term in relation to the other 85% of the period the article purports to cover? Johnbod (talk) 22:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peter Brown, The rise of Western Christendom (2003), p. 308, writes of the state church of the East Roman Empire as falling at the Arab conquest; since he is specifically writing of the Melkites of Damascus, that's 635.
In general, I see no justification for the claim that the state - or the church - of Justinian or Heraclius or Irene is discontinuous with that of Constantine or Theodosius. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's no problem in referring to the East Roman Empire and its state church; the problem lies in asserting that the eastern empire and western region formed a single unified entity until medieval times (and ditto their "state churches"). -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They formed a single entity until the Western Roman Empire ceased to exist. After that the entity continued at Constantinople. Whether the WRE ceased to exist with Olybrius and Julius Nepos (both appointed by the Emperor in the East), or at some later point may be a disputable matter - contemporary sources held that the Kings of the Ostrogoths and the Franks owed fealty to the sole Emperor - but if so, we should represent both points of view, and in this article, the continuation of the established Church among the Germans is certainly on topic. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See my latest response above. Also, WP:GNUM. Revcasy (talk) 22:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is referenced, tag those references if you doubt they refer to the matter cited. Sources which limit themselves to 313 - 476 are written from the context of the western empire or catholicism alone. This article properly examines the wider context and all scholarly use of the terms involved - not to do so would be a POV fork.

The numbers are not the argument. They are links provided for the convenience of those unfamiliar with how to do a search for an exact term. Click on each to see the actual references which exist.

Neither of you has so far responded to the question asked. Innuendo is unacceptable. Explicitly identify the POV which you refer. The article remains unique, sourced, notable, and neutral. μηδείς (talk) 22:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to be explicit as possible about what I see as the POV problem with the article. If you read what I said you will see that. Fortunately, I already know how to use Google, but I clicked on your links anyway. Every source that I saw in those hits (the ones that were actual hits) spoke of the state church of the Roman Empire in the context of Rome before 476. If you had searched for state church of the Byzantine Empire you might have gotten more hits about the east. This shows precisely the POV issue here: the article itself is about something that did not exist in the way that it claims. Yes, there was a state church of the Roman Empire, from Thessalonica until the fall of the west. There were also periods when Byzantium could be said to have had a state church, and to be honest, if the article were about the state church of the Byzantine Empire I would probably not be motivated to debate this with you, though I would still have my doubts. However, the implicit claims made by the article that actually exist (i.e. the state church of the Roman Empire) are simply incorrect. Revcasy (talk) 23:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the record I strongly agree with WP:GNUM. I have seen too many cases of editors justifying wacky viewpoints with Google hit counts. I think, though, Revcasy and Johnbod should actually take a look at what Medeis' searches are turning up.
In any event there has been almost no effort on this page to refute or question the references in the article or otherwise presented (the one case where references were discussed amounted to excuses in the vein of that author's too old to take seriously). Quite frankly since the editors questioning the topic's merit have not been willing to discuss the references I am not sure what we are still talking about.
Nevertheless, I'll respond briefly to Revcasy's statements above. You use the term "single empire" in a very inspecific way so there is really no way to clearly respond. That there was a Roman state that continued long past the 5th century is not worth spending more time. I think what you are getting at, though, is the unity of East and West. There are valid reasons to say East and West functioned in a lot of ways as independent nations during parts of the 4th and 5th centuries and certain there were legal distinctions that had not previously existed; but you won't find a serious scholar that will agree that the Empire cannot be viewed in important ways as a single state. What you are wrestling with is the fact that the Empire at that time did not fit the mould of a modern state; but the reality is that it never did. There were fractures and questions of leadership happening all the time. The 4th century tends to receive particular attention because it is an important reference point in history. But the splitting of the Empire was a gradual process that didn't simply occur in one or even two centuries. Just as the extent and composition of the Roman Empire has a certain vagueness to it, so did the Roman Church. But that does not mean they didn't exist.
--Mcorazao (talk) 22:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that many of the problems discussed here could be handled by a name change (e.g. to State churches of the Roman and Byzantine Empires) and some rewriting (although it may be very difficult to get consensus on that). The fundamental difficulty is that emphasising the continuity of the Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire does make sense, and emphasising the connection between East and West makes sense too; but it doesn't make sense to do both: it results in equivocation on key phrases like "the Empire" and "the Church", and consequently breaches of WP:SYNTH. For the present article, with it's current name and contents, I'm still !voting for deletion and starting over. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have just posted something in that vein on the articles talk page. Revcasy (talk) 00:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are three suggestions for possible articles there; perhaps one would, in my view, survive AfD. -- Radagast3 (talk) 05:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"State churches" has some problems, because as said several times earlier, the concept of "state church" is more similar to "state religion", and the Roman Empire, usually did not support simultaneously multiple christian religions, of course, the emperors switched the state religion several times, but they usually had just one christian state religion at a time (they did not usually offered support to rival Churches at the same time, they usually persecuted those who opposed against the Church supported by the state at that time). If the lead introduction gives some false impressions (that it might refer just to a single specific Church during the entire history of the empire), I think this can be easily fixed. Also, it is not necessary to say "Roman and Byzantine Empires", since "State church of the Roman Empire" is not meant to refer just to the unified empire (if it would have referred just to the unified empire, it would have been called "State church of the unified Roman Empire"), it also refers to the Western Roman Empire and the Eastern Roman Empire. Also, the religious events of these periods are too linked (for example, the decisions taken at the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451 influenced the decisions taken at the Ecumenical Councils of Constantinople in 553 and 681), and we cannot possibly make a sudden stop in 476. (Also, the people of this time did not considered that there were two Empires, they considered that there was one Roman Empire, with two emperors, and after the assassination of Julius Nepos (the last emperor of the west in the 5th century) in 480, there was just one Roman Emperor left.) As claimed before, there are historians who contest 476 as the end of the empire ("No Empire fell in 476"), and there other sources which claim that "The Roman Empire did not come to an end until 1453". Perhaps, the content of the article should make it more clear when it refers to the "Eastern Empire" and the "Western Empire" (although, after 480, this distinction is not really necessary, since there no longer is an "Western Empire" from which to distinguish the "Eastern Empire", however there isn't too much problem using it after 480, but the article should clearly not stop at 476 or 480). Cody7777777 (talk) 12:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment the article says "the Roman Empire", which implicitly claims it was a single unified entity; that's what many people are objecting to. In the same way "State Church" in the singular implicitly claims it was a single unified entity too; that's also what many people are objecting to.
There's also a feeling, currently being discussed on the article talk page, that the article is simply much too broad in scope. We don't need a new article on the Church before 476: we have History of late ancient Christianity. We don't need a new article on the Eastern Church, we have History of the Orthodox Church. If this article is to survive, it needs a niche of its own not covered by existing articles. -- Radagast3 (talk) 12:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the lead introduction (or other parts of the article) gives the impression that it always refers to an unified Roman Empire all the time from 380 to 1453, then it should be fixed. However I do not think that the "Roman Empire" is synonymous with "Unified Roman Empire". This article is meant to discuss about the imperial Roman christian religious policy (from the 4th century onward), and it is not meant to end only when just a half of the Roman Empire fell, it is meant to end when both halves were gone (we can make the distinction between those halves more obvious in the article, but it won't be useful to suddenly stop in the 5th century). The purpose of "History of late ancient Christianity" is to discuss only about Christianity during late anitquity, and not necessarily from the perspective church-state relations. History of the Orthodox Church discusses the history of the Orthodox Church from its origins to the present, and not necessarily from the perspective of church-state relations. Cody7777777 (talk) 14:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A citation in the article shows that at one time even the Donatists were considered the (or a) state church. And if, as Cody's edit above might perhaps be interpreted as meaning, even after Theodosius the identity of the church that was the state church changed from time to time, one could still argue in favour of "state churches" (plural). But if "state churches" is unacceptable to Cody and others, couldn't the article be called "Church-State relations in the Roman Empire"? (Before 313 there were relations between the state and Christians, but scarcely between the state and "the Church".) Very many, perhaps all, of the objections above would then disappear. The "Byzantine Empire" could be included as a continuation or successor of the empire or of its eastern administrative division. And couldn't those who believe that there was a single state church throughout the period be content with an article that allowed that interpretation, without forcing that opinion on others by a title that refers to the state church (singular)? Esoglou (talk) 12:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For me, renaming to "Church-State relations in the Roman Empire" can be acceptable. Cody7777777 (talk) 14:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A rather bizarre nomination. Obviously the Roman Empire had a state church, and it is notable. Incidentally, the idea that the Roman Empire ends in the 5th century is a unfortunately common misunderstanding, but is nonetheless a misunderstanding. And focusing solely on "Orthodox history" versus "Catholic history" intrudes anachronism assigning way too much importance to the institutional break away of the "Latin church" from the early 9th century onwards. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you actually looked at the article? Johnbod (talk) 16:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Mcorazao that "Orthodox" and "Catholic" history during this period would be anachronistic. However, I think it is equally inaccurate to lump these largely un-unified, un-nationalized Christian groups into a "state church" as though it was a single organization in any meaningful way. Savidan 18:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was a Roman Empire and it had a church. Whether or not every Christian in the world owed allegiance to a member of its hierarchy in theory or practice is surely not very relevant: the article is entitled "State church of the Roman Empire". Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have very little interest in continuing to explain why that view is an interpretation, not an objective fact. The larger issue is that this article undertakes to rewrite a large swath history of Christianity, rather than focus only on state-church relations, in both title and content. There should not be one set of articles for people who subscribe to the state church hypothesis and another for those who do not. If you want to write about various imperial edicts, imperial religious policies, etc. that's one thing; but to rewrite the history of several large groups of christians over a long time period under that rubric is an inappropriate use of topic forking. Savidan 18:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I don't think you've understood what I was trying to say. Basically, where rulers appoint the highest churchmen, you can have a "church" associated with the state that the ruler rules. Here, Roman ... Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For those who think the existence of an established church of the Roman Empire is a mere hypothesis:

EMPERORS GRATIAN, VALENTINIAN AND THEODOSIUS AUGUSTI. EDICT TO THE PEOPLE OF CONSTANTINOPLE. It is our desire that all the various nations which are subject to our Clemency and Moderation, should continue to profess that religion which was delivered to the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter, as it has been preserved by faithful tradition, and which is now professed by the Pontiff Damasus and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic holiness. According to the apostolic teaching and the doctrine of the Gospel, let us believe in the one deity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, in equal majesty and in a holy Trinity. We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title of Catholic Christians; but as for the others, since, in our judgment they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give to their conventicles the name of churches. They will suffer in the first place the chastisement of the divine condemnation and in the second the punishment of our authority which in accordance with the will of Heaven we shall decide to inflict. GIVEN IN THESSALONICA ON THE THIRD DAY FROM THE CALENDS OF MARCH, DURING THE FIFTH CONSULATE OF GRATIAN AUGUSTUS AND FIRST OF THEODOSIUS AUGUSTUS —Codex Theodosianus, xvi.1.2

But the article claims that same relationship existed until 1453. The article also blurs the distinction between East and West: after some point it's not quite accurate to talk about the Roman Empire. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would help if you would quote the exact statement you are referring to. Articles don't claim anything, although they may includes claims.μηδείς (talk) 23:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "the Roman Empire" in the title already makes an implicit claim (given the meaning of the definite article). The sentence "The state church would refer to itself by many names during its history, notably the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, a designation disputed by other Christian communions. The Church has also been referred to variously as the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, the Imperial Church, or simply the Roman Church" in the article lead explicitly claims that all these names apply to a single entity: a false claim. -- Radagast3 (talk) 02:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And the difficulty is that this claim seems to be the sole rationale for the article: take the claim away, and the article has no subject: it's simply a collection of material that belongs in articles like History of late ancient Christianity and History of the Orthodox Church. -- Radagast3 (talk) 03:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As also said before, there are sources claiming that "The Roman Empire did not come to an end until 1453", does "the Roman Empire" refer here to the "unified Roman Empire"? I have to say, that I have not yet seen some sources make the explicit claim that "the Roman Empire" always means "unified Roman Empire", and to be honest, this seems more like an "original thought", and I'm not debating here if you're right or wrong, but there are sources which speak about "the Roman Empire" even after it no longer was an unified entity inlcuding both east and west. I do, however, agree that the lead introduction needs some fixes and improvements (but please note that the various Churches which became the "state church" (or state religion) of the Roman Empire have usually claimed the titles "Catholic", "Apostolic" and "Orthodox"). And regarding the articles, History of late ancient Christianity and History of the Orthodox Church, I think it was discussed earlier, that they do not speak from the perspective of church-state relations. Cody7777777 (talk) 13:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Since the creators of the article have ruled out any renaming/rescoping at the talk page discussion, I'm reiterating my deletion !vote: this article is simply a POV-fork of existing articles, based on the manifestly false claim that the Eastern and Western churches constituted a single entity. -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was sorry to see this canvassing, which also blatently misrepresents the arguments above (and was calculated to arouse the recipient, as indeed it has done). Where has this suggestion actually been made? Johnbod (talk) 21:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that my attempt at "canvassing" disappointed you, but I knew that Deacon of Pndapetzim was interested in Roman history, and I thought I should inform him about this (without stating a preference). You mentioned above that one of your arguments was that the article should not extend until the 9th century, 11th century or the 15th century, and so that it should end around the 5th century, so I'm not sure I understand what exactly I misrepresented. But, I'm convinced he saw most of the arguments on this Afd page (and he is an experienced administrator, I don't think he wouldn't check the entire issue here before posting). Cody7777777 (talk) 21:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are one to complain. The supposed "canvassing" was a limited posting in neutral language and openly made to an editor who has not expressed a preference to retain such articles or this one in specific - i.e., not canvassing, whereas this entire AfD has been based on your issue of not feeling sufficiently respected on the article's talk page - an "I'll show you" response if ever I have seen one. If we want to speak of accurately representing arguments I remind readers of some of your reasons for wanting the page deleted, such as the fact that its name was changed with the author's consent and after an attempt at consensus, and that its author is obviously an Evangelical Protestant. I suggest you tone down these overwrought accusations.μηδείς (talk) 21:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The language was absolutely not neutral, and your attempts to guess my motives as usual completely wrong. Unlike some people I have no psychological investment in this page at all; I have only made a couple of minor edits to it, and have (unlike some) many other articles I am engaged in. Anyone who looks at the nom & later comments will see I specifically do not give either of those things as any of the several arguments for deletion. Once again I remind you that my first comment on the talk page was to support the change of name. But clearly there is no use expecting good faith from some people; I'll let others judge who is making the "overwrought accusations" here! Johnbod (talk) 02:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see, Cody7777777, that you beat me to inserting those scare quotes for you.μηδείς (talk) 22:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 95 in New Jersey

edit

The following was posted on the talk page for the article. I post it here since it applies in general:

The issues involved here have little to do with the article itself, except in so far as the article deals with a topic explicitly defined by scholarly stipulation, rather than traditional language.
Specifically, Radagast3, whose position is like that of many others, wrote

The phrase "the Roman Empire" in the title already makes an implicit claim. The sentence "The state church would refer to itself by many names during its history, notably the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, a designation disputed by other Christian communions. The Church has also been referred to variously as the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, the Imperial Church, or simply the Roman Church" in the article lead explicitly claims that all these names apply to a single entity: a false claim.

The simple fact is that every article at wikipedia has to have a title, and what a specific editor sees as implicit in it is a judgment call. It is not for Wikipedia to determine what a thing should be called or what scholars should mean by a concept they do use. The fact remains that scholars do speak of the imperial church which they identify, at its core, with the church established by the Edict of Thessalonica.
The mere fact that Mcorazao listed various names that various individuals have used at different times and in different contexts to refer to the Nicene Creed church of the Roman Pontiff Damasus and Bishop (Pope) Peter of Alexandria in no way amounts to an assertion of true nature. It is merely a reflection of the fact that, for example, a Roman Catholic writer might certainly refer to the Church at that time as the Roman Church. None of this amounts to an assertion on wikipedia's part that that is what the thing really is in some realm of Platonic ideals. This debate comes down to not making the distinction between a word and a thing, whether that be in reference to what names are used for what institutions by whom in what context or what name is assigned to an article which deals with a complex historical event that some scholars have called the (Roman) imperial church or the state church of Rome or any myriad of other names.
The debate would be amusing in other circumstances if it weren't couched in the idea that one editor insists that another editor not be entitled to write a unique, verifiable, and NPOV article on a notable subject because the objecting editor knows in his soul it is not true. What we know in our souls is not relevant. It is mere POV, and to assert it as a factual basis for argument is Original Research. Wikipedia doesn't care what your opinion is. It cares if what you write is notable and verifiable, not whether it is true.

So, perhaps an analogy will help:

The New Jersey Turnpike is so famous that Simon and Garfunkel even featured it in one of their songs. A now forgotten Saturday Night Live comic used to joke that New Jerseyans introduced themselves to each other by asking "What exit?" US Interstate 95 is also quite famous, at least to americans, given that it stretches from Maine to Florida and that if your map of the US shows any highway it will show this highway. The New Jersey Turnpike opened in 1952. Interstate 95 opened in 1957. The funny thing is that both largely ran over pre-existing highways, and in New Jersey, the two roads are infact largely identical, with what, with its green logos, is normally considered "The Turnpike" by locals having red and blue federal interstate 95 signs posted along its length. One can take interstate 95 north through Delaware, cross over the Delaware Memorial Bridge, get on the Turnpike, and shortly find that one is back on I-95. The turnpike is not just one road. It has a spur that connects to the Pennsylvania Turnpike in the Trenton area. There is a spur of the Turnpike to the Holland Tunnel of Manhattan which is not technically considered I-95, although signs in lower Manhattan indicate one can take the tunnel to get to I-95. Further North one can take a branch of the Turnpike to the George Washingto Bridge, which takes you to the northern end of Manhattan. This branch of the Turnpike counts as i-95, but another branch which takes you north to the Pallisades Parkway on the NJ side of the Hudson river does not. And between the Holland Tunnel and GWB crossings there is a split in the Turnpike, with express traffic going north on the left side and local traffic and those exiting to the Lincoln Tunnel in Midtown Manhattan will take. So far as I know both branches at this schism count as part of I-95. Happily they merge again ecumenically after travelling their separate ways.

Imagine if matters of personal metaphysics were to enter into the discussion of these two roads. You can't talk about the beginning of Route 95 at exit 6! It begins in Florida! You can't talk about "the" New Jersey Turnpike! It splits in two in North Jersey and you have to specify the Turnpikes, east and west branches. You can't talk about the Turnpike connecting to the George Washington Bridge! It turns into I-95 at mile marker 476 and any reference to it as the Turnpike after that is sheer POV forking! What do you mean that radio announcers talk about traffic on I-95 in Central Jersey? The Turnpike existed long before anyone ever dreamt up the fiction of I-95 in New Jersey! No one who works for the Turnpike Authority in Newark, New Jersey will tell you he drove home to New Brunswick, New Jersey on I-95; show me a toll ticket for a trip from exit 14A to exit 9 marked I-95!

Then, imagine the difficulties if, after we have become used to having an article on the New Jersey Turnpike, and an article on Interstate 95, some young punk comes along and creates an article entitled Interstate 95 in New Jersey!

He can't do that! Can he?

μηδείς (talk) 04:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that (very nice) parallel runs in almost totally the wrong direction: your hypothetical article involves the intersection of two precisely defined criteria: (1) those bits of tarmac legally designated I-95 and (2) roads within the state of New Jersey. The subject of the article is therefore very precisely defined. Furthermore, the implicit claim in the title (that I-95 runs through New Jersey) is clearly true. The article would, therefore, involve no equivocation or anachronism, and raise none of the concerns that this article has raised (which are more like what would have happened if someone started an article on B-Train traffic on the Jersey Turnpike). -- Radagast3 (talk) 04:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Except for the fact that a church is made out of people, rather than tar, it is just as real in its existence as an historical entity. It's a materialist fallacy to act as if New Jersey Turnpike were defined physically in terms of atoms or molecules. It is just as much a moral and political construct as a church, and you would be hard put to point to some physical difference in the road surface where I-95 turns into the turnpike and back. The point stands that just as we can speak of Interstate 95 in New Jersey and have an article on it regardless of any metaphysical objections that it really is the Turnpike or that it really starts in Florida, or that there is no document that shows that I-95 in New York is the interstatic successor of I-95 in New Jersey we can have an article that deals with the concept of the Imperial church in all its different aspects. μηδείς (talk) 16:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure this analogy is helping; partly because the I-95 and the State of New Jersey are both defined legally and marked by signposts. The supposed single "Roman Empire" and "State Church" extending to 1453 are not of the same nature; indeed, they seem to be imaginary constructs created, by WP:SYNTH, from a number of real historical political and religious entities. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Supposed single unified state church of the Roman Empire

edit

Radagast has already made this comment above, but I think that it deserves to be given fuller attention.

Resistance to the proposal to change the title of the article to "Church-State relations under the Christian Roman Emperors means insistence on the POV that there existed an identifiable single unified state church of the Roman Empire, of which the church in Rome was an integral part, even when Rome was no longer under the power of the emperors.

For instance, the article claims that, "after Rome and other cities were abandoned" in the west by Justinian, "in the coming centuries the imperial church, as virtually the only surviving Roman institution in the West, became the only remaining link to Roman culture and civilization". According to this, the "imperial church", the state church, survived in the west and was the west's only link to Roman culture and civilization. Indeed, since the church in Ireland, which was never part of the Roman Empire, was certainly in those centuries a link to Roman culture and civilization, the article seems to include even the church in Ireland as part of the "state church of the Roman Empire" or the "imperial Roman Church" (titles given to the article), contrary to the view that I think was earlier expressed by the originator of the article.

By then the church in Rome, while part of the same spiritual church as the church in areas under the power of the emperors, was not in actual fact part of the emperors' state church. The church in areas under the power of the emperors was part of the same (spiritual) church that existed also in Rome and Germany and Ireland; but the church in Rome and Germany and Ireland was not part of the imperial state church.

If the article exists in order to present the picture it is now presenting of the "state church" in question – a state church that in actual concrete reality was only that of the state governed by the emperors of Constantinople – it should be deleted on grounds of POV. Esoglou (talk) 10:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who (besides you) has suggested that the churches in Ireland and Germany were part of the state church? --Mcorazao (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have. The article continually treats all the Western Church with loyalty to Rome as part of the "State church" - this is one of the major problems with the article. Johnbod (talk) 16:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Once again with the mind reading. Please stop asserting what you intuit Mcorazao to be thinking and quote the actual words (not your thoughts) where he has written what you attribute to him. μηδείς (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Once again with the article reading! I make no attempt to guess what Mcorazao is thinking, though I notice he and you are very ready to attribute motives and intentions to others. Johnbod (talk) 17:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the church in Ireland is not considered part of the supposed "State Church," then the sentence "the imperial church, as virtually the only surviving Roman institution in the West, became the only remaining link to Roman culture and civilization" in the article is obviously false. But this is only one of many related problems, such as why there is a lengthy discussion of Charlemagne (was his kingdom part of the "Roman Empire" too?). All these problems relate to the POV-fork nature of the article and its fundamentally false basic premise. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't even make any sense. --Mcorazao (talk) 02:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? Are you denying that the Irish Church was a "link to Roman culture and civilization"? Was the Irish Church part of your supposed "State Church" or not? If not, what makes you think that the sentence quoted from the article is true? Was Charlemagne's kingdom part of your supposed "Roman Empire" or not? If not, why is it in the article? And, at the root of it all, where are your sources for this supposed single "State Church"? -- Radagast3 (talk) 03:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure this discussion could go on forever but it seems clear that there is no consensus for deletion. --Mcorazao (talk) 20:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's wait for the closing admin to decide that, after the standard discussion time is over. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Radagast3, Johnbod, you are free to disagree with request but it is not your place to decide whether I can request closure or not. --Mcorazao (talk) 03:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody was interfering with your request (although I'm betting against the admins closing this early). It's simply a practical question of convenience for people reading the parent AfD lists. But, since it's causing trouble, let's try collapsing all but the nom and the active sections. -- Radagast3 (talk) 08:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, and since the main issues have been adequately aired, let's try & leave the remainder to people new to the discussion. Johnbod (talk) 11:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or sorta merge. This complex issue is better dealt with another way (e.g. in a series of "History of ..." articles). Articles (especially on church history) generally written by one or few authors are usually crap representing one point of view (cf. Women in Church history, and the associated talk page). —Srnec (talk) 04:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.