Talk:Massacre of Thessalonica

1373:, sorry I've been silent. I'm getting a handle on thing at work, so I can devote time to this review. One problem I've had is figuring out exactly what the reported accounts of the Massacre were: just yesterday I finally found a copy of Rufinus' account of the Massacre, only his Latin is a challenge for me & putting it thru Google Translate only makes it worse. Another problem is that there are two other aspects of this event that merit inclusion in this article. One is that there were a number of riots in the Late Roman Empire around this time, but beyond mentioning it (Doležal at p. 101 provides a succinct account worth using to address that), I would only address this detail if you wanted to make this into a Featured Article. The other, which I believe needs to be included is that the Massacre was important in the relationship between Emperor Theodosius I & bishop Ambrose of Milan.In the last decades of the 4th century, Ambrose was a powerful figure, pushing the agenda of the Church in Imperial politics. For this reason Gibbon devotes several pages to this event, far more than to other, better recorded urban riots & their violent suppression of this period. Some accounts portray this relationship as one where Ambrose gets the upper hand; some explain this with a bit more subtlety, that Ambrose knew he was best served by supporting Theodosius & his acts were reinterpreted within a generation of his death as victories. But to insist that you include this information, I need to help you do this, & this requires research work on my part.There is also the matter that I have to keep in mind that this is not my article, & I need to give thought about how to offer comments. After all, I am simply offering opinions here, & you always have the right to ignore what I say -- or to take my comments & go in another direction. So while it may appear I am doing nothing, I 2031:

While the desire for more concrete answers to the "whys" is certainly understandable, the article can only include what the sources will bear, and original research is of course proscribed. Since the article needn't be comprehensive, I would thus conclude that it passes 3a as written. There does appear to be a bit of a disagreement about the part of criterion 1b that pertains to the lead. Jenhawk777 has attempted to resolve the issue, although the lead's size shrunk to three sentences in the process. I'd recommend bulking up the lead a bit more, giving at least a sentence to each subsection. That being said, I'm reasonably confident that this can be resolved without my intervention. The main impasse would now appear to pertain to the due-weight portion of criterion 4. When the scholarly literature is so seriously divided, giving each source appropriate weight is difficult. I feel that the article doesn't rely too heavily on the CAH: it immediately explains why that account is "murky", and it thoroughly analyzes perspectives on the story's accuracy in the next section. The citation to the CAH is effectively a plot summary, giving the most common rendition of the story. The remainder of the article takes a much more critical look at that summary, explaining why many scholars doubt some or all of the details found therein. That seems to be a reasonable way of, to quote

1925:

justified.)Another instance where common sense is needed is in Doležal's assertion, "None of the pagan historians of the period mention the Thessalonican massacre at all." Knowing a bit about this period of Roman history, I find it hard to list more than a few "pagan historians" who might have possibly mentioned this massacre. Only three come to mind: Ammianus Marcellinus, Zosimus, & Procopius. Now Marcellinus ended his historical account long before the date of the massacre, & likely even laid down his pen before then, so he can be excluded. While Procopius does mention events in the 4th century, his primary focus is on events during the 6th century; he may have known about it, but considered it irrelevant & excluded. This leaves Zosimus, another 6th century historian. So Doležal's number of "pagan historians" is one. He has engaged in a bit of hand-waving here; it is the weakest of his arguments, & is best excluded. IMHO, it doesn't effect the plausibility of his argument the massacre was not historically significant. (For the record, there is at least one

1541:

conclude from this that it would take that long to reach Thedosius in Rome under normal circumstances. Excluding how long he & his court spent deliberating what should be done, any official response might have reached Thessalonica two months after the initial riot. We could argue that news reached Theodosius by the imperial post -- a relay of messengers on horse & by ship between Thessalonica & Rome -- which traveled an average of 5 miles an hour, 24 hours a day; the distance from Thessalonica to Dyrrhachum then Brundisium then Neapolis & at last to Rome is about 600 miles; so it would take 5 days for urgent news to reach Theodosius. Much quicker, but still an official response would come about 2 weeks after the original riot. Add to this the objections Doležal raises about Theodosius actually ordering a massacre of the city's inhabitants (pp. 99f), & it becomes doubtful that Theodosius did order a massacre. Which leads to a problem I'll bring up in a moment.

4055:

what Ambrose' role was, what Theodosius' role was, the circumstances of Butheric's death, and the intentionality (or not) of the massacre. Obviously, there's no clear consensus on any of these issues, but it's just fine to provide the most prevalent explanation with the caveat that it's not accepted universally. If there's no prevailing explanation, you can just say "Some scholars believe X, while others argue Y." The main idea is to ensure that the lead "gives the basics in a nutshell and cultivates interest in reading on" instead of just saying "It's all a mess and nobody agrees about anything." While the latter is probably true, that shouldn't stop you from giving the reader enough information to identify the main perspectives. Writing the lead is difficult! That's especially true when you're dealing with a situation in which scholarly opinions are so divided. Hopefully this is of value; I can try my hand at it too if that would be helpful.

4184:- Modern historians have had difficulty discerning the details of the massacre and its aftermath. There are no contemporaneous accounts of the event; instead, the works of fifth-century church historians provide the earliest record of what happened. Many parts of these accounts contradict one another, and some are of questionable reliability. The pagan historians of late antiquity did not discuss the massacre at all. Scholars contend that most extant retellings of the events portray them from a moral perspective, emphasizing Ambrose' indignation and Theodosius' repentance rather than the historical and political details. This makes it difficult for modern historians to distinguish fact from legend. Nonetheless, most classicists accept at least the basic account of the massacre, although they continue to dispute when it happened, who was responsible for it, what motivated it, and what impact it had on subsequent events. 4182:(Thessaloniki) took place in the Roman-controlled Greek city of Thessalonica, probably in 390 CE. Although historians disagree about many of the details, the generally accepted narrative states that a mob killed Roman commander Butheric, possibly because he had refused to release a popular charioteer from custody. In retribution, Roman soldiers massacred thousands of citizens when they were assembled in Thessalonica's hippodrome. Most scholars agree that Emperor Theodosius I played at least some role in either ordering or permitting the massacre, although others contend that the soldiers simply got out of control. In light of the events, Christian bishop Ambrose refused Theodosius communion, insisting that he display penitence for his role in the massacre. While scholars dispute Theodosius' sincerity, he did comply with Ambrose' demands; the bishop restored the emperor to communion after eight months of repentance. 1597:; writings about Ambrose present him as an icon of the best of bishops. Paulinus used Ambrose's letters, and it is unclear how accurate Ambrose's personal view of his own importance in those events actually is. Gibbon is certainly not an unbiased authority either, and his interpretation of Ambrose in the worst light is just as questionable. It is not a sure thing either way, and all of this is already discussed in the article. I could copy paste the entire Aftermath section here, because all but one paragraph discusses this, but you could instead just read and evaluate it. Of course, I explained this previously when you mentioned Ambrose before, so if you find the discussion inadequate, please offer specifics that don't include something already in the article. 1668:

Boniface Ramsey think these events occurred during a period when Ambrose was banned from Theodosius' presence. As Ambrose himself says in letter 51, "I alone of all at your court have been stripped of the natural right of hearing, with the consequence that I have also been deprived of the power of speaking".:262 Ambrose hadn't been there to offer counsel when the riot and massacre occurred. However, in the aftermath, Ambrose was informed of events, (probably secretly), and when he heard all that had happened at Thessalonica, he wrote Theodosius a private letter. In that letter, according to McLynn, Ambrose offered his emperor another way out, suggesting what Carole Hill describes as "a consciously planned publicity triumph".:263

4429:

Doleźal is used, but honestly, he was the best source and the source of half the other sources I found. The one you sent me on rhetoric referenced Sozomen mistakenly in one place when what he referred to was actually in Theodoret, which shook my faith in his scholarship, but honestly, he didn't say anything I didn't already have. I usually look at twice as many sources as I end up using, and this article was no exception. Much of what's out there is too old to use - like Williams - it's been OBE by now. If I run across anything, I will add it, but I won't be holding my breath on this one. It isn't laziness that produced a limited number of sources. That's the reality out there. It was frustrating, but there it is.

1675:

penitence using the example of David and Uriah.:12 Wolf Liebeschuetz says "Theodosius duly complied and came to church without his imperial robes, until Christmas, when Ambrose openly admitted him to communion". Washburn says the image of the mitered prelate braced in the door of the cathedral in Milan blocking Theodosius from entering is a product of the imagination of Theodoret who wrote of the events of 390 (probably sometime between 449 and 455) "using his own ideology to fill the gaps in the historical record".:215 Peter Brown also says there was no dramatic encounter at the church door.:111 McLynn states that "the encounter at the church door has long been known as a pious fiction".

2395:

the best way to go? I thought there was a waiting period required between a failure and a new request, and worse, I thought there was a requirement that the article be substantially changed before it can be renominated - I am guessing I must have that wrong - could that be for FA instead? I tried to look up the rules for renomination and didn't get anywhere, I must not be looking under the right heading, so I remain totally clueless, feel like an idiot, and now I am worried as well. If I'm correct about these requirements, I don't see how this article will survive a failure because I don't see how it can be "substantially changed" and ever qualify for renomination.

1520:

discussion of the charioteer and whether racism against the Goths was part of the riot or not, the dispute over numbers, and whether Theodosius ordered it, and the disputed date which is mentioned in the last paragraph, just as the disputed law is? More than that? I am unsure what more that would be. All of that is already spread around in the article. I will try to make it all clearer in the lead which it seems is all you read. If that's all a reader reads, which is often the case, then it will not be clear, so I will fix the lead to better reflect these controversies. Otherwise I am at a loss.

1020:] which is also a blog. If anyone has any problems with anything I contribute in its place, please say so here. My additions and subtractions are aimed solely at improving this article and making WP a more dependable and accurate encyclopedia, so if you think that has not been accomplished, that matters. I will do everything in my power to work with you and address any and all issues. Even if it's just that you don't like my writing style--any sentence can be rewritten--as long as it accurately reflects quality sources. Thank you. I look forward to our collaboration. 1779:

scholars, so wouldn't that add verbiage without value? What disputes are missed being discussed somewhere in the article? I added to the lead as you requested, so there is now a better summary up front, but I do not know of any other disputes beyond those already included. I don't mean to be argumentative, but I am at a loss as to what to do. I want to cooperate. I always cooperate with anything a reviewer asks. I just don't have a clue how to do what seems already done. Please help me to understand more concretely what it is you are looking for that isn't there.

4486:.) But, to employ a quote, "Everything that exceeds the bounds of moderation has an unstable foundation." Even good things like quotes lose their valence when overused. There's certainly no easy answer, but it does seem important to emphasize that, as an encyclopedia, our job is to summarize the consensus, not to reprint the opinions. But I definitely agree that some carefully chosen quotes can clarify the issues at hand, as well as giving the reader a brief break from the dull prose that Knowledge sometimes rewards. 1562:

would not have made a decision until his anger had passed and he was thinking clearly. Doležal also argues for the unlikelihood of Theodosius ordering the massacre in a fit of rage. He references Peter Brown, who points to the empire's established process of decision making, which required the emperor "to listen to his ministers" before acting.:95 In Doležal's view, Theodosius must have listened to advice from the counselors in Milan with him, but what advice he received is unclear.:98

3941:

think it's useful in providing a preface of sorts to the reader. The article could survive without it, but I think explaining 1) where the Roman Empire stood at that point in history, 2) who Theodosius was and what he had done previously, and 3) who Ambrose was and what he had done previously is valuable to the non-expert reader. So I'd say just cut the Williams paragraph (and, if you're so inclined, replace it with more info about Theodosius) and this section will be good to go.

1568:

ecclesia publice peccatum suum, quod ei aliorum fraude obrepserat), while Paulinus only mentions some “secret negotiations of the officers with the Emperor”, (with which Augustine concurs), adding that Theodosius was “compelled by the urgency of certain of his intimates” (tumultu quorundam, qui ei cohaerebant). Sozomen knows of no such involvement, and the church historian Rufinus blamed no persons either, but a “demon” instead (subreptione quadam daemonis).:98

280: 259: 1900:

those aspects of the event satisfactorily.Nevertheless, the subject of these sections -- how this event played a role in the relationship between Ambrose & Theodosius -- is not at all mentioned in the article lead. Without it, this article seems to be about some historical oddity of questionable notability. The discussion about the two men is buried in the body of the article.Were I to rewrite the opening paragraph, I would write somewhat as follows:

747: 4291:. I'm going to miss you when this is done. Can I come visit some time? Ask you for special favors and reviews and stuff? :-) As long as I promise not to quote anyone? Seriously, you have been incredible and done a great job and I thank you from the bottom of my heart - and the top and the sides and pretty much the whole darn thing. If you ever need anything, please ask. I will be glad to give back even a little of what you have given here. 1588:(pp. 80-82), where Cameron argues that Paulinus misrepresented his sources, & that instead of dominating the emperor, the bishop was offering him a means to save face over the garrison's massacre of the city's inhabitants. In short, the reason this massacre is not only important, but meets Knowledge's notability standards, is because it was an event in the relationship between the two men. And therefore needs to appear in the lead. 813: 792: 3784: 3764: 3748: 3407: 3048: 2988: 2888: 398: 2152:

You need to decide what is best for you. Don't feel bound and trapped in this. The article will survive to be reviewed another day. It's okay. What I need, and what I want, is for you determine if you can be all in, or all out here. I need you to decide what you have time for and what you don't. You are the volunteer here. I will be happy with whatever you decide, I promise, but that decision can only come from you.

21: 1858:

main aspect the reviewer feels is being omitted. The article seems to cover the massacre and its consequences quite thoroughly, incorporating a wide variety of scholarly views on the subject. But the reviewer has looked at the research much more thoroughly than I have, and so I'd appreciate it if he could articulate a bit more clearly what major part of this event he feels is missing from the article. Cheers,

4886: 4866: 4844: 4805: 4778: 4755: 4734: 4700: 4679: 4662: 4634: 4603: 4566: 139: 3575:

rest. I hope you find it adequate. If not, tell me what else you think might be required, and I will do it. That cooperation is at least partly because I think you might be the best reviewer I have ever had. You're quick, thorough, focused, reasonable and pretty much always right on in your comments. Being on the receiving end of that is truly awesome. :-) Thank you again. Cheers back at ya'!

290: 191: 170: 3926:

wasn't about the empire being in decline. Theodosius did sponsor a massacre once and he did offer clemency at two other points, do you think that qualifies? This seems like an isolated and unique incident, so I cannot see what history might have led up to this beyond the character of the men involved. Please help! Should I simply delete this stuff or move it to Aftermath maybe??? Yikes!

2035:, "provid the reader with information, allowing them to form their own conclusions." I'm therefore fairly confident that this article meets criterion 4, as well. I have not assessed any other criteria; there do appear to be some prose issues that will need to be resolved. I trust that the nominator and reviewer will be able to complete this review amicably, with helpings of 1633:

Ambrose & Theodosius involved in this massacre? Why did Ambrose force Theodosius to do penance for this massacre? I'm not pushing my own opinions here about any of these questions, but as an informed reader, I would like to find these questions acknowledged & addressed. And I believe you have collected the material that would help you do that in this article. --

2452: 1088: 763: 3908:

discuss there the impact on Ambrose' historical reputation and on church-state relations more broadly. But that's not really my concern: I just want to make sure that the background section is providing actual background, not conclusions. (Put another way, it doesn't make sense to talk about the massacre's effects before you've even told us what happened.)

685: 657: 4509: 4380: 4361: 4340: 4284: 4043: 3805: 3698: 3661: 3641: 3620: 3531: 3448: 3427: 3387: 3324: 3304: 3283: 3178: 3083: 3028: 3007: 2871: 2841: 2770: 2684: 2592: 2009: 1495:

you have done a lot of work performing research for this article, for which you deserve praise. (For one thing, you alerted me to just how useful Research Gate can be. I looked at it several years ago, & did not find it that useful then; clearly it has improved significantly since, & I should give it another look.)

950:"he tried to rape a male cupbearer"? The reference cited should actually contain that information, but it doesn't. Sozomen 7.25 only has "When Buthericus was general of the troops in Illyria, a charioteer saw him shamefully exposed at a tavern, and attempted an outrage; he was apprehended and put in custody.". 1613:

every botched response by an underling some distance from Rome. Did Theodosius decide to avenge a murdered general, as Gibbon & others argue? Or was Ambrose's role more of an advisor, suggesting a possible means to save face for a messy situation? (Doležal explains why this was a crisis for Theodosius.)

4457:

You guys can continue to work on paring me down! :-) I did cut out some and shorten others though, just because you asked, and I will acknowledge that is probably a good thing. There is no doubt your input improved this article, so perhaps with some perseverance you could manage to improve my writing

4193:

With regard to your request above: I kept most of the relevant material in the original background section. I just think it makes more sense there; otherwise, we have to stop telling the story halfway through to introduce Ambrose and Theodosius. Of course, feel free to change that if you like. I just

4035:

The in-text attributions for citation 20 vary: some of them attribute it to Hill and others to Liebeschuetz. From what I can tell, Liebeschuetz wrote the notes and Hill simply helped. If that's the case, I'd attribute the quotes solely to Liebeschuetz. (If that's right, just use control-f to find all

3940:

I don't have an issue with providing information to situate the event and its key players in their historical context, which I think is what is happening here. As long as the section is limited to things that happened before the massacre (which, with the exception of the Williams paragraph, it is), I

2606:

When I first started on Knowledge a very dear and helpful friendly editor would repeatedly put a citation saying next to my citations of people without WP pages telling who they were. He suggested I include some information on them to explain why they should be paid any attention to, so for awhile I

2398:

I will follow your lead and do what you say is best, of course, but I am now officially wringing my hands in distress. I've never had this happen to me before. I usually get a prose review, a source review, an image review, and I'm passed. I've never had a failure before. All part of experiencing the

2151:

I am fully confident you are a great reviewer when you give it your full attention, and I am happy to continue with you if you think you can hang in there and do that here - give the article the GA review, according to the criteria, that it deserves - but I also understand if you need to let this go.

1697:

I will add to the lead to reflect more of a summary of the various disputes. Beyond that there is little here for me to respond to. I have waited a month only to be deeply disappointed. Your comments indicate you haven't read the entire article, which is just embarrassing for both of us. Please don't

1548:

Theodosius was not in Thessalonica when the massacre occurred, the court was in Milan, and it is unclear whether he ordered or simply permitted the massacre as a response.:223 Historian G. W. Bowersock, Stephen N. Williams, and his co-author Gerard Friell think that Theodosius ordered the massacre in

1515:

the account of Rufinus; this is what Theodoret wrote; this is what Sozomen wrote." I would even settle for secondary sources being presented to show the disputed facts. And reading Doležal's paper, I find he has reported some of what is disputed about this event, for example the date of the massacre.

4453:

Hah! You and buidhe! :-) I love using quotes, because they keep me grounded in what the scholars actually said, instead of my interpretation of what they said, which is always slightly different. I like that. I like the specificity a quote reflects. To me they are like using statistics. They reflect

4428:

of books on Ambrose. There are lots on the fourth century and the emperors. But in those books, this event is often little more than a sentence or a footnote, and there is simply not a lot out there specifically on the massacre of Thessalonica. I was afraid someone would have a problem with how much

4398:

What?!? What prose issues do you refer to kind sir - besides your feelings about quotes? I thought we had all the citations ironed out - what remains? Plkease advise on any MOS issues. I know we are done now, but I am still eager to learn and improve - while not completely losing myself and becoming

2277:

Sorry, I meant to respond last night. I sincerely think that the best move would be for me to step away. I just think at this point trust has been broken & we not likely to be listening to each other; nothing productive will come of this. Please don't think I'm blaming anyone about this, & I

1561:

McLynn puts all the blame on the Emperor.:103 However, "the reports of Rufinus, Sozomen and Theodoret are mutually exclusive",:96 which has led other scholars to the opposite conclusion concerning Theodosius' anger. Historian N. Q. King says the Emperor may very well have been angry at first, but he

1545:

Well, it's a perfectly reasonable deduction, and if I can find a source that says what you have concluded, then I can add it, but otherwise it is original research, and I can't use it no matter how obvious it seems to you and I. I have already included Doležal's objections, along with the others, in

1514:

about what is disputed about this event. This is what I spent time researching: what were the different accounts, & what is disputed? I don't see any of this dispute clearly set forth. I do find hints about what might be disputed, but no where can I read, "This is the account of Ambrose; this is

4516:

now. Thank you for your skill, your focus, your perseverance, all of it. You have been wonderful - you did not just give me an easy pass, you gave a serious and careful review - you were prompt in your responses, always on point, and really just excellent in every way. Please note I am saying this

4211:

Thank you for fixing this! I accept your revision and like the result. I have nothing to add to the content. Mr.Williams can go take a nap. :-) I like what we've done. And all the sources are correct now thanx to you. I write in my sandbox, then copy paste and often end up with duplications. I need

3958:

Uh-oh!!! I moved it to the bottom section! It is now in two places in the article. I don't want to mess with reverts so if you would please, decide where you think it should go - or not - and remove at will! I will leave it to you. It's okay to remove it completely if it's off topic. It's kind of

3500:

The Thessalonian code was a collection of disparate laws, many of which had been issued by others at earlier times, so there is some dispute over whether it came from Theodosius or was a re-issue. I think the alleged represents what the sources say better than a conclusive 'Theodosius did it' does.

2824:

It would probably be useful to provide a background section, telling the reader a bit about Theodosius, Ambrose, the previous interactions between the two, religion and politics in the fourth-century Roman Empire, and/or anything else that you might find relevant. Brown (p. 111 and whereabouts) has

2107:

no, no, please, that is the exact opposite of what I have wanted all along. I want more not less. You cared enough to show up in the first place, and that matters to me. It's since then - when things have been hard for you at work in your RL - that I didn't hear from you for a whole month, and when

2030:

Allow me to summarize my thoughts on the matter. There doesn't seem to be much of a dispute about criterion 3a, broadness. It does appear that the article discusses "all main aspects of the topic", including the facts of the massacre, Theodosius' role, Ambrose' response, and scholarly perspectives.

2004:

So as far as I can tell, your response here indicates there are no main points excluded, only different levels of detail desired. If you want to add more of those details, you are certainly welcome to do so as an editor, but I don't agree they are needed. The lead now includes a mention of Ambrose.

1990:

I originally made the decision not to include all the detailed discussion of the primary source material – what is in each one, what isn't, how many pagan sources there would likely be, and so on – as irrelevant to a WP article. Our readers are likely to be sophomores who need a broad overview with

1972:

I believe an evaluation of the CAH within the article would be out of place and lead down a rabbit hole of book reviews and discussion of quality standards that would have nothing to do with the massacre of Thessalonika. It would be the only contemporary source evaluated, and I have never seen such

1899:

I've looked at the revised version, & it's clear there is a lack of understanding. Let me discuss the revised version to explain my point.First, the new section headers did help me to understand the article better. The subsections "Theodosius' accountability" & "Aftermath and Ambrose" cover

1612:

Which brings me back to the problem I mentioned in the paragraph before: why did Ambrose hold Theodosius responsible for something he apparently had little to do with? While Ambrose is frequently portrayed as manipulating Theodosius like a puppet, it would be hardly fair to hold him responsible for

1505:

First, as the article is currently written, it appears that this incident is notable for being an imperfectly known event. There was a riot in Thessalonica, & the garrison responded with a massacre of the inhabitants, & Ambrose blamed the actions of the garrison on the emperor Theodosius --

1498:

Another thing I do is to avoid articles which I feel are flawed or in need of some blunt criticism. As I wrote, you have spent a lot of time on this article, & are proud of what you did; too much criticism of a GA nomination can discourage the recipient, & be seen as a personal attack, even

1494:

First, one of my practices in reviewing any article for GA is to perform some research on the topic in parallel. My intent in doing that is not to write the article, but to get a sense for how much material on the topic is out there, & a sense for the accuracy of the facts. Doing so, I can tell

4305:

I appreciate that. Yes, you're always welcome to pay me a visit. I don't do a lot of formal content reviewing, but I'm glad to give articles a perusal on request. Of course, your quick responses and your hard work were also essential to improving this article, and I'm happy that you didn't give up

4054:

I'd say you could probably still expand the lead a bit more. You have three paragraphs, but they're all very short. I'd recommend bulking them up – say, to five or seven sentences each – so as to give a thorough summary (an oxymoron, I know) of the contents of the article. You have room to explain

2394:

Thank you, I appreciate that this is more than you anticipated, and I am overwhelmingly grateful for your willingness to take it on. I am not up on the proper procedure, plus I am not sure that I followed what is said in the reference you gave - credit? What is that about? How is marking it failed

2282:

being available to step in. In any case, about the only further substantive comment I have is to suggest another photo to go in the infobox at the top: at first glance the subject seems to be the modern apartment building behind the ruins of Galerius' palace. If there were photos of the remains of

1857:

seems to be number 3a, which requires the article to cover "the main aspects of the topic". The footnote declares that comprehensiveness is not required and that articles that "do not cover every major fact or detail" are indeed permitted. From that perspective, I'm having a hard time parsing what

1651:

Well, this is the most unusual review – peer, GA or FA – I have ever experienced. You have not gone on at length; indeed, there is no prose review, no source review, and the comments you do make lead me to think you have not read the article with an eye toward detail because you have asked for the

1632:

I've gone on at length about this article. The short version of my criticism is that while there are lots of facts from reliable sources (which I am confident are correct), there is no answer to the numerous whys of this subject. Why is this massacre notable? Why are the details disputed? How were

1540:

has a set of very enlightening diagrams showing just how long it took news to reach Venice from various locations in Europe, before the start of the Industrial Age (pp. 426f). According to these diagrams, it routinely took news from the region around Thessalonica 4 weeks to reach Venice; one could

1414:

I can't say I understand what value 'other riots' would add. It seems off topic to me. This is not an article on 'ancient riots' but is specifically this one riot alone. Perhaps you feel a section on other possible causes, beyond those mentioned in the sources that wrote about it, is called for. I

1308:

awesome! I am so glad to see you, and thank you so much for doing this! :-) These are good comments, and I will endeavor to fix them all as immediately as possible. I only have 5 minutes right now, but I will be back and work myself to the bone later tonight I promise! Thank you again, this is

1253:

In the 2nd paragraph of the section "Commentary", you lump Rufinus in with 3 others as "5th century historians". Rufinus published his history in 401, & this alleged massacre happened during his life time (either 389 or 390). I don't think the implication that Rufinus was inaccurate about this

3817:

Also in the lead: the present wording "an action by imperial soldiers in Thessalonica taken against civilians" is a bit opaque. I'd recommend being a bit clearer about what particularly is alleged to have happened. Then, of course, you can clarify the scholarly concerns with that narrative. (The

3798:

recommends "two or three paragraphs" for an article of this size, and you've added a good deal of content since you last worked on it. A decent guideline might be giving each section/sub-section two or three sentences in the lead. This allows for both thorough coverage and a leisurely pace in the

3102:

is clear about the dangers of over-quoting. I think it would improve the fluency of the article if you looked at each quotation and asked yourself whether a paraphrase would be just as good or better. If the wording is particularly useful, then by all means keep the quote. But there are plenty of

1958:

I have now changed the lead using as much of your wording as I know is supported by sources. The massacre did not end the riot, it followed after it, and the influence of the event on the relationship of the two men is not established, but with those two alterations, and the removal of the second

1555:

The anger of the Emperor rose to the highest pitch, and he gratified his vindictive desire for vengeance by unsheathing the sword most unjustly and tyrannically against all, slaying the innocent and guilty alike. It is said seven thousand perished without any forms of law, and without even having

1465:

You accepted this review at 20:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC). It has now been a full month with no actual review having begun. I have no doubt of your good faith and that you are well intentioned, but I request that you either begin an actual review or pass it on to some one else. Thank you for trying.

1410:

Hi! Wonderful to hear from you, but I have to say, some of this confuses me, as everything you mention here is pretty much already discussed in the article. In the second paragraph of the commentary section, I discuss that figuring out what actually happened is near impossible, so you are not the

3925:

Well I feel compelled to say that's a really good argument and I have to agree. Except now I have no idea of what history is actually pertinent to these events. It wasn't part of the Arian controversy. It had nothing to do with anti-paganism. It may have been about the Goths but probably not. It

3574:

I have now added the historical background section you requested, though I feel I should apologize for adding more on top of what you have already done. I had a hard time not writing a whole history of the Roman empire! I finally focused on the two main characters and was able, then, to cull the

2399:

wonderful world of wiki huh? I'm sorry, I know I'm going a little crazy here, but I promise not to inflict it on you - well, after today anyway. :-) Tell me what you need me to do and I will do it. How and when do I renominate and are there qualifications for renomination that I need to meet?

1919:

has a lot more credibility than I do, familiarity with the primary sources would show it is clearly based on the account of Sozomen, who wrote 40-60 years after the event. (And about which Doležal has raised questions about its accuracy.) It is worth noting that the sources contemporary with the

1910:

FWIW, the second paragraph in the lead would better fit in the "Sources" section. If you wish to keep it.Next, I may an outlier with this opinion but I believe we need to use some thought & common sense in our selection of sources, be they primary or secondary sources. I mention this because

1778:

I stand corrected, so now I am just confused. Your critique is broad. How are five paragraphs discussing Ambrose insufficient? That is a sincere question - what of the Ambrose debate remains uncovered? Paulinus and Gibbon can be added, but their views are already represented by more contemporary

1667:

Mclynn says that in the aftermath of the massacre, “unable to impose discipline upon the faraway troops, was compelled by the much-proclaimed myth of imperial omnipotence to accept . The best face he could put upon the situation was of a hasty order countermanded too late".:103 Scholars such as

3907:

reading about the massacre. This paragraph would seem to belong in a sort of "legacy" section, i.e. discussing how the massacre made a difference in history and impacted our perceptions of Theodosius. If you want, you could certainly consider tacking on such a section at the end; you could also

3118:

will tell you she keeps trying to break me of my unnatural obsession with quotes, and I am trying to cut back, honestly I am, but I love them! I am addicted to quoting!! :-( I know you're right, really I do; it's a character flaw... I changed the bishop quote. :-) It looks so sad and bedraggled

2193:

will decide, but I do believe the right to decide is hers, not mine. I am grateful when anyone volunteers to help others like this, and both of you have my full esteem. I am rewriting the lead - and checking the prose - per your suggestions. The article will be better for your input. Thank you.

1924:

here, but common sense dictates if it is cited, at least point out that it presents one version of the disputed facts. (Or maybe it should be kept since it may be the most familiar version of the event. And it could be argued Sozomen drew on oral tradition. If used, its use should be explicitly

1906:

was an action by imperial soldiers that ended an urban riot during the reign of Roman emperor Theodosius I. The details of this event are disputed by modern historians, but innocent Thessalonicans were amongst those killed. This massacre had an effect on the relationship between the emperor and

1674:

This still existing letter, according to McLynn, is "unusually" tactful for Ambrose, and it offers a way for the emperor to "save face" and restore his image. Ambrose tells Theodosius that he cannot give him communion while Theodosius is unrepentant for the massacre. Ambrose urges a semi-public

1567:

Ambrose, Paulinus, Augustine and Theodoret, (but not Rufinus or Sozomen) either imply or openly declare that the Emperor was somehow misled or duped in his decision by his officials.:95 Ambrose is quite enigmatic, speaking of the “deceit of others”, which caused the Emperor’s guilt (deflevit in

885:

The lead section states: the massacre was a retaliatory action by the Emperor against the citizens of Thessaloniki, but then later in the article it states that angry Gothic troops massacred the citizens for murdering Butherich, a fellow Gothic soldier. Did the Emperor order the troops against

2834:

In the paragraph beginning "Daniel Washburn writes", there seem to be some issues with the quotations. Washburn says "...intentionally or not, ended in a massacre", but you've changed it to "...intentionally or not, produced the 'massacre of Thessalonica'". Since you're quoting, stick with the

2129:

I do understand that this is a volunteer job that has to be a lower priority. I want what's good for this article, but I also want what's good for real people, and that includes you. I want the quality review it seemed you were ready to give when you started this, but I also want us both to be

1741:

I doubt you are even half as sorry as I am. I have just wasted an hour posting repeats of the article itself here. I have adjusted the lead, beyond that, there was nothing here I could do a damn thing with. I don't need apologies. I need actionable suggestions, or a conclusion of your review.

1519:

So, more specifics of the details of the disputes? More beyond the mention of the fact the sources contradict each other, because the sources are biased and include the writer's own views of what might have happened; more beyond that the event is not mentioned in the pagan histories, and the

3844:

It has seen a lot of progress thanx to you. Stepping up like you have, giving this very excellent and obviously needed review, and your many valuable and on point comments have brought this article to another level. I am so grateful I could pop! You have been wonderful, this review has been

3895:

adds. It doesn't really provide background since it speaks mostly to the effect of the massacre on Theodosius' reputation. Additionally, Williams is not a modern source, so his reliability is perhaps questionable. I'd recommend just axing that paragraph; the article wouldn't lose anything.

4372:

Make sure words are linked the first time they appear in the body and not at some later point. (For instance, Theodosius and Sozomen aren't linked until their second occurrence in the article. This is likely because this article has had, to say the least, a lot of reorganization.)

3845:

excellent, and I hope we become the best of friends forever after! I want you to review everything I write from now on! I cannot say thank you enough. Is there such a thing as a review board? Is there someone I can tell how great you are? I will if I can. You deserve it.

3144:, I am laughing out loud! What a terrible un-followable mess! There's no text to hold those quotes together and explain them! That is not at all like me, no sir, not at all. I would never misuse quotes in such an abusive manner! Let me quote a doctor ... nevermind. ;-) 3899:

Well, I liked the symmetry with the paragraphs about Ambrose. Plus it indicates how important this event was in history and our understanding of the emperor. Instead of removing it, I added a sentence on modern scholarship. Would that be an acceptable compromise?

1217:

appears in two separate entries -- which is unnecessary in the citation style you use here. (Seeing how you have footnotes & also have a bibliography, I'm not certain the style used here is the best choice. I'll need some time to think of a better solution.)

3062:

First it was a quote; then I didn't like its prose so I changed some of it to read better and removed the quotes, but it is too close to the original not to quote, so now it is back as a quote with brackets for my additions. I like it being in the text. Good

3119:

without the panache of a quote, but I will cope. I will change any you see fit. My problem is that whenever I remove one in one place, I tend to add one in another - I tell you it's a sickness! I am a recovering quotation-aholic. Please be patient with me.

4783:

A wide variety of perspectives are presented, and the article does not seem to elevate one over another. Since scholarly opinion is so divided, there aren't any due weight issues: the article permits the reader to decide which explanation (if any) is most

754: 667: 4458:

as well. I love WP. I won writing awards all through college, but wiki is a world unto itself isn't it? It isn't like any other type of writing I have ever done. So, don't give up on me. Keep trying. It may get through my. thick skull one of these days.

969:

This article appears to be based entirely on original sources indicating original research. It needs inline citation to secondary sources that actually say what is said here. I don't see anything incorrect, but it still needs proper sourcing. Please.

4194:

removed Williams because I couldn't find a logical place for it to go. As I said above, it would only really "fit" in some sort of "impact" or "legacy" section at the end. I would say just keep it out for now; that's probably the easiest thing to do.

2743:

Cameron, Averil; Garnsey, Peter, eds. (1928). The Cambridge Ancient History, Late empire, A.D. 337-425. Volume 13. Cambridge University Press. — This book has individual authors for chapters. You should indicate the author and chapter you are citing.

4231:- to me, anyway, this reads as if Theodosius was actually there leading the troops. I don't have a firm opinion on how to resolve it: either reword the sentence or just remove Theodosius from it. I'd also mention in the first sentence that these are 1427:

And I do fully understand if you don't have time after all to do this. RL things changed for you right after you got this, and no one would fault you for passing it on. We all have that from time to time and have to back off of WP. I certainly have.

1535:

Along these lines, I encountered a problem that none of the authorities writing about the massacre seem to have mentioned: Theodosius could not have had direct involvement in the massacre, due to slow communications of the time. Ferdinand Braudel's

3497:- this wording suggests that scholars dispute whether he issued the law at all. I think the "is alleged" is referring to the date; if so, you might try something along the lines of "Theodosius issued a law, allegedly in August of 390, ordering..." 4402:

That was more of a general statement that someone with copyediting expertise would likely find things that both of us have missed. It's nothing personal: just a recognition that additional perspectives improve everyone's writing quality.

2828:

I am working on that in my sandbox right now. I write 6 paragraphs, then delete down to one, so it takes me awhile, but I will get something that is appropriate to this topic and doesn't go - too far -- off into the weeds soon. I hope. I

2586:, masters' theses "are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence"; this one doesn't appear to meet that standard. Since it's only used once, replacing it shouldn't be too great a challenge. 989:

Hello to all who have cared about and contributed to this article. I am adding some new information that will address the concerns mentioned above and will hopefully bring quality contemporary scholarship into the article a little more.

2108:

you do show up it is - well - it is what it is. Surely you can understand my frustration. But I don't want you to go away - I want you to engage more not less - and if you are unable to do that, I just want you to be up front about that.

4517:

after you have already awarded the GA. :-) It is one of the best reviews I have ever had. I am genuinely and deeply grateful. I don't know what I - or this article - would have done if you hadn't shown up. Thank you again and again.

1691:

That is self explanatory, obvious and apparent: if it happened, it's obvious why that's important, and if it didn't, it is still notable that it went down in history as if it did. Besides, that discussion has no place in the article

3614:- I would preface this with "According to Hebblewhite" or some equivalent. I realize that you just gave in-text attribution in the previous sentence, but I think it's important to make clear that this sentence isn't in wiki-voice. 1592:

I don't know that it is proven this event did in fact play an important role in the relationship between Ambrose and Theodosius. Paulinus was not an unbiased source, and as it says in the article about the histories of the period:

2864:

The final sentence of that paragraph (beginning "While the precise date...") is a verbatim quote from Washburn, but it isn't in quotation marks. It might be better just to paraphrase - there's nothing special about the wording.

1920:

event have the least amount of detail, while the later versions are the most detailed. Understanding the primary sources -- even if not cited -- helps to better judge the secondary ones. So I don't know if I would cite the

628: 1880:

and I are talking past each other. I have now added some to the source discussion, section titles that are hopefully more descriptive of content, and some to the lead. Perhaps these additions will help. I am trying.

2420:

Okay, I nominated it again. It looks really weird to have the nomination and the failure together at the top of the page! :-) I am feeling completely cross-eyed by all of this but attempting to carry on, Captain!!

2354:, albeit a bit more than I was anticipating. To keep everything procedurally in order, I'll mark this review as failed; you can then renominate the article and I'll review it. (This is an approved procedure: see 770: 671: 1991:

enough detail to go look up elsewhere if they want or need to. Bogging this down with minutiae will not improve the article in my opinion. I feel strongly about this point, and it is what common sense tells me.

1424:; it is not to write or rewrite the article for me. If as an editor you have something you want to add to the article, that's perfectly fine of course, but that would automatically disqualify you as a reviewer. 4849:

The first and third images, being centuries old, are obviously in the public domain, and copyright doesn't vest in photographs of two-dimensional public-domain works. The second image has a valid CC BY-SA 3.0

3058:

The explanatory footnote appears to be mostly verbatim from Doležal, but it's not marked as a quote. Again, a paraphrase would probably be preferable, and you might even consider bringing it up into the text.

3205:

As you probably can tell by now, my reviews proceed in no particular order. I appreciate your responsiveness to my suggestions, and I look forward to analyzing the article further in the coming days. Cheers,

4969: 3001:: I'm not sure if "accountability" is quite the right word for that section since it talks mostly about the degree and motivation of his participation. Perhaps "Theodosius' role" would be a better summary? 901:

The Emperor ordered them into Thessalonica; they may then have gotten out of control, but that was unsurprising. He did not order the massacre, but he could have averted it; that was Ambrose's complaint.

2939:

since the article never states that this event was part of a civil war. If that can't be substantiated the event should be removed from the template, and the template should be removed from the article.

4964: 3098:

of quotations. I certainly understand why: when scholars have such a diverse range of views, giving the various perspectives directly to the reader can be helpful. But we are a tertiary source, and

3781:

It was one of those that went from a quote to a paraphrase, then I decided it was too close a paraphrase and added the quotation marks back without checking word for word content. My bad again!

4432:

I certainly understand that. Of course, you shouldn't worry yourself too much about it: in this section, I'm just pointing out issues (or non-issues) that might come up in higher-level reviews.

4399:

a robot - so I would be glad of any input you have. I probably will never do everything exactly as you would, but I would like to meet WP's requirements in my own way if that's at all possible.

4571:

Each sentence's meaning is clear enough to be understood without difficulty. While there are plenty of wrinkles that could still be ironed out, the prose quality is good enough for GA purposes.

4107:

I think that's a solid improvement. (I was also working on rewriting the lead, so I'll put what I came up with below in case it's useful to you.) I'll have some more comments for you briefly.

2674: 3680:

might be able to get it for you.) I can't see very much through GBooks, but it looks like it has quite a bit of interesting information, especially considering how recently it was published.

2603:

I'm not sure what citations 8 and 11 add - they don't support anything in the text, and there's really no need to give us the author's web page. Let me know if there's something I'm missing.

4934: 241: 231: 1189:

Thank you for catching that! I think, I hope, that now you will find the only place individual quotation marks are used is when it is a quote within a quote. All British style now as well.

886:

Thessaloniki? From the article it sounds as though they were acting on their own. The bishop certainly seems to have blamed the Emperor, but I don't see where he really got invovled. --

2457: 1093: 4939: 3673: 548: 922:… seems a little vague. The article appears in the category of "Sexuality in ancient Rome," but doesn't actually provide any information on this topic, such as what the offense was. 4421:

You rely pretty heavily on Washburn and particularly Doležal. While they're both great sources, the article would probably benefit if you were able to diversify the sourcing a bit.

1411:

only one with that difficulty. There is no need for you to do primary source research - unless it is simply for your own interest. None of it could be used here as it would be OR.

1221:

Sozomen done; my control-F function finds "Ambrose of Milan Political Letters and Speeches" in one place only; it's a book by Carol Hill, so I am unsure what the problem is here.

3689: 3501:

If you feel strongly about it, I will look up more on this particular law and we can come to some kind of consensus on it. Otherwise, I request that we leave this one as it is.

3277:- this makes it sound like Doležal is the bishop of Cyrrhus. You already explained who Theodoret was two sentences prior, so you can just remove the "bishop of Cyrrhus" clause. 4929: 2933: 207: 4039:

I think I used Carole Hill where she was referenced in other sources, but looking at this particular book, I think you're right that referencing it means using WL instead, so

3478:

Sorry, missed this one earlier. I have semi-divided it - using a semi-colon - because otherwise it would require a repetition of the attribution and that would just be weird.

4424:

The fact there are 27 sources is evidence of hours and hours of searching over weeks and even months. I never stopped looking even while we were doing this review. There are

2961:

It was in the article before my arrival and while I noted the problem, I didn't remove it immediately and then forgot about it, so thank you for reminding me. It's gone now.

4376:

Theodosius is linked in the lead. Sozomen is fixed now - since his first mention got moved. I think I got them all. If I missed any, please follow request per contractions.

4325:

For the reasons below, I'm prepared to pass this article. Here are a few additional non-GA suggestions that might be helpful if you choose to work on this article further:

2355: 3235:

are the kinds of editors that make other editors better, and I can't tell you how much I admire and appreciate that. I am truly grateful. Thank you thank you thank you.

697: 1911:

there are some unintended contradictions in the material presented. Let me present two examples that jump out at me. One is the account of the massacre quoted from the

435: 2336:

you kindly showed up to offer a second opinion and have now been dumped into the fire. Are you available to do this? I understand it is more than you signed up for.

4593: 2490: 2189:

Your perspectives are helpful. They are focused, on point, concrete and workable, and I am deeply grateful for your participation and your input. I don't know what

1757: 1126: 203: 198: 175: 2806:

1998 is correct. I'm so glad to see you! I know now that between the two of you, everything's going to be okay. We'll get it fixed up and runnin'! Bless you both!

1186:

I noticed this article used both single & double quotation marks, jumping from the British style to the American & back. That needs to be made consistent.

997:

the current references. I will do so a little at a time with an eye toward replacing material the copyright detector says has been directly copied from this blog:

4979: 4336:

Okay, I found four and fixed them. I read throiugh and also used control-F for every contraction I couod think of. If I missed any - please just fix them! :-)

202:, a group of contributors interested in Knowledge's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our 2462: 1098: 4974: 4949: 2480: 1853:: I'm glad to provide a second opinion, but before I do that I'd like to have a slightly better understanding of what's actually at issue here. The relevant 1816:

I have added more section titles in hopes of clarifying the discussion and also added Dolzáls review of the sources. Does any of this address your concerns?

1698:

waste more of my time or yours by posting things that you would know if you read through the article, carefully, as a reviewer, with your questions in mind.

1116: 452: 351: 341: 3758:

Any reason for keeping the two McLynn cites (3 and 14) separate? I see that they have different years and ISBNs, but they would appear to be the same book.

1572:

As I said above, this event played an important role in the relationship between Ambrose & Theodosius. This was quite clear to me when I read Paulinus'

4959: 2792:

And while you're at it, could you check the year? GBooks says 1928, but the copyright appears to be from '98 and the editors hadn't even been born in '28.

3859:

That's very kind of you to say. Your generous comments, as well as the knowledge that my review has improved the article, are a sufficient reward for me.

4834: 4954: 1580:-- in chapter 27 Gibbon mentions the massacre in connection to the conflict between the bishop & emperor. It was clear when I read John Matthews, 467: 417: 1546:

the discussion of whether Theodosius ordered the massacre or not, and I agree, it is doubtful he ordered it. But that is already in the article too.

4656: 4597: 4589: 2529: 1421:

There is no need for you to feel you need to help me write this article. It's written. Your job is simply to review it according to the GA criteria

562: 431: 1491:

My apologies for not responding sooner. There are some issues besides my unexpected increase of duties at work that caused this. Let me explain.

4989: 4944: 4581: 863: 853: 692: 662: 4110:

Well dang, now I like yours too - in some ways more than mine. Can we combine them? I will try in my sandbox and see what I can come up with.

1584:(pp. 234-236), who includes it as an event in Ambrose's repeated manipulation of the emperor. And it was clear to me in reading Alan Cameron, 4651:, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or 1876:

Thank you so much for showing up and doing this. I am more grateful than I can say. I agree with your assessment, but it does seem as though

701: 3402:

You can probably dispense with the names, years, and page numbers of the works that Doležal is citing - just the author will be adequate.

1756:

Despite what you think, I have read the article, carefully & several times. Since you disagree with my comments, I suggest you seek a

2039:

on both sides. I hope my perspectives are helpful, and I'm glad to provide clarification or further assistance if it is needed. Cheers,

951: 513: 50: 4540: 2402:

Thank you again. I am totally turned upside down by this and can't tell you how much it means that you are providing a landing place.

4454:

accuracy. There is great comfort in knowing that I am not getting the author's intent wrong or adding my personal views into the mix.

1973:

an evaluation in any article on WP. The fact the other two sources in the same section contradict the detail in the CAH does in fact

4652: 2539: 2508: 1144: 487: 317: 308: 264: 109: 90: 4984: 4919: 4585: 829: 1053:

Please note that if you run the copyvio detector, what it picks up as violations are quotes, so they are not actual violations.

2538:

I'll be glad to take this up; I should have comments in the relatively near future. While I'll consider the points made in the

2485: 1121: 524: 38: 32: 4924: 4673: 1418:

Nearly the entire section 'Aftermath' discusses Ambrose. Any more would make it an article about him instead of the massacre.

566: 3122:

The usual prescription for treating quotaphiles (and victims of various other modern-writing ailments) is a perusal through

1549:

an excess of "volcanic anger", "choler" and "wrath".:95 Church historian Theodoret puts the number of dead at 7,000, saying:

3683:

I will, but right now my browzer couldn't open that page and I have to go, but I will be back later tonight and check this.

3192:

There doesn't seem to be a cite for this (the nearest one, Brown, doesn't discuss it). You say earlier in the article that

1165: 1035:

The deed is done, if there are any changes you think need to be made, offer good sources and we will make them. Thank you

3883:, everything in the lead ought to appear in the body, so I'd either add it in (with a citation, of course) or remove it. 4896: 4491: 4468: 4437: 4408: 4311: 4265: 4199: 4129: 4080: 3946: 3913: 3864: 3832: 3794:

Since we seem to be getting toward the end of this review, I'd encourage you to go back and expand the lead a bit more.

3715: 3597: 3559: 3509: 3341: 3254: 3211: 3131: 2945: 2915: 2797: 2749: 2712: 2634: 2547: 2523: 2363: 2044: 1863: 541: 424: 410: 150: 1257:

Well, that's a fair point. I will see if I can reword that without having to get into a long discussion of reliability.

820: 797: 497: 474: 3123: 2615:

has been gradually breaking me of the notion that this is a good idea. I forgot these were here. They are gone now.

1907:

Ambrose, bishop of Milan and later saint, and has been cited as an example of the bishop's influence on the emperor.

4838: 3959:

relevant to Ambrose' influence over Theodosius I think, but I thought you were right about it not being background.

3071:- Since the source also uses the English, you might as well make it easier on the reader and just write (and link) 1556:

judicial sentence passed upon them; but that, like ears of wheat in the time of harvest, they were alike cut down.

4856: 4644: 4577: 600: 4058:

Please feel free! I would love it if you would try your hand - that gives me the opportunity to revise you! :-)

3827:

This article has seen lots of progress, and I anticipate being able to wrap the review up in the next few days.

1014:

Do not use articles from Knowledge (whether this English Knowledge or Wikipedias in other languages) as sources.

4826: 3295: 2283:

the hippodrome, one of those would be the best choice, but after looking thru Commons I could not find any. --

895: 460: 4260:

I'll give the article a thorough read-through tonight or tomorrow, and then we should be ready to go. Cheers,

3999:

Perhaps you're right again and just the Williams paragraph should be moved or removed. Aaarrggh! As you wish.

955: 4892: 4830: 4749: 4616: 4502: 4487: 4464: 4433: 4404: 4307: 4277: 4261: 4208: 4195: 4138: 4125: 4090: 4076: 4014: 3955: 3942: 3922: 3909: 3860: 3828: 3711: 3593: 3571: 3555: 3505: 3337: 3224: 3207: 3141: 3127: 2911: 2793: 2724: 2708: 2630: 2543: 2519: 2417: 2391: 2359: 2333: 2279: 2186: 2040: 1873: 1859: 696:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a 590: 3655:- your new background section already introduces him, so this subsequent reference can just read "McLynn". 4745: 4728: 3903:

Hmmm. The background section is supposed to provide background, i.e. things that the reader needs to know

2504: 1140: 596: 295: 3294:

The articles on Sozomen and Theodoret are each linked twice, and both in the same paragraph. (There's a

2983:: The citation is to page 95, which doesn't seem to back the sentence up. Page 100 seems to discuss it. 2583: 891: 616: 583: 156: 20: 2673:, but I can't imagine that theologian wrote a book on Theodosius. Assuming our Williams is the same as 4306:

after what must have been a difficult previous review. Wishing you the best in your future endeavors,

4252:- since this is the lead, you might want to just say "garrison commander" or something like that. Per 3743:

Something is wrong with cite 23 (MacMullen) - it looks like some piece of template syntax is missing.

1665:

Is this not enough of a discussion of something that will always have inadequate historical detail?

4694: 4690: 4667:

All content is cited to reliable secondary sources. Primary sources are only used to supplement them.

4552:

As discussed below, I conclude that the article in its present form meets the good article criteria.

4522: 4296: 4239: 4217: 4146: 4115: 4098: 4063: 4022: 4004: 3989: 3964: 3931: 3850: 3732: 3580: 3542: 3483: 3358: 3240: 3149: 2966: 2898: 2853: 2811: 2781: 2732: 2695: 2656: 2620: 2562: 2426: 2407: 2341: 2240: 2199: 2157: 2021: 1886: 1821: 1784: 1747: 1703: 1622: 1602: 1525: 1471: 1433: 1348: 1331: 1314: 1276: 1262: 1240: 1226: 1194: 1060: 1040: 1025: 975: 941: 937: 907: 530: 505: 501: 4739:

The article seems to do a pretty good job of addressing all of the questions that the sources raise.

4684:

My spot checks of citations suggest that the content does indeed reflect what the cited sources say.

2332:

All right, I don't much like it, but I said it was your choice to make, and I accept your decision.

959: 945: 931: 2670: 448: 1415:

can do that if you feel strongly about it, but I retain my reservations. For me that is off focus.

828:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

312:, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the 4860: 4799: 4483: 4392: 927: 1254:

due to the time that passed between the event & when he wrote. (Maybe for other reasons...)

4655:, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the 4627:

A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with

4395:

would likely be useful in ironing out prose issues, inconsistent citations, MOS concerns, etc.

4017:. I can live with that. Poor Mr. Williams is non-compat. :-) Thank you for fixing that. SHEW! 2288: 2076: 2071:

might be happier if I withdraw from this review & find another person to take it over. --

1938: 1765: 1721: 1638: 1382: 1295: 1159: 517: 480: 442: 42: 4818: 4710: 4330: 3250: 3165: 2941: 2745: 887: 4544: 4518: 4292: 4238:

Hatnotes on historical background section: I'd make them both "see also", e.g. "see also:

4213: 4142: 4111: 4094: 4059: 4018: 4000: 3985: 3960: 3927: 3846: 3728: 3677: 3576: 3538: 3479: 3354: 3236: 3227:

you write whatever you want, in whatever order you want. This is wonderful. You and dear

3145: 3073: 2962: 2894: 2849: 2807: 2777: 2728: 2691: 2652: 2616: 2558: 2422: 2403: 2351: 2337: 2236: 2195: 2153: 2068: 2032: 2017: 1882: 1846: 1817: 1780: 1743: 1699: 1618: 1598: 1521: 1499:

when it is clearly focused on the article. (I know I have made this mistake in the past.)

1467: 1429: 1370: 1344: 1327: 1310: 1272: 1258: 1236: 1222: 1190: 1056: 1036: 1021: 971: 903: 573: 313: 3504:

That's fine. If the sources permit doing so, you might want to add a sentence about it.

279: 258: 4775:

It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

4768: 4628: 3795: 2882:

Is there a difference between citation 5 (Drake) and citation 8 (Biennial Conference)?

1977:

I trust the reader to see the point without the need to hit them over the head with it.

1854: 1422: 612: 555: 397: 4246:". Unless I'm missing something, there's no reason why Theodosius is the main article. 4036:

references to "Carole Hill" and replace them with references to "Wolf Liebeschuetz".)

3783: 3763: 3747: 3406: 3047: 2987: 2887: 1001:] And copyright violations are taken seriously on WP. That material has to go before 812: 791: 746: 4913: 2036: 923: 509: 4900: 4526: 4495: 4472: 4441: 4412: 4315: 4300: 4269: 4221: 4203: 4150: 4133: 4119: 4102: 4084: 4067: 4026: 4008: 3993: 3968: 3950: 3935: 3917: 3868: 3854: 3836: 3736: 3719: 3601: 3584: 3563: 3546: 3513: 3487: 3362: 3345: 3265: 3244: 3215: 3153: 3135: 2970: 2956: 2919: 2902: 2857: 2815: 2801: 2785: 2760: 2736: 2716: 2699: 2660: 2638: 2624: 2566: 2551: 2533: 2430: 2411: 2367: 2345: 2292: 2244: 2203: 2161: 2080: 2048: 2025: 1942: 1890: 1867: 1825: 1788: 1769: 1751: 1725: 1707: 1642: 1626: 1606: 1529: 1475: 1437: 1386: 1352: 1335: 1318: 1299: 1280: 1266: 1244: 1230: 1198: 1169: 1064: 1044: 1029: 979: 911: 4705:

All quotations are marked as such, and I'm reasonably confident that there are not

4648: 3378: 2926: 2329: 2284: 2232: 2190: 2104: 2072: 1955: 1934: 1877: 1850: 1813: 1775: 1761: 1738: 1717: 1648: 1634: 1462: 1407: 1378: 1340: 1323: 1305: 1291: 1155: 1002: 579: 3421:

is a bit long/clunky; the fluidity would likely benefit if you split it into two.

1182:

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

1683:

Because of the conflicts between the sources - which is explained in the article.

1595:

they were written "to evoke appreciation for ecclesial action and imperial piety"

4352: 3259: 3229: 3112: 2950: 2754: 2645: 2609: 608: 3672:

Do you have access to Cambridge Core (either through TWL or otherwise)? If so,

2130:

practical and have enough common sense to recognize if someone is overextended.

289: 534: 285: 4563:

A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

1466:

Things happen to us all. No hard feelings, I just need to move on with this.

4253: 3692:

on one of the paintings you use. Linking it in the caption might be useful.

3126:. Once you've read through it, you'll never even be tempted to quote again. 3099: 1010:] copies from Knowledge which is also not allowed without attribution, see: 2511:. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. 1661:

I must say, that statement is correct - no one knows or can know the whys.

1147:. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. 3107:. If you wouldn't lose anything by summarizing, it's better to summarize. 190: 169: 3880: 3879:

The Gibbon factoid in the lead appears nowhere else in the article. Per

1929:

historian who also omits any account of the massacre, the author of the

4798:

It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing

4243: 3818:

body does this well, so it's just a question of doing it in the lead.)

2643:

I think we both tried to remove them at the same time - but whoo hoo!!

1510:

presents one version with extensive details of this. However, there is

493: 4212:

to get better. There's probably a quote I could use about that... :-)

3170:"The reports of Rufinus, Sozemen and Theodoret are mutually exclusive" 1760:. That would be more productive of your time than arguing with me. -- 762: 604: 2607:

added references for the scholars themselves. Wonderful and amazing

3164:

As you're going through the quotations, make sure that they're all

684: 656: 825: 4229:

was a massacre of civilians by imperial troops under Theodosius I

1663:

Why did Ambrose force Theodosius to do penance for this massacre?

4482:

Again, I certainly understand that too. (Some people don't; see

3018:

Citation are needed for the majority of the paragraph beginning

2542:, I'm not bound by them: all GA reviews begin on a clean slate. 3275:

According to Doležal, the bishop of Cyrrhus, Theodoret wrote...

3196:, so I'm curious about how broadly accepted the April date is. 1576:

of the life of St. Ambrose. It was clear from Edward Gibbons'

999:] Blogs are not considered a reliable source by WP standards: 132: 4450:

And yes, I'm sure there are still some quotes that could go.

3194:

general consensus places it in the spring or summer of 390 CE

1975:

point out that it presents one version of the disputed facts.

4256:, technical terms should be avoided in the lead if possible. 3495:

In August of 390, Theodosius is alleged to have issued a law

3318:- it's attributed in-text to Doležal but cited to Washburn. 761: 745: 206:. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our 2848:

I should never attempt to quote from memory... thank you.

1326:

Sorry it took awhile - RL is interfering with my WP!! :-)

3172:) where the text doesn't make clear whom you're quoting. 2356:

WT:Good article nominations/Archive 24#Change of reviewer

4970:

Roman and Byzantine military history task force articles

4093:

I took a stab at redoing the lead. See what you think.

3886:

Moved him down to the body with the other naysayers. :-)

3190:

are generally believed to have occurred in April of 390.

1659:

there is no answer to the numerous whys of this subject.

1343:

So, how's it going? Any sign of a return anytime soon?

1290:

More when I have a chance to do the needed research. --

549:

Category:Knowledge requested photographs of Catholicism

386: 381: 376: 371: 102: 83: 4965:

GA-Class Roman and Byzantine military history articles

3043:: You refer to Washburn, but the cite is to Doležal. 2835:

original unless you want to modify it with brackets.

1582:

Western Aristocracies and Imperial Court, AD 364-425

1209:

is cited in two different ways, & Liebeschuetz,

824:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 3778:seems to deviate quite a bit from Washburn's text. 2005:Those are the only changes I see, and they are now 728: 4891:Thanks again for your great work on this article! 3466:Rewrote that one because it wouldn't divide easily 3103:places where it doesn't really add anything: e.g. 4935:Low-importance Classical Greece and Rome articles 1205:The bibliography needs some grooming. Sozomen's 4709:many quotations as to constitute a copyvio. See 3653:Neil B. McLynn, Fellow in Later Roman History... 436:Category:Unknown-importance Catholicism articles 4940:All WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome pages 2557:Thank you. I look forward to working with you. 2278:wouldn't have suggested it had it not been for 1901: 1506:this is what the article tells us happens. The 1215:Ambrose of Milan Political Letters and Speeches 755:Roman and Byzantine military history task force 216:Knowledge:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome 4391:As is true for most articles, a copyedit from 3891:I'm not sure how much the paragraph beginning 219:Template:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome 48:If it no longer meets these criteria, you can 2677:, he should have been born in 1942, not '52. 1005:comes along and wipes out the whole page. 936:Well, I hope I satisfied your curiosity, pal. 8: 2629:Looks like Buidhe kindly took care of this. 1716:Then I'm sorry to have disappointed you. -- 1652:inclusion of details that are already there. 1502:So what is my criticism about this article? 4930:GA-Class Classical Greece and Rome articles 4748:without going into unnecessary detail (see 2934:Campaignbox Fourth Century Roman Civil Wars 4167: 3400:Doležal summarizes the disparity of views: 2440: 1076: 786: 725: 651: 405:Here are some tasks awaiting attention: 359: 253: 164: 62: 15: 3525:- redundant; pick one word or the other. 3336:I should have more for you soon. Cheers, 2578:The citation to Cotten (currently number 1933:.)Does this better explain my points? -- 468:Category:WikiProject invitation templates 3375:had gathered in the circus of their town 3316:Stanislav Doležal says these problems... 2727:Thank you. This is wonderful. You rock. 880: 690:This article is within the scope of the 563:Category:Stub-Class Catholicism articles 432:Category:Unassessed Catholicism articles 2825:some useful information on that front. 2471: 2443: 1107: 1079: 788: 653: 255: 166: 4249: 4228: 3984:Sorry had to move this - wrong place! 3892: 3775: 3652: 3632: 3631:Same thing for the sentence beginning 3611: 3522: 3494: 3472: 3460: 3439: 3418: 3399: 3381:just to prevent any misapprehensions. 3374: 3315: 3274: 3193: 3189: 3169: 3104: 3068: 3040: 3019: 2998: 2980: 1974: 1688: 1680: 1673: 1666: 1662: 1658: 1594: 1566: 1560: 1554: 1547: 1013: 710:Knowledge:WikiProject Military history 700:. To use this banner, please see the 4980:Classical warfare task force articles 4505:Thank you!!!!! I think these are all 3821:See if you think it's any better now. 3633:He was accepting of different customs 3471:And ditto for the sentence beginning 3419:Paulinus, Ambrose personal secretary, 713:Template:WikiProject Military history 199:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome 7: 3041:According to Washburn, Sozomen gives 1578:Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire 818:This article is within the scope of 196:This article is within the scope of 138: 136: 4975:GA-Class Classical warfare articles 4950:Low-importance Catholicism articles 4816:Is it illustrated, if possible, by 4250:probably the local magister militum 3776:The people of Thessalonica revolted 3440:McLynn writes that the relationship 3105:The bishop of Cyrrhus, Theodoret... 2651:showed up!!! We are cookin' now! 514:American Board of Catholic Missions 155:It is of interest to the following 4960:GA-Class military history articles 3676:might be valuable. (If you don't, 3612:He was a man who radiated strength 316:. For more information, visit the 222:Classical Greece and Rome articles 14: 3893:According to Henry Smith Williams 3459:Ditto for the sentence beginning 3438:Ditto for the sentence beginning 2509:Talk:Massacre of Thessalonica/GA2 1959:paragraph, the lead is now yours. 1145:Talk:Massacre of Thessalonica/GA1 326:Knowledge:WikiProject Catholicism 41:. If you can improve it further, 4955:WikiProject Catholicism articles 4884: 4864: 4842: 4803: 4776: 4753: 4732: 4698: 4677: 4660: 4632: 4601: 4564: 4507: 4484:WT:MOS#Policy should be stricter 4378: 4359: 4338: 4282: 4041: 3803: 3782: 3762: 3746: 3696: 3659: 3639: 3618: 3529: 3446: 3425: 3405: 3385: 3322: 3302: 3281: 3176: 3081: 3046: 3026: 3005: 2986: 2886: 2869: 2839: 2768: 2707:I'll have more for you briefly. 2682: 2590: 2007: 881:I don't understand what happened 811: 790: 683: 655: 466:Invitation template needed, see 396: 329:Template:WikiProject Catholicism 288: 278: 257: 189: 168: 137: 19: 3799:article's most important part. 3461:John Moorhead says that Ambrose 3168:. There are a few places (e.g. 2981:One peculiarity of the story... 858:This article has been rated as 346:This article has been rated as 236:This article has been rated as 4657:scientific citation guidelines 3353:Thank you! This is great!!! 3020:Historian Daniel Washburn says 2582:15) is a masters' thesis. Per 1065:21:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC) 1045:21:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC) 1030:22:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC) 567:Category:Catholic Church stubs 29:has been listed as one of the 1: 4990:Low-importance Death articles 4945:GA-Class Catholicism articles 1689:Why is this massacre notable? 1681:Why are the details disputed? 1178:Review undertaken by llywrch. 960:17:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC) 917: 832:and see a list of open tasks. 4885: 4865: 4843: 4804: 4777: 4754: 4733: 4699: 4678: 4661: 4633: 4602: 4565: 4075:We're almost there! Cheers, 2680:You're right. Link removed. 1904:The Massacre of Thessalonica 1008:Then there's also this one: 771:Classical warfare task force 693:Military history WikiProject 3199:Added some content on that. 3110:You're right of course and 2669:You have a link in-text to 946:20:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC) 838:Knowledge:WikiProject Death 502:Bishop Adolph John Paschang 498:Roman Catholicism in Kosovo 5006: 4629:the layout style guideline 4550: 4141:Done. See what you think. 2999:Theodosius' accountability 2979:In the sentence beginning 1476:03:17, 30 April 2021 (UTC) 1438:04:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC) 1387:01:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC) 1336:21:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC) 1319:22:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC) 1300:20:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC) 1281:22:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC) 1267:21:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC) 1245:21:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC) 1231:21:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC) 1199:21:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC) 1170:20:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC) 980:18:35, 2 August 2020 (UTC) 896:02:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC) 864:project's importance scale 841:Template:WikiProject Death 352:project's importance scale 242:project's importance scale 4835:valid fair use rationales 1913:Cambridge Ancient History 1508:Cambridge Ancient History 1353:03:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC) 1235:Ahah! I found it! Fixed! 932:16:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC) 912:14:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC) 857: 806: 769: 753: 724: 716:military history articles 678: 601:Archbishop of Westminster 358: 345: 273: 235: 213:Classical Greece and Rome 184: 176:Classical Greece and Rome 163: 123: 65: 61: 4901:21:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC) 4576:B. It complies with the 4527:05:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC) 4496:06:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC) 4473:21:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC) 4442:06:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC) 4413:06:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC) 4316:21:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC) 4301:03:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC) 4270:21:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC) 4222:20:41, 12 May 2021 (UTC) 4204:20:26, 12 May 2021 (UTC) 4180:Massacre of Thessalonica 4151:19:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC) 4134:18:55, 12 May 2021 (UTC) 4120:18:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC) 4103:17:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC) 4085:23:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC) 4068:04:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC) 4027:20:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC) 4009:20:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC) 3994:20:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC) 3969:20:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC) 3951:19:52, 12 May 2021 (UTC) 3936:19:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC) 3918:05:11, 12 May 2021 (UTC) 3869:23:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC) 3855:19:06, 11 May 2021 (UTC) 3837:06:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC) 3737:20:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC) 3720:19:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC) 3602:19:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC) 3585:18:14, 10 May 2021 (UTC) 3564:05:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC) 3547:18:23, 10 May 2021 (UTC) 3514:19:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC) 3488:20:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC) 3363:03:17, 10 May 2021 (UTC) 3154:18:19, 10 May 2021 (UTC) 3094:This article contains a 1657:As to the last comment: 1617:This is in the article. 993:I will also be checking 631:for Catholicism articles 303:Massacre of Thessalonica 27:Massacre of Thessalonica 4985:GA-Class Death articles 4920:Knowledge good articles 4859:to the topic, and have 4653:likely to be challenged 3473:Washburn says the image 3417:The sentence beginning 3346:19:23, 9 May 2021 (UTC) 3266:05:00, 9 May 2021 (UTC) 3245:04:59, 9 May 2021 (UTC) 3216:23:23, 8 May 2021 (UTC) 3136:19:23, 9 May 2021 (UTC) 2971:20:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC) 2957:08:51, 8 May 2021 (UTC) 2920:06:15, 8 May 2021 (UTC) 2903:20:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC) 2858:20:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC) 2816:05:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC) 2802:04:49, 8 May 2021 (UTC) 2786:05:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC) 2761:04:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC) 2737:05:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC) 2717:03:57, 8 May 2021 (UTC) 2700:05:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC) 2661:05:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC) 2639:04:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC) 2625:05:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC) 2567:22:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC) 2552:22:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC) 2534:22:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC) 2431:21:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC) 2412:21:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC) 2368:15:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC) 2346:06:44, 7 May 2021 (UTC) 2293:04:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC) 2245:03:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC) 2204:04:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC) 2162:03:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC) 2081:23:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC) 2049:17:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC) 2026:13:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC) 1943:07:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC) 1891:19:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC) 1868:18:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC) 1826:19:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC) 1789:18:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC) 1770:16:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC) 1752:06:28, 4 May 2021 (UTC) 1726:05:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC) 1708:05:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC) 1643:06:40, 3 May 2021 (UTC) 1627:05:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC) 1607:05:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC) 1586:The Last Pagans of Rome 1538:The Structure of Things 1530:05:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC) 773:(c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD) 729:Associated task forces: 309:WikiProject Catholicism 306:is within the scope of 1909: 1207:Ecclesiastical History 766: 750: 597:Archdiocese of Glasgow 363:Catholicism task list: 296:Catholic Church portal 145:This article is rated 4925:History good articles 4722:broad in its coverage 4124:That would be great. 3298:that detects these.) 765: 749: 668:Roman & Byzantine 617:Westminster Cathedral 584:John Aloysius Maguire 39:good article criteria 33:History good articles 4802:or content dispute: 4746:focused on the topic 4727:A. It addresses the 4691:copyright violations 4674:no original research 4622:no original research 4240:Theodosius the Great 3774:The quote beginning 3398:Paragraph beginning 3249:You're welcome! :) ( 2925:I'm concerned about 1377:at work on this. -- 531:Americanism (heresy) 332:Catholicism articles 110:Good article nominee 91:Good article nominee 4333:, no contractions. 3610:Sentence beginning 3523:consensus agreement 3039:Sentence beginning 2671:Stephen N. Williams 1271:See if that works. 449:Blessed Virgin Mary 4893:Extraordinary Writ 4689:D. It contains no 4598:list incorporation 4503:Extraordinary Writ 4488:Extraordinary Writ 4465:Extraordinary Writ 4434:Extraordinary Writ 4405:Extraordinary Writ 4308:Extraordinary Writ 4278:Extraordinary Writ 4262:Extraordinary Writ 4209:Extraordinary Writ 4196:Extraordinary Writ 4139:Extraordinary Writ 4126:Extraordinary Writ 4091:Extraordinary Writ 4077:Extraordinary Writ 4015:Extraordinary Writ 3956:Extraordinary Writ 3943:Extraordinary Writ 3923:Extraordinary Writ 3910:Extraordinary Writ 3861:Extraordinary Writ 3829:Extraordinary Writ 3712:Extraordinary Writ 3594:Extraordinary Writ 3572:Extraordinary Writ 3556:Extraordinary Writ 3506:Extraordinary Writ 3338:Extraordinary Writ 3225:Extraordinary Writ 3208:Extraordinary Writ 3166:attributed in-text 3142:Extraordinary Writ 3128:Extraordinary Writ 2912:Extraordinary Writ 2794:Extraordinary Writ 2725:Extraordinary Writ 2709:Extraordinary Writ 2631:Extraordinary Writ 2544:Extraordinary Writ 2520:Extraordinary Writ 2418:Extraordinary Writ 2392:Extraordinary Writ 2360:Extraordinary Writ 2334:Extraordinary Writ 2280:Extraordinary Writ 2187:Extraordinary Writ 2041:Extraordinary Writ 1874:Extraordinary Writ 1860:Extraordinary Writ 767: 751: 698:list of open tasks 151:content assessment 66:Article milestones 4861:suitable captions 4837:are provided for 4645:in-line citations 4189: 4188: 3674:this book chapter 2885:Oh no! Big oops! 2499: 2498: 2350:That'll be fine, 1931:Chronicon Pascale 1135: 1134: 910: 878: 877: 874: 873: 870: 869: 821:WikiProject Death 785: 784: 781: 780: 777: 776: 702:full instructions 650: 649: 646: 645: 642: 641: 638: 637: 506:Cum sæpe accidere 481:Cuthbert Tunstall 252: 251: 248: 247: 131: 130: 119: 118: 57: 4997: 4888: 4887: 4868: 4867: 4846: 4845: 4839:non-free content 4831:copyright status 4807: 4806: 4780: 4779: 4757: 4756: 4736: 4735: 4702: 4701: 4681: 4680: 4664: 4663: 4649:reliable sources 4636: 4635: 4605: 4604: 4568: 4567: 4515: 4511: 4510: 4386: 4382: 4381: 4367: 4363: 4362: 4346: 4342: 4341: 4331:MOS:CONTRACTIONS 4290: 4286: 4285: 4235:imperial troops. 4172:Extended content 4168: 4049: 4045: 4044: 3811: 3807: 3806: 3786: 3766: 3750: 3704: 3700: 3699: 3667: 3663: 3662: 3647: 3643: 3642: 3626: 3622: 3621: 3537: 3533: 3532: 3454: 3450: 3449: 3433: 3429: 3428: 3409: 3393: 3389: 3388: 3330: 3326: 3325: 3310: 3306: 3305: 3296:wonderful script 3289: 3285: 3284: 3262: 3232: 3184: 3180: 3179: 3115: 3089: 3085: 3084: 3050: 3034: 3030: 3029: 3013: 3009: 3008: 2990: 2953: 2938: 2932: 2929:in the template 2890: 2877: 2873: 2872: 2847: 2843: 2842: 2776: 2772: 2771: 2757: 2690: 2686: 2685: 2648: 2612: 2598: 2594: 2593: 2453:Copyvio detector 2441: 2235:Please respond. 2015: 2011: 2010: 1089:Copyvio detector 1077: 918:'Sexual offense' 906: 846: 845: 842: 839: 836: 815: 808: 807: 802: 794: 787: 736: 726: 718: 717: 714: 711: 708: 707:Military history 687: 680: 679: 674: 663:Military history 659: 652: 411:Article requests 400: 393: 392: 360: 334: 333: 330: 327: 324: 298: 293: 292: 282: 275: 274: 269: 261: 254: 224: 223: 220: 217: 214: 193: 186: 185: 180: 172: 165: 148: 142: 141: 140: 133: 124:Current status: 105: 86: 63: 46: 23: 16: 5005: 5004: 5000: 4999: 4998: 4996: 4995: 4994: 4910: 4909: 4672:C. It contains 4580:guidelines for 4578:manual of style 4537: 4508: 4506: 4379: 4377: 4360: 4358: 4339: 4337: 4283: 4281: 4190: 4173: 4042: 4040: 3804: 3802: 3697: 3695: 3660: 3658: 3640: 3638: 3619: 3617: 3530: 3528: 3447: 3445: 3426: 3424: 3386: 3384: 3323: 3321: 3303: 3301: 3282: 3280: 3260: 3230: 3177: 3175: 3113: 3082: 3080: 3074:The City of God 3069:De civitate Dei 3027: 3025: 3006: 3004: 2951: 2936: 2930: 2870: 2868: 2840: 2838: 2769: 2767: 2755: 2683: 2681: 2646: 2610: 2591: 2589: 2575: 2540:previous review 2503:This review is 2495: 2467: 2439: 2008: 2006: 1844: 1570: 1558: 1139:This review is 1131: 1103: 1075: 987: 967: 920: 904:Septentrionalis 883: 843: 840: 837: 834: 833: 800: 734: 715: 712: 709: 706: 705: 665: 634: 391: 331: 328: 325: 322: 321: 314:Catholic Church 294: 287: 267: 221: 218: 215: 212: 211: 178: 149:on Knowledge's 146: 101: 82: 12: 11: 5: 5003: 5001: 4993: 4992: 4987: 4982: 4977: 4972: 4967: 4962: 4957: 4952: 4947: 4942: 4937: 4932: 4927: 4922: 4912: 4911: 4908: 4907: 4906: 4905: 4904: 4903: 4883:Pass or Fail: 4875: 4874: 4873: 4872: 4871: 4855:B. Images are 4853: 4852: 4851: 4825:A. Images are 4814: 4813: 4812: 4811: 4810: 4789: 4788: 4787: 4786: 4785: 4764: 4763: 4762: 4761: 4760: 4742: 4741: 4740: 4731:of the topic: 4718: 4717: 4716: 4715: 4714: 4687: 4686: 4685: 4670: 4669: 4668: 4641: 4640: 4639: 4612: 4611: 4610: 4609: 4608: 4590:words to watch 4574: 4573: 4572: 4536: 4533: 4532: 4531: 4530: 4529: 4500: 4499: 4498: 4462: 4461: 4460: 4459: 4455: 4448: 4447: 4446: 4445: 4444: 4419: 4418: 4417: 4416: 4415: 4389: 4388: 4387: 4370: 4369: 4368: 4349: 4348: 4347: 4323: 4322: 4321: 4320: 4319: 4318: 4280:These are all 4258: 4257: 4247: 4236: 4226: 4225: 4224: 4187: 4186: 4175: 4174: 4171: 4166: 4164: 4162: 4161: 4160: 4159: 4158: 4157: 4156: 4155: 4154: 4153: 4073: 4072: 4071: 4070: 4052: 4051: 4050: 4032: 4031: 4030: 4029: 3982: 3981: 3980: 3979: 3978: 3977: 3976: 3975: 3974: 3973: 3972: 3971: 3889: 3888: 3887: 3876: 3875: 3874: 3873: 3872: 3871: 3825: 3824: 3823: 3822: 3815: 3814: 3813: 3796:MOS:LEADLENGTH 3792: 3791: 3790: 3772: 3771: 3770: 3756: 3755: 3754: 3741: 3740: 3739: 3708: 3707: 3706: 3705: 3688:I see we have 3686: 3685: 3684: 3670: 3669: 3668: 3650: 3649: 3648: 3629: 3628: 3627: 3608: 3607: 3606: 3605: 3604: 3552: 3551: 3550: 3549: 3520: 3519: 3518: 3517: 3516: 3492: 3491: 3490: 3469: 3468: 3467: 3457: 3456: 3455: 3436: 3435: 3434: 3415: 3414: 3413: 3396: 3395: 3394: 3370: 3368: 3367: 3366: 3365: 3334: 3333: 3332: 3331: 3313: 3312: 3311: 3292: 3291: 3290: 3272: 3271: 3270: 3269: 3268: 3203: 3202: 3201: 3200: 3187: 3186: 3185: 3162: 3161: 3160: 3159: 3158: 3157: 3156: 3092: 3091: 3090: 3066: 3065: 3064: 3056: 3055: 3054: 3037: 3036: 3035: 3016: 3015: 3014: 2996: 2995: 2994: 2976: 2975: 2974: 2973: 2908: 2907: 2906: 2905: 2880: 2879: 2878: 2862: 2861: 2860: 2832: 2831: 2830: 2822: 2821: 2820: 2819: 2818: 2790: 2789: 2788: 2741: 2740: 2739: 2705: 2704: 2703: 2702: 2667: 2666: 2665: 2664: 2663: 2627: 2601: 2600: 2599: 2584:WP:SCHOLARSHIP 2574: 2571: 2570: 2569: 2514: 2513: 2497: 2496: 2494: 2493: 2488: 2483: 2477: 2474: 2473: 2469: 2468: 2466: 2465: 2463:External links 2460: 2455: 2449: 2446: 2445: 2438: 2435: 2434: 2433: 2389: 2388: 2387: 2386: 2385: 2384: 2383: 2382: 2381: 2380: 2379: 2378: 2377: 2376: 2375: 2374: 2373: 2372: 2371: 2370: 2310: 2309: 2308: 2307: 2306: 2305: 2304: 2303: 2302: 2301: 2300: 2299: 2298: 2297: 2296: 2295: 2260: 2259: 2258: 2257: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2253: 2252: 2251: 2250: 2249: 2248: 2247: 2217: 2216: 2215: 2214: 2213: 2212: 2211: 2210: 2209: 2208: 2207: 2206: 2173: 2172: 2171: 2170: 2169: 2168: 2167: 2166: 2165: 2164: 2140: 2139: 2138: 2137: 2136: 2135: 2134: 2133: 2132: 2131: 2118: 2117: 2116: 2115: 2114: 2113: 2112: 2111: 2110: 2109: 2092: 2090: 2089: 2088: 2087: 2086: 2085: 2084: 2083: 2058: 2057: 2056: 2055: 2054: 2053: 2052: 2051: 1997: 1996: 1995: 1994: 1993: 1992: 1983: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1979: 1978: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1962: 1961: 1960: 1948: 1947: 1946: 1945: 1894: 1893: 1843: 1842:Second opinion 1840: 1839: 1838: 1837: 1836: 1835: 1834: 1833: 1832: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1828: 1800: 1799: 1798: 1797: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1758:second opinion 1731: 1730: 1729: 1728: 1711: 1710: 1694: 1693: 1685: 1684: 1671: 1670: 1654: 1653: 1630: 1629: 1610: 1609: 1565: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1533: 1532: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1486: 1485: 1484: 1483: 1482: 1481: 1480: 1479: 1478: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1440: 1425: 1419: 1416: 1412: 1396: 1395: 1394: 1393: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1389: 1360: 1359: 1358: 1357: 1356: 1355: 1288: 1287: 1286: 1285: 1284: 1283: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1248: 1247: 1203: 1202: 1201: 1180: 1179: 1174: 1150: 1149: 1133: 1132: 1130: 1129: 1124: 1119: 1113: 1110: 1109: 1105: 1104: 1102: 1101: 1099:External links 1096: 1091: 1085: 1082: 1081: 1074: 1071: 1070: 1069: 1068: 1067: 1048: 1047: 1018:And this one: 1012:] which says: 986: 983: 966: 963: 919: 916: 915: 914: 882: 879: 876: 875: 872: 871: 868: 867: 860:Low-importance 856: 850: 849: 847: 844:Death articles 830:the discussion 816: 804: 803: 801:Low‑importance 795: 783: 782: 779: 778: 775: 774: 768: 758: 757: 752: 742: 741: 739: 737: 731: 730: 722: 721: 719: 688: 676: 675: 660: 648: 647: 644: 643: 640: 639: 636: 635: 633: 632: 629:recent changes 619: 613:Sanctification 586: 569: 551: 537: 520: 518:Bernard Häring 483: 470: 456: 438: 420: 418:Draft articles 404: 402: 401: 390: 389: 384: 379: 374: 368: 365: 364: 356: 355: 348:Low-importance 344: 338: 337: 335: 300: 299: 283: 271: 270: 268:Low‑importance 262: 250: 249: 246: 245: 238:Low-importance 234: 228: 227: 225: 194: 182: 181: 179:Low‑importance 173: 161: 160: 154: 143: 129: 128: 121: 120: 117: 116: 113: 106: 98: 97: 94: 87: 79: 78: 75: 72: 68: 67: 59: 58: 24: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5002: 4991: 4988: 4986: 4983: 4981: 4978: 4976: 4973: 4971: 4968: 4966: 4963: 4961: 4958: 4956: 4953: 4951: 4948: 4946: 4943: 4941: 4938: 4936: 4933: 4931: 4928: 4926: 4923: 4921: 4918: 4917: 4915: 4902: 4898: 4894: 4890: 4889: 4882: 4881: 4879: 4876: 4870: 4869: 4862: 4858: 4854: 4848: 4847: 4840: 4836: 4832: 4828: 4824: 4823: 4821: 4820: 4815: 4809: 4808: 4801: 4797: 4796: 4794: 4790: 4782: 4781: 4774: 4773: 4771: 4770: 4765: 4759: 4758: 4751: 4750:summary style 4747: 4743: 4738: 4737: 4730: 4726: 4725: 4723: 4719: 4712: 4708: 4704: 4703: 4696: 4692: 4688: 4683: 4682: 4675: 4671: 4666: 4665: 4658: 4654: 4650: 4646: 4642: 4638: 4637: 4630: 4626: 4625: 4623: 4619: 4618: 4613: 4607: 4606: 4599: 4595: 4591: 4587: 4583: 4582:lead sections 4579: 4575: 4570: 4569: 4562: 4561: 4559: 4555: 4554: 4553: 4549: 4548: 4546: 4543:review – see 4542: 4534: 4528: 4524: 4520: 4514: 4504: 4501: 4497: 4493: 4489: 4485: 4481: 4480: 4479: 4478: 4477: 4476: 4475: 4474: 4470: 4466: 4456: 4452: 4451: 4449: 4443: 4439: 4435: 4431: 4430: 4427: 4423: 4422: 4420: 4414: 4410: 4406: 4401: 4400: 4397: 4396: 4394: 4390: 4385: 4375: 4374: 4371: 4366: 4357: 4356: 4354: 4350: 4345: 4335: 4334: 4332: 4328: 4327: 4326: 4317: 4313: 4309: 4304: 4303: 4302: 4298: 4294: 4289: 4279: 4276: 4275: 4274: 4273: 4272: 4271: 4267: 4263: 4255: 4251: 4248: 4245: 4241: 4237: 4234: 4230: 4227: 4223: 4219: 4215: 4210: 4207: 4206: 4205: 4201: 4197: 4192: 4191: 4185: 4181: 4177: 4176: 4170: 4169: 4165: 4152: 4148: 4144: 4140: 4137: 4136: 4135: 4131: 4127: 4123: 4122: 4121: 4117: 4113: 4109: 4108: 4106: 4105: 4104: 4100: 4096: 4092: 4089: 4088: 4087: 4086: 4082: 4078: 4069: 4065: 4061: 4057: 4056: 4053: 4048: 4038: 4037: 4034: 4033: 4028: 4024: 4020: 4016: 4012: 4011: 4010: 4006: 4002: 3998: 3997: 3996: 3995: 3991: 3987: 3970: 3966: 3962: 3957: 3954: 3953: 3952: 3948: 3944: 3939: 3938: 3937: 3933: 3929: 3924: 3921: 3920: 3919: 3915: 3911: 3906: 3902: 3901: 3898: 3897: 3894: 3890: 3885: 3884: 3882: 3878: 3877: 3870: 3866: 3862: 3858: 3857: 3856: 3852: 3848: 3843: 3842: 3841: 3840: 3839: 3838: 3834: 3830: 3820: 3819: 3816: 3810: 3801: 3800: 3797: 3793: 3789: 3785: 3780: 3779: 3777: 3773: 3769: 3765: 3760: 3759: 3757: 3753: 3749: 3745: 3744: 3742: 3738: 3734: 3730: 3726: 3725: 3724: 3723: 3722: 3721: 3717: 3713: 3703: 3694: 3693: 3691: 3687: 3682: 3681: 3679: 3675: 3671: 3666: 3657: 3656: 3654: 3651: 3646: 3637: 3636: 3634: 3630: 3625: 3616: 3615: 3613: 3609: 3603: 3599: 3595: 3592: 3588: 3587: 3586: 3582: 3578: 3573: 3570: 3569: 3568: 3567: 3566: 3565: 3561: 3557: 3548: 3544: 3540: 3536: 3527: 3526: 3524: 3521: 3515: 3511: 3507: 3503: 3502: 3499: 3498: 3496: 3493: 3489: 3485: 3481: 3477: 3476: 3474: 3470: 3465: 3464: 3462: 3458: 3453: 3444: 3443: 3441: 3437: 3432: 3423: 3422: 3420: 3416: 3412: 3408: 3404: 3403: 3401: 3397: 3392: 3383: 3382: 3380: 3376: 3373: 3372: 3371: 3364: 3360: 3356: 3352: 3351: 3350: 3349: 3348: 3347: 3343: 3339: 3329: 3320: 3319: 3317: 3314: 3309: 3300: 3299: 3297: 3293: 3288: 3279: 3278: 3276: 3273: 3267: 3264: 3263: 3256: 3252: 3248: 3247: 3246: 3242: 3238: 3234: 3233: 3226: 3222: 3221: 3220: 3219: 3218: 3217: 3213: 3209: 3198: 3197: 3195: 3191: 3188: 3183: 3174: 3173: 3171: 3167: 3163: 3155: 3151: 3147: 3143: 3139: 3138: 3137: 3133: 3129: 3125: 3121: 3120: 3117: 3116: 3109: 3108: 3106: 3101: 3097: 3093: 3088: 3079: 3078: 3076: 3075: 3070: 3067: 3061: 3060: 3057: 3053: 3049: 3045: 3044: 3042: 3038: 3033: 3024: 3023: 3021: 3017: 3012: 3003: 3002: 3000: 2997: 2993: 2989: 2985: 2984: 2982: 2978: 2977: 2972: 2968: 2964: 2960: 2959: 2958: 2955: 2954: 2947: 2943: 2935: 2928: 2924: 2923: 2922: 2921: 2917: 2913: 2904: 2900: 2896: 2893: 2889: 2884: 2883: 2881: 2876: 2867: 2866: 2863: 2859: 2855: 2851: 2846: 2837: 2836: 2833: 2827: 2826: 2823: 2817: 2813: 2809: 2805: 2804: 2803: 2799: 2795: 2791: 2787: 2783: 2779: 2775: 2766: 2765: 2764: 2763: 2762: 2759: 2758: 2751: 2747: 2742: 2738: 2734: 2730: 2726: 2723: 2722: 2721: 2720: 2719: 2718: 2714: 2710: 2701: 2697: 2693: 2689: 2679: 2678: 2676: 2675:this Williams 2672: 2668: 2662: 2658: 2654: 2650: 2649: 2642: 2641: 2640: 2636: 2632: 2628: 2626: 2622: 2618: 2614: 2613: 2605: 2604: 2602: 2597: 2588: 2587: 2585: 2581: 2577: 2576: 2572: 2568: 2564: 2560: 2556: 2555: 2554: 2553: 2549: 2545: 2541: 2536: 2535: 2531: 2528: 2525: 2521: 2518: 2512: 2510: 2506: 2501: 2500: 2492: 2489: 2487: 2484: 2482: 2479: 2478: 2476: 2475: 2470: 2464: 2461: 2459: 2456: 2454: 2451: 2450: 2448: 2447: 2442: 2436: 2432: 2428: 2424: 2419: 2416: 2415: 2414: 2413: 2409: 2405: 2400: 2396: 2393: 2369: 2365: 2361: 2357: 2353: 2349: 2348: 2347: 2343: 2339: 2335: 2331: 2328: 2327: 2326: 2325: 2324: 2323: 2322: 2321: 2320: 2319: 2318: 2317: 2316: 2315: 2314: 2313: 2312: 2311: 2294: 2290: 2286: 2281: 2276: 2275: 2274: 2273: 2272: 2271: 2270: 2269: 2268: 2267: 2266: 2265: 2264: 2263: 2262: 2261: 2246: 2242: 2238: 2234: 2231: 2230: 2229: 2228: 2227: 2226: 2225: 2224: 2223: 2222: 2221: 2220: 2219: 2218: 2205: 2201: 2197: 2192: 2188: 2185: 2184: 2183: 2182: 2181: 2180: 2179: 2178: 2177: 2176: 2175: 2174: 2163: 2159: 2155: 2150: 2149: 2148: 2147: 2146: 2145: 2144: 2143: 2142: 2141: 2128: 2127: 2126: 2125: 2124: 2123: 2122: 2121: 2120: 2119: 2106: 2103: 2102: 2101: 2100: 2099: 2098: 2097: 2096: 2095: 2094: 2093: 2082: 2078: 2074: 2070: 2066: 2065: 2064: 2063: 2062: 2061: 2060: 2059: 2050: 2046: 2042: 2038: 2034: 2029: 2028: 2027: 2023: 2019: 2014: 2003: 2002: 2001: 2000: 1999: 1998: 1989: 1988: 1987: 1986: 1985: 1984: 1976: 1971: 1970: 1969: 1968: 1967: 1966: 1957: 1954: 1953: 1952: 1951: 1950: 1949: 1944: 1940: 1936: 1932: 1928: 1923: 1918: 1914: 1908: 1905: 1898: 1897: 1896: 1895: 1892: 1888: 1884: 1879: 1875: 1872: 1871: 1870: 1869: 1865: 1861: 1856: 1852: 1848: 1841: 1827: 1823: 1819: 1815: 1812: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1808: 1807: 1806: 1805: 1804: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1790: 1786: 1782: 1777: 1773: 1772: 1771: 1767: 1763: 1759: 1755: 1754: 1753: 1749: 1745: 1740: 1737: 1736: 1735: 1734: 1733: 1732: 1727: 1723: 1719: 1715: 1714: 1713: 1712: 1709: 1705: 1701: 1696: 1695: 1690: 1687: 1686: 1682: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1676: 1669: 1664: 1660: 1656: 1655: 1650: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1640: 1636: 1628: 1624: 1620: 1616: 1615: 1614: 1608: 1604: 1600: 1596: 1591: 1590: 1589: 1587: 1583: 1579: 1575: 1569: 1564: 1563: 1557: 1550: 1544: 1543: 1542: 1539: 1531: 1527: 1523: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1513: 1509: 1503: 1500: 1496: 1492: 1477: 1473: 1469: 1464: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1455: 1454: 1453: 1452: 1451: 1450: 1439: 1435: 1431: 1426: 1423: 1420: 1417: 1413: 1409: 1406: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1397: 1388: 1384: 1380: 1376: 1372: 1368: 1367: 1366: 1365: 1364: 1363: 1362: 1361: 1354: 1350: 1346: 1342: 1339: 1338: 1337: 1333: 1329: 1325: 1322: 1321: 1320: 1316: 1312: 1307: 1304: 1303: 1302: 1301: 1297: 1293: 1282: 1278: 1274: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1264: 1260: 1256: 1255: 1252: 1246: 1242: 1238: 1234: 1233: 1232: 1228: 1224: 1220: 1219: 1216: 1212: 1208: 1204: 1200: 1196: 1192: 1188: 1187: 1185: 1184: 1183: 1177: 1176: 1175: 1172: 1171: 1167: 1164: 1161: 1157: 1154: 1148: 1146: 1142: 1137: 1136: 1128: 1125: 1123: 1120: 1118: 1115: 1114: 1112: 1111: 1106: 1100: 1097: 1095: 1092: 1090: 1087: 1086: 1084: 1083: 1078: 1072: 1066: 1062: 1058: 1054: 1052: 1051: 1050: 1049: 1046: 1042: 1038: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1031: 1027: 1023: 1019: 1016: 1015: 1011: 1009: 1006: 1004: 1000: 998: 996: 991: 984: 982: 981: 977: 973: 964: 962: 961: 957: 953: 952:107.200.10.45 948: 947: 943: 939: 934: 933: 929: 925: 913: 909: 905: 900: 899: 898: 897: 893: 889: 865: 861: 855: 852: 851: 848: 831: 827: 823: 822: 817: 814: 810: 809: 805: 799: 796: 793: 789: 772: 764: 760: 759: 756: 748: 744: 743: 740: 738: 733: 732: 727: 723: 720: 703: 699: 695: 694: 689: 686: 682: 681: 677: 673: 669: 664: 661: 658: 654: 630: 626: 624: 620: 618: 614: 610: 606: 602: 598: 595: 593: 592: 587: 585: 581: 578: 576: 575: 570: 568: 564: 560: 558: 557: 552: 550: 546: 544: 543: 538: 536: 532: 529: 527: 526: 521: 519: 515: 511: 510:Altar Society 507: 503: 499: 495: 492: 490: 489: 484: 482: 479: 477: 476: 471: 469: 465: 463: 462: 457: 454: 450: 447: 445: 444: 439: 437: 433: 429: 427: 426: 421: 419: 415: 413: 412: 407: 406: 403: 399: 395: 394: 388: 385: 383: 380: 378: 375: 373: 370: 369: 367: 366: 362: 361: 357: 353: 349: 343: 340: 339: 336: 319: 315: 311: 310: 305: 304: 297: 291: 286: 284: 281: 277: 276: 272: 266: 263: 260: 256: 243: 239: 233: 230: 229: 226: 209: 205: 201: 200: 195: 192: 188: 187: 183: 177: 174: 171: 167: 162: 158: 152: 144: 135: 134: 127: 122: 114: 112: 111: 107: 104: 100: 99: 95: 93: 92: 88: 85: 81: 80: 76: 73: 70: 69: 64: 60: 55: 53: 52: 44: 40: 36: 35: 34: 28: 25: 22: 18: 17: 4877: 4817: 4792: 4767: 4744:B. It stays 4729:main aspects 4721: 4706: 4621: 4615: 4558:well written 4557: 4551: 4547:for criteria 4539: 4538: 4512: 4463: 4425: 4383: 4364: 4343: 4324: 4287: 4259: 4232: 4183: 4179: 4163: 4074: 4046: 3983: 3904: 3826: 3808: 3787: 3767: 3761:No, my bad. 3751: 3709: 3701: 3664: 3644: 3623: 3590: 3553: 3534: 3451: 3430: 3410: 3390: 3369: 3335: 3327: 3307: 3286: 3258: 3228: 3204: 3181: 3111: 3095: 3086: 3072: 3051: 3031: 3010: 2991: 2949: 2909: 2891: 2874: 2844: 2773: 2753: 2706: 2687: 2644: 2608: 2595: 2579: 2537: 2526: 2516: 2515: 2502: 2491:Instructions 2401: 2397: 2390: 2091: 2012: 1930: 1926: 1921: 1916: 1915:. While the 1912: 1903: 1902: 1845: 1672: 1631: 1611: 1585: 1581: 1577: 1573: 1571: 1559: 1537: 1534: 1511: 1507: 1504: 1501: 1497: 1493: 1490: 1374: 1289: 1214: 1210: 1206: 1181: 1173: 1162: 1152: 1151: 1138: 1127:Instructions 1017: 1007: 994: 992: 988: 968: 949: 935: 921: 884: 859: 819: 691: 622: 621: 589: 588: 572: 571: 554: 553: 540: 539: 523: 522: 486: 485: 473: 472: 459: 458: 441: 440: 423: 422: 409: 408: 347: 318:project page 307: 302: 301: 237: 204:project page 197: 157:WikiProjects 126:Good article 125: 108: 103:May 13, 2021 89: 49: 47: 43:please do so 31: 30: 26: 4829:with their 4784:persuasive. 4393:WP:GOCE/REQ 4353:MOS:ALTTEXT 3589:Why, thank 3377:- I'd link 2505:transcluded 2358:.) Cheers, 1774:All right, 1141:transcluded 888:ErinHowarth 609:Saint Mungo 580:Peer review 461:Collaborate 323:Catholicism 265:Catholicism 84:May 7, 2021 4914:Categories 4695:plagiarism 4617:verifiable 4519:Jenhawk777 4293:Jenhawk777 4214:Jenhawk777 4143:Jenhawk777 4112:Jenhawk777 4095:Jenhawk777 4060:Jenhawk777 4019:Jenhawk777 4013:All right 4001:Jenhawk777 3986:Jenhawk777 3961:Jenhawk777 3928:Jenhawk777 3847:Jenhawk777 3729:Jenhawk777 3690:an article 3577:Jenhawk777 3539:Jenhawk777 3480:Jenhawk777 3355:Jenhawk777 3237:Jenhawk777 3146:Jenhawk777 2963:Jenhawk777 2895:Jenhawk777 2850:Jenhawk777 2808:Jenhawk777 2778:Jenhawk777 2729:Jenhawk777 2692:Jenhawk777 2653:Jenhawk777 2617:Jenhawk777 2559:Jenhawk777 2458:Authorship 2444:GA toolbox 2423:Jenhawk777 2404:Jenhawk777 2352:Jenhawk777 2338:Jenhawk777 2237:Jenhawk777 2196:Jenhawk777 2154:Jenhawk777 2069:Jenhawk777 2067:I believe 2018:Jenhawk777 1883:Jenhawk777 1847:Jenhawk777 1818:Jenhawk777 1781:Jenhawk777 1744:Jenhawk777 1700:Jenhawk777 1619:Jenhawk777 1599:Jenhawk777 1522:Jenhawk777 1468:Jenhawk777 1430:Jenhawk777 1371:Jenhawk777 1345:Jenhawk777 1328:Jenhawk777 1311:Jenhawk777 1273:Jenhawk777 1259:Jenhawk777 1237:Jenhawk777 1223:Jenhawk777 1191:Jenhawk777 1094:Authorship 1080:GA toolbox 1057:Jenhawk777 1037:Jenhawk777 1022:Jenhawk777 972:Jenhawk777 938:Romanus451 908:PMAnderson 535:Ensoulment 96:Not listed 37:under the 4711:WP:NFCCEG 4647:are from 4254:MOS:INTRO 3812:I hope... 3223:Darlin', 3100:MOS:QUOTE 2517:Reviewer: 2481:Templates 2472:Reviewing 2437:GA Review 1927:Christian 1855:criterion 1153:Reviewer: 1117:Templates 1108:Reviewing 1073:GA Review 985:Additions 672:Classical 453:talk page 451:(see the 208:talk page 4857:relevant 4850:license. 4800:edit war 4545:WP:WIAGA 3881:MOS:LEAD 3710:Cheers, 3678:WP:REREQ 3554:Cheers, 2910:Cheers, 2573:Comments 2530:contribs 2486:Criteria 2033:WP:GANOT 1166:contribs 1122:Criteria 924:Cynwolfe 475:Copyedit 147:GA-class 51:reassess 4878:Overall 4769:neutral 4643:B. All 4594:fiction 4244:Ambrose 3727:Ditto! 2330:llywrch 2285:llywrch 2233:llywrch 2191:llywrch 2105:llywrch 2073:llywrch 1956:llywrch 1935:llywrch 1878:Llywrch 1851:Llywrch 1814:llywrch 1776:llywrch 1762:llywrch 1739:llywrch 1718:llywrch 1692:itself. 1649:llywrch 1635:llywrch 1512:nothing 1463:Llywrch 1408:llywrch 1379:llywrch 1341:Llywrch 1324:llywrch 1309:great! 1306:Llywrch 1292:llywrch 1211:et alia 1156:Llywrch 1003:Diannaa 862:on the 494:Angelus 443:Cleanup 377:history 350:on the 240:on the 74:Process 4833:, and 4827:tagged 4819:images 4793:stable 4791:Is it 4766:Is it 4720:Is it 4614:Is it 4596:, and 4586:layout 4556:Is it 4535:Review 3905:before 3379:circus 3261:buidhe 3231:buidhe 3140:Okay, 3114:buidhe 2952:buidhe 2756:buidhe 2647:buidhe 2611:buidhe 2037:WP:AGF 627:Watch 605:Bishop 591:Verify 574:Update 488:Expand 425:Assess 153:scale. 115:Listed 77:Result 4620:with 4233:Roman 3788:Fixed 3768:Fixed 3752:Fixed 3411:Fixed 3063:call. 3052:Fixed 2992:Fixed 2927:WP:OR 2892:Fixed 2829:will. 2507:from 1143:from 835:Death 826:Death 798:Death 623:Other 556:Stubs 542:Photo 387:purge 382:watch 4897:talk 4693:nor 4523:talk 4513:Done 4492:talk 4469:talk 4438:talk 4426:lots 4409:talk 4384:Done 4365:Done 4351:Add 4344:Done 4329:Per 4312:talk 4297:talk 4288:Done 4266:talk 4242:and 4218:talk 4200:talk 4178:The 4147:talk 4130:talk 4116:talk 4099:talk 4081:talk 4064:talk 4047:Done 4023:talk 4005:talk 3990:talk 3965:talk 3947:talk 3932:talk 3914:talk 3865:talk 3851:talk 3833:talk 3809:Done 3733:talk 3716:talk 3702:Done 3665:Done 3645:Done 3624:Done 3598:talk 3591:you. 3581:talk 3560:talk 3543:talk 3535:Done 3510:talk 3484:talk 3452:Done 3431:Done 3391:Done 3359:talk 3342:talk 3328:Done 3308:Done 3287:Done 3241:talk 3212:talk 3182:Done 3150:talk 3132:talk 3124:this 3087:Done 3032:Done 3011:Done 2967:talk 2916:talk 2899:talk 2875:Done 2854:talk 2845:Done 2812:talk 2798:talk 2782:talk 2774:Done 2733:talk 2713:talk 2696:talk 2688:Done 2657:talk 2635:talk 2621:talk 2596:Done 2563:talk 2548:talk 2524:talk 2427:talk 2408:talk 2364:talk 2342:talk 2289:talk 2241:talk 2200:talk 2158:talk 2077:talk 2045:talk 2022:talk 2013:Done 1939:talk 1887:talk 1864:talk 1849:and 1822:talk 1785:talk 1766:talk 1748:talk 1722:talk 1704:talk 1639:talk 1623:talk 1603:talk 1574:Vita 1526:talk 1472:talk 1434:talk 1383:talk 1349:talk 1332:talk 1315:talk 1296:talk 1277:talk 1263:talk 1241:talk 1227:talk 1195:talk 1160:talk 1061:talk 1041:talk 1026:talk 976:talk 956:talk 942:talk 928:talk 892:talk 561:see 547:see 525:NPOV 430:see 416:see 372:edit 71:Date 4752:): 3096:lot 1922:CAH 1917:CAH 1369:Hi 995:all 854:Low 342:Low 232:Low 4916:: 4899:) 4880:: 4863:: 4841:: 4822:? 4795:? 4772:? 4724:? 4707:so 4697:: 4676:: 4659:: 4631:: 4624:? 4600:: 4592:, 4588:, 4584:, 4560:? 4541:GA 4525:) 4494:) 4471:) 4440:) 4411:) 4355:. 4314:) 4299:) 4268:) 4220:) 4202:) 4149:) 4132:) 4118:) 4101:) 4083:) 4066:) 4025:) 4007:) 3992:) 3967:) 3949:) 3934:) 3916:) 3867:) 3853:) 3835:) 3735:) 3718:) 3635:. 3600:) 3583:) 3562:) 3545:) 3512:) 3486:) 3475:. 3463:. 3442:. 3361:) 3344:) 3257:) 3253:· 3243:) 3214:) 3152:) 3134:) 3077:. 3022:. 2969:) 2948:) 2944:· 2937:}} 2931:{{ 2918:) 2901:) 2856:) 2814:) 2800:) 2784:) 2752:) 2748:· 2735:) 2715:) 2698:) 2659:) 2637:) 2623:) 2580:17 2565:) 2550:) 2532:) 2429:) 2410:) 2366:) 2344:) 2291:) 2243:) 2202:) 2160:) 2079:) 2047:) 2024:) 2016:. 1941:) 1889:) 1866:) 1824:) 1787:) 1768:) 1750:) 1724:) 1706:) 1641:) 1625:) 1605:) 1528:) 1474:) 1436:) 1385:) 1375:am 1351:) 1334:) 1317:) 1298:) 1279:) 1265:) 1243:) 1229:) 1213:, 1197:) 1168:) 1063:) 1055:] 1043:) 1028:) 978:) 965:OR 958:) 944:) 930:) 894:) 735:/ 670:/ 666:: 615:; 611:; 607:; 603:; 599:; 582:; 565:; 533:; 516:; 512:; 508:; 504:; 500:; 496:; 434:; 54:it 45:. 4895:( 4713:. 4521:( 4490:( 4467:( 4436:( 4407:( 4310:( 4295:( 4264:( 4216:( 4198:( 4145:( 4128:( 4114:( 4097:( 4079:( 4062:( 4021:( 4003:( 3988:( 3963:( 3945:( 3930:( 3912:( 3863:( 3849:( 3831:( 3731:( 3714:( 3596:( 3579:( 3558:( 3541:( 3508:( 3482:( 3357:( 3340:( 3255:c 3251:t 3239:( 3210:( 3148:( 3130:( 2965:( 2946:c 2942:t 2940:( 2914:( 2897:( 2852:( 2810:( 2796:( 2780:( 2750:c 2746:t 2744:( 2731:( 2711:( 2694:( 2655:( 2633:( 2619:( 2561:( 2546:( 2527:· 2522:( 2425:( 2406:( 2362:( 2340:( 2287:( 2239:( 2198:( 2156:( 2075:( 2043:( 2020:( 1937:( 1885:( 1862:( 1820:( 1783:( 1764:( 1746:( 1720:( 1702:( 1637:( 1621:( 1601:( 1524:( 1470:( 1432:( 1381:( 1347:( 1330:( 1313:( 1294:( 1275:( 1261:( 1239:( 1225:( 1193:( 1163:· 1158:( 1059:( 1039:( 1024:( 974:( 954:( 940:( 926:( 890:( 866:. 704:. 625:: 594:: 577:: 559:: 545:: 528:: 491:: 478:: 464:: 455:) 446:: 428:: 414:: 354:. 320:. 244:. 210:. 159:: 56:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index