Talk:Ecclesiastical History (Eusebius)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Christianity: History Mid‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Christian history (assessed as Mid-importance).

Catholicism Mid‑importance

Ecclesiastical History (Eusebius) is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Catholicism task list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : see Draft articles
Assess : see Category:Unassessed Catholicism articles; Category:Unknown-importance Catholicism articles
Cleanup : Blessed Virgin Mary (see the talk page)
Collaborate : Invitation template needed, see Category:WikiProject invitation templates
Copyedit : Cuthbert Tunstall
Expand : Angelus; Roman Catholicism in Kosovo; Bishop Adolph John Paschang; Cum sæpe accidere; Altar Society; American Board of Catholic Missions; Bernard Häring
NPOV : Americanism (heresy); Ensoulment
Photo : see Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of Catholicism
Stubs : see Category:Stub-Class Catholicism articles; Category:Catholic Church stubs
Update : Peer review; John Aloysius Maguire
Verify : Archdiocese of Glasgow; Archbishop of Westminster; Bishop; Saint Mungo; Sanctification; Westminster Cathedral
Other : Watch recent changes for Catholicism articles

History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Religion: Interfaith Low‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.

Greece: Byzantine Low‑importance

	Greece portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greek history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Byzantine world task force.

Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Phoenicia Low‑importance

	Phoenicia portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Phoenicia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Phoenicia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.PhoeniciaWikipedia:WikiProject PhoeniciaTemplate:WikiProject PhoeniciaPhoenicia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bad citation[edit]

Who is Drake, and what work is being referenced? The first citation should be a full citation. At present, it's just a (relatively common) last name, a year, and a page number - this is impossible to find. (And Drake is hyperlinked nowhere on the page, so it is unlikely he even has a Wikipedia page). --2602:30A:2EA0:D9F0:6C39:8AA0:B118:C73C (talk) 06:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality[edit]

I am adding a statement that historians generally regard his works as unreliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.235.35.193 (talk) 09:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I found Drake: Constantine and the Bishops: The Politics of Intolerance

H. A. Drake JHU Press, Aug 19, 2002 - History - 632 pages 1 Review

Historians who viewed imperial Rome in terms of a conflict between pagans and Christians have often regarded the emperor Constantine's conversion as the triumph of Christianity over paganism. But in Constantine and the Bishops, historian H. A. Drake offers a fresh and more nuanced understanding of Constantine's rule and, especially, of his relations with Christians. Constantine, Drake suggests, was looking not only for a god in whom to believe but also a policy he could adopt. Uncovering the political motivations behind Constantine's policies, Drake shows how those policies were constructed to ensure the stability of the empire and fulfill Constantine's imperial duty in securing the favor of heaven. Despite the emperor's conversion to Christianity, Drake concludes, Rome remained a world filled with gods and with men seeking to depose rivals from power. A book for students and scholars of ancient history and religion, Constantine and the Bishops shows how Christian belief motivated and gave shape to imperial rule. More

A reference for that statement is Bart Ehrmans "Lost Christianities". Someone with better wiki-skills can add it if they want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.235.35.193 (talk) 10:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV[edit]

The reception section only contains criticisms of the Eusebius' work. It should include those who defends its accuracy as well.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The link from earlychristianwritings which tends to be a fairly skeptical site has a summary of quotes about eusebius which seem much more positive

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/eusebius.html

Eh, WP:NPOV but also WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. It's perfectly possible the guy is generally disliked, especially in the current academic climate. Dude was unabashedly a propagandist and that will show up in historians waving giant DO NOT TRUST CONTENT FROM ~ banners once they start aiming for... NPOVs.

The article does have NPOV issues, but at present they're universally in the other direction. I took out some of the needless WP:PEACOCKing ("pathbreaking..." "certainly...") but more remains. Paul Maier does turn out to have a Wikipage but why is a West Michigan U prof being cited as the primary authority about a Father of the Church? Surely, there are other more influential voices to be using there. "Thus did God punish teh (((J00z))) for the crimes they dared commit against Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. This is not antisemitism, however..." Etc. etc. — LlywelynII 18:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weaving Criticisms Targeted as Specific Topics[edit]

I think the issue with this section is that it is trying to measure history as done in antiquity against how history was done in 18th - 19th century, all the while assuming all of this can be measured against the standards of history done today. The criticisms seem to be levied against Eusebius' rhetoric. That's a perennial problem of history and I scarcely believe any historian will be able to overcome his or her personal bias on how or which events should be represented. Having this work gives us a window into one side of the story.

Secondly, in general this section of reception does not seem to be relevant. If a note needs to be made about the nuances of Constantine's conversion and relationship with Christianity, maybe that's what the section should be about. There was a second point that it does not accurately reflect the development of Christianity, presumably because Eusebius' History looks too Catholic/Orthodox/High Church - perhaps there should also be a section on that as well.

I agree with NPOV above, there should be statements or quotes that also judge the reliability of aspects of the work. [User:Cenozar|Cenozar]] (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, nah. We should include his work's historical and current reception, even if it is now nearly universally negative. Those criticisms are more methodological than rhetorical and they're fair game even if everyone was doing it. One imagines the historical reception was more positive and that should be noted, though. — LlywelynII 18:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mooooooooooooove[edit]

No idea who thought "Church History" was the WP:ENGLISH WP:COMMONNAME for this work but, y'know, like the giant image immediately to the right of the lead section says, no, not even remotely. Punt this thing back to Ecclesiastical History (Eusebius) asap. — LlywelynII 18:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]