Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/History of Christianity/archive2

< Wikipedia:Peer review

History of Christianity edit

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review
Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review a second time. Multiple additions have been made in response to the first PR in an effort to make it less western biased, but it still needs checking from experts in the different eras, and editing for length. AirshipJungleman29, who has already been helpful, has agreed to partner on this, and any input from anyone else interested in helping this article become suitable for FA will be truly and deeply appreciated.

Thanks, Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airship edit

I'll comment sporadically over the next few weeks. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • You need to be really careful with unnecessary generalisations and superficialities. You saw how other editors with topic-specific editors immediately picked up on sentences and said "this is too basic/vague and cannot fly". Sentences like: "In this same period, a new kind of civilization was beginning in the West that merged Graeco-Roman, German and Christian." are just asking for trouble. what does "new kind of civilization" mean? where is "the West"? "...that merged Graeco-Roman, German and Christian." ... what was merged? ideologies? religions? DNA?
    • Got it. I will go through and look for any and all of these and remove them. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think I found them all. I hope this is   Done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pope Celestine I sent Patrick, a former slave, back to the Irish who had enslaved him, to be a missionary to them in the early fifth century." are we sure about that?
    • Yes. Do I need more sources for that? Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well yes, seeing as you appear to have conflated Patrick and Palladius, and as identifying teo individuals in a very lengthy process is a bit odd. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I will check that, but I don't think the source conflated the two. The source used is about recent archaeology, but I will make sure. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • I checked 7 different sources, and all seemed to agree with what I now have. So I randomly picked two and published this: While the legend of St.Patrick as a former slave turned missionary grew largely in the Middle Ages, Patrick is generally considered a historic figure by most scholars. Though dates and details are disputed by a minority, archaeology supports the slow conversion of the Irish as beginning in the early fifth century.[1][2][3]

References

  1. ^ Burkitt 1932, p. 405.
  2. ^ Bieler 1949, p. 12.
  3. ^ Harney 2017, p. 103; 122.

. It's slightly more focused on HofC and not Patrick. Is that okay? Is this   Done in your view? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

            • Not really; the source review is likely to question the reliability of sources over half a century old, let alone those published 75 and 92 years ago. I am still not seeing why the first sentence needs to be included at all. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              Removed and removed. Went back to Harney only. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source titled ""Eastern Christianity". Encyclopedia of Religion. Encyclopedia.com. 2024. Retrieved 14 March 2024." has a malfunctioning url or else is not set up correctly.
  • Note 1 is 560 words, cited to one source, and as far as I can make out, entirely unnecessary.
  • There are 300 words, three consecutive paragraphs, in the "Eastern Orthodoxy under Ottoman rule" section, which are sourced entirely from the same chapter. Are you sure that this one chapter is so important that more than 2% of the entire article should be devoted to paraphrasing it and no other source?

To continue.

    • Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • ~~ AirshipJungleman29 I know I said take your time, and here I am nagging, but - are you coming back? I have done everything requested by all here. However, the front sections are getting the most attention - of course - whereas it's the Middle Ages that most need it IMO. Could you would you? Please come back! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am coming back, don't worry; just might take a little time. Got a lot going on in RL at the moment. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            Okay, I do understand. Thanx for answering, it makes me feel better. I'll be patient. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pbritti edit

I'll add sporadic comments here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Numbers: I see some alternation between expressing larger numbers as words and expressing them with digits. This alternation can be somewhat jarring, with an average of around seventy (12–200) members each a good example. In that particular case, the parenthetical also needs somewhat more explanation. I presume that's the rough range of membership in each household church, but it's not clear.
  • Antioch: In the section "Early geographical spread", I recommend a second sentence on Antioch that describes its role in the expansion of Christianity to the Caucasus. Maybe an opportunity to mention origin of Syriac Christianity.
  • In the section "Early beliefs and practices", it's likely worth at least passing reference to the Didache and Apostolic Constitutions, as both are significant texts in interpreting early Christian belief, theology, and worship. The latter text could also fit in a later section.
    • I mentioned Didache in what I just added to Antioch. Apostolic Constitutions belongs in the fourth century, not Origins, but I want to argue against adding it anywhere. That is simply because no other Christian writings are mentioned by title in this article. If I add it, some reviewer will ask me "What's so special about this one that it alone gets mentioned?" and there is no answer because it is not more special than many other great works. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the section "New Testament", I think the word canonization could use a definition, as it's something of a technical term. Also consider linking it to an article on the subject.
  • Christian Emperors is that meant to be capitalized?
  • In the section "Relations with polytheists", are there any notable exceptions to the bloodless triumph that are notable enough to merit linked mention? In the same section, the note on the destruction of temples is very long, but I like the detail. I would suggest something similar in depth if not length for the canonization process.
    • There are a few exceptions, which is stated. I can add some examples.   Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the section "Relations between East and West", the sentence ending next 800 years.: I recommend consolidating the citations into a single footnote so that they aren't stacked as much. It would just be a courtesy to readers, so not an imperative.
    •   Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's all for tonight. It's already late here and I have to travel tomorrow. I will finish up next week. Thank you again! Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I rearranged and combined sections for these next five. If you like it, these are all   Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same section as above: Theological controversies led to the Armenian, Assyrian, and Egyptian churches combining into what is today known as Oriental Orthodoxy This is another excellent opportunity for a detailed note or at least another sentence describing the most relevant of the theological disputes and the specific period in which they occurred.
  • Same section as above: the paragraph starting Asian and African Christians did not have access to structures of power may fit better before the paragraph beginning Increasing diversity formed competing orthodoxies.
  • The section "Regional developments (300–600)" feels a bit misnamed, considering the description of regional developments and divisions in the preceding section. Additionally, the sentence ending (who was the first to unite the Frankish tribes under one ruler), converted to Catholicism. is another strong candidate for footnote consolidation.
  • The single inverted commas ‘schism’ appear to not fit with MOS:CURLY; also, should they instead be doubled, standard quotation marks?
  • In the section "Regional developments (600–1100)", there is a sentence without definite articles: Gregorian Reform (1050–1080) established new canon law. While it's comprehensible, it feels more like a sentence fragment.
    • Pbritti Home again! Exhausted but still alive! I have now spent over an hour attempting to deal with all of this by combining and moving sections. See what you think. "Gregorian Reform" is the name, the noun, the subject of the sentence. It even has its own link. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's enough for now. I'll work through some more of the prose and content later. I'll also look into the references a bit more soonish. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, one more for today:

  • The sentence ending over heresy grew and response to it became more severe. is another candidate for citation consolidation.

Ok, done for real. Looks like a good candidate to stand again at FAC once some minor fixes are implemented. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pbritti I am so grateful for all of this. It's wonderful and so, so helpful. I am out of town again first thing in the morning - in fact I am gone more than home for the next month and a half - but I will be back for a few days next week and will fix every last one of these. Once I get going I am usually pretty quick, so feel free to continue to make any comments you like. I am so grateful I can't say thank you enough - but thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I, too, have a lot of traveling over the coming weeks. My comments are offered only with appreciation for the effort you've made and patience for their resolution. Take the time you need. If this article progresses before the end of the year, I'll still be glad for the haste shown. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing edit

~~ AirshipJungleman29 I am terribly sorry that I forgot to tell you I was going out of town this last week. RL took over, but I am back now and am pleased to be able to say that I think I have   Done all the above. If not, just let me know.

I also think that, if you agree, I am   Done adding the East to the rest of the article as well. Every section has something on the East, and it also has its own section now. There are simply fewer sources on the East, both original and secondary, and therefore less information available. This is beginning to change as more studies and valuable new monographs are being done in the new century. No doubt that will enable us to continue to add to this neglected area in the future. I enjoyed this research and learned a great deal from it, so thank you for insisting on it!

We now have the problem of increased length. It's over 13,000 words, and while I am sure you and Generalissima all be able to see where and how to make cuts, I remain attached to every detail as significant and important! I will also accept what you recommend - mostly - of course.   Thank you again and I hope to hear from you at your leisure. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am SHOCKED, I tell you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no time to waste on misguided friends with nothing positive to contribute. Do some actual work or go elsewhere. That's my new motto for my fake coat of arms.   Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please no one get offended! Graebergs and I are dear friends from wayback. This is sarcasm which we both indulge in. He's just better at it than I am. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seltaeb Eht edit

I'm not an experienced FA or GA writer or reviewer like some others contributing here or at the last peer review, but am fairly well read on the period 300-1000 and have been becoming more well read on the Ante-Nicene church, so hopefully I can provide some helpful feedback. Kudos for tackling such an enormous subject, and I notice substantial improvements in the article even since the last time I read it, which was around the time of the last review. Some thoughts:

    • You may not be an FA expert but you certainly have valuable insights. I am grateful for this input, and I will address every point. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometimes people or concepts come up without being introduced. I realize there's a delicate balance between clarity and word count that needs to be struck. An early instance is: Scholars conjecture that Peter and Paul were killed then. Who are Peter and Paul? A reader without background in the subject would not know, and both are important figures to set up. I'd recommend introducing Peter along with James as a leader of the Jerusalem church and one of Jesus' disciples (Marcus' chapter on Jewish Christianity in the Cambridge History discusses them together in this context), and perhaps giving Paul an introductory sentence in the paragraph While there is evidence...from the start.
    •   Done in the preceding paragraph with James Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looks good! Though, is Sullivan & Sullivan a historical or theological work? Looks to be the latter at first glance. Just want to make sure you're not dinged on it in FAC. I can look for good cites in the Cambridge History if that's helpful.
        • Seltaeb Eht The title of the book is From Apostles to Bishops: The Development of the Episcopacy in the Early Church. It is a history, but I am always overwhelmingly grateful for anyone who actually does some of the work on sources, and if you want to do that I will not turn that down! Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Fine by me, especially for facts not necessarily in dispute. From the Amazon description though: "In this book distinguished theologian, teacher and writer Francis Sullivan examines the origins and development of the episcopacy in the early church...His thought-provoking work will be welcomed by professional theologians and serious students of theology, for whom it will prove to be an important resource for further ecclesiological study." That plus the publisher is where I got the impression it may have been a primarily theological work, even if it adopts a historical approach. I'm good with it as you believe it's the best source to use. On a bibliographic note, is it the work of one Francis A. Sullivan, or two as you've listed it? Everywhere else I just see one author: Francis Alfred Sullivan, S.J.. Confusingly there does seem to be another Jesuit writer, Francis Aloysius Sullivan, but it does not appear that they collaborated on this book from what I can tell via a brief search. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 18:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        On page viii, he writes In this book I present the historical development of the ministry of leadership in the early church... but there is no doubt the purpose of the book is theological. I don't think it's reasonable to expect to avoid theology in a history of religion. However, I neither discuss nor reference theology. I don't even include the question he raises. The historic roles of Peter, Paul and James are not disputed - I think.
        Also, Thank you thank you thank you for catching that author issue! I think you are right. Google has both authors in their citation, but the book itself seems to only have the one. I have now   Fixed that. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Looks good and sounds good to me! Seltaeb Eht (talk) 19:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The belief that Christ was both divine and human provided the foundation for Christianity. This doesn't seem quite right, when debates about this very thing raged for centuries. I think the quote from Young being used here is "Yet it is precisely Christology, the dogmas concerning the divinity and humanity of Christ, which have made Christianity what it is." (emphasis mine) This seems to be referencing the gradual process of defining Christological beliefs, not that they were well defined from the start and can be considered the "foundation". Consider revising.
    • There were none of those controversies at the first century foundation of Christianity however. In the second century, Gnosticism claimed divinity - and existence - for Jesus but not a true corporal body, since flesh was evil and Jesus was believed to have been not only divine but perfect and sinless. Then Arianism in the fourth century claimed divinity but of a lesser kind than the Father's. This was followed by attempts to explain Jesus as having two separate natures, one human and one divine, then various other attempts - but none that questioned the veracity of his divinity and existence - not in the beginning and not for centuries after. The debates you reference as "raging" actually began in the 17th century. Rather than go down that rabbit hole, I am deleting it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough, as I said I'm just becoming more well-read on pre-Constantine so I'll certainly defer. You may want to find something a little stronger than the reference to Young p. 9, which again speaks to me as some sort of developmental process with variant forms present: "Yet it is precisely Christology, the dogmas concerning the divinity and humanity of Christ, which have made Christianity what it is. The clarification of these doctrines, against all the variant forms of Christianity around in the earliest period, was impelled by the ‘cult’ of Jesus, and by the fact that his story was quickly incorporated into an over-arching cosmic narrative. Both of these features belong to the period of this volume."
        • Seltaeb Eht Preceding that quote on page 8: In Helena’s time (the fourth century) the fiercest battles over the nature of God’s Son and the manner of his incarnation in Jesus still lay in the future... And about the Arian controversy: The resulting dogma (the Nicene creed of the fourth century) became problematic for post-Enlightenment historians: ... they wished to remove the veil of legend, or in this case, doctrine, so as to find the facts about Jesus. Yet it is precisely Christology, the dogmas concerning the divinity and humanity of Christ, which have made Christianity what it is.... On page 16: The legacy of these Enlightenment roots is a persistent sense that there is a tension between history and faith. Emphasis mine. That controversy began in the 17th century and continues today but was not present in the first century.
        • Of course, this is all moot now, but page 34 probably has the two most relevant quotes for discussion of my summary statement (that has been removed): first, It is this dual perspective on Jesus Christ that lies at the heart of Christianity as a religion. He was, for believers, the ‘wholly human and visible icon of the wholly transcendent and invisible God’ – and the wholly material or bodily being of the one wholly immaterial or incorporeal God. And: The physical is sanctified as the vehicle of the divine presence, whether it be the actual living and dying of saints and martyrs, who themselves become ‘types’ of Christ, or the concrete reality of the eucharistic bread and wine received in communion. Being ‘in touch’ with the one who was God incarnate meant the assimilation of divine life, and the articulation of Christian doctrine, in the period of this volume and beyond, was shaped by the need to guarantee this reality. The incarnation is what turns Jesus into the foundation of Christianity. Emphasis mine. As you know, this is the Cambridge History of Christianity not a work of theology.
        • I highly recommend reading through Young's article in its entirety. She does a great job of describing the history of the study of this history, especially from pages 16 on. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks, it's been a while since I read Young's chapter so was just looking at the page cited - need a full re-read when time permits! I certainly could have been reading 2nd C and later controversies back into the 1st C as you said. Again, not necessarily my area of expertise, very much learning here myself. As long as you're confident in it, I definitely don't object to its inclusion. If you add it back, I'd recommend adding p. 34 to the citation. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 17:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I want to avoid as many unnecessary controversies as possible, so this was undoubtedly a wise observation on your part. This is a controversy that doesn't need inclusion, since it is largely a modern issue retroactively applied to the early centuries. I think it benefits the article to simply remove it. Thank you again. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • During these early centuries, Christianity spread into the Jewish diaspora communities, establishing itself beyond the Empire's borders as well as within it. Seems out of place here, perhaps belongs in the previous paragraph discussing the geographical context.
  • ...making Christianity a 'missionary' religion from its inception. Is there a more recent source to reference here?
    • de Pressensé is considered a classic work, but all the others referenced there are from the 2000s. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Again, I'll defer - I just know it may be the kind of question you get at FAC, so good as long as you're prepared.
        • Thank you for the warning. Do you think the above answer is sufficient? Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Having neither the FAC experience (beyond reading reviews) or the relevant source expertise for the 1st C I wouldn't be comfortable pronouncing judgement. Just that to me, and 1870 cite as the only reference for a sentence raises a flag. I'm satisfied, but wouldn't be surprised if other reviewers weren't. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        So I will put off today what might not be an issue until tomorrow. {Smiley}} Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Dang it! I need to be better at procrastinating! :-) I went and added a sentence and a new ref to bolster Pressense. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  • The New Testament mentions bishops (or episkopoi), as overseers and presbyters as elders or priests, with deacons as 'servants', sometimes using the terms interchangeably. Maybe swap "The New Testament" for "early Christian writings", as the concept of the NT isn't set up until the next section, and is inclusive of other early writings.
  • In the first century, new scriptures were written in Koine Greek. Consider rephrasing, as this implies that they were written as Scripture, when at least Paul's epistles certainly weren't. It also doesn't introduce what these works were. Consider something like "First century Christian writings in Koine Greek, including Gospels containing accounts of Jesus' ministry, and letters of Paul and letters attributed to other early Christian figures came to be regarded as scripture."
  • Church Fathers Consider whether this one-paragraph section belongs better as a paragraph in Early beliefs and practices, which already gives Justin Martyr as an example of just such a proto-Orthodox writer.
  • Eastern Christianity was becoming more and more distinct from Western Christianity by the fourth century. Seems to cast Western Christianity as the normative form from which Eastern Christianity diverges. Consider "Eastern and Western Christianity were becoming more distinct by the fourth century."
    •   Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • looks good! And has the advantage of cutting out a few words (though I still think I've net made you add more :D)
        • And I am grateful for those! Every reviewer so far - in both peer reviews - has found their particular areas of interest to be insufficiently covered and want more. I am trying to be careful to add only what seems legitimate and decline excessive detail - which I am prone to - I personally want to hear all the evidence and include it! If it isn't there, it's probably because another editor with more sense - like ~~ AirshipJungleman29 or Generalissima - came along and cut it!   Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Agreed - If I had taken a crack at writing this article, it'd easily be twice as long, so any restraint you or others can provide is good! Seltaeb Eht (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        At one point it was over 20,000 words... Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • this meant Roman Popes had to be approved by the Eastern emperor before they could be installed. First mention of the term Pope. I'd consider somehow working into this section an introduction of the concept of the five chief episcopal sees whose bishops came to be termed as patriarchs, and the Roman and Alexandrian bishops as Popes. Especially as the relations between Rome and Constantinople continue to be discussed in coming sections.
    • I'm afraid I am going to argue "too much unnecessary detail" for a commonly used and generally understood term. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough! That's the length vs detail struggle. Patriarch may not be as well known though and comes up a bit, so I was trying to kill two birds with one suggestion. Just something to consider. :)

Probably some more to come for the next section Seltaeb Eht (talk) 15:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you've resumed editing, Seltaeb Eht. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Got a bit of a kick in the teeth from RL lately which prevented any online hobbies, but slowly getting back. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 15:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seltaeb Eht Thank you so much for this. Your contributions were all immensely valuable. I look forward to more and thank you for these. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I have to say that it's remarkable tackling an article of this scope. Great job on improving the balance and especially incorporating more on Eastern Christianity throughout the article, all while keeping to a (semi-)reasonable size. I'll hopefully be able to add more between today and tomorrow. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 14:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you getting tired of hearing thank you? If not, thank you again. I so appreciate the compliment. It's been a long and often difficult two years. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't thank me yet, I'm sure you'll be tired of my feedback as soon as we move into the era I'm a little more well informed about :P (just kidding!). Glad you're finding it helpful. FYI It'll probably be until at least tomorrow until I can add any more substantial feedback. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added a def and link for Patriarch. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dearheart, Seltaeb Eht, tomorrow is fine. And I never get tired of quality feedback. When you do get to it, would you mind taking a look at the very last paragraph on persecution? Another editor recently came along and added all those newspaper articles. If FAC doesn't like them, I will remove them. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This refers to the last paragraph of the entire article not this section. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pbritti and Seltaeb Eht Please forgive me for my excitement and lack of patience, but I am dying to know what you think of the revised Regional developments (300–600) section that hopefully incorporates all your comments. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/History_of_Christianity/archive2&oldid=1220607982"