Side N
Abrahamic Religions, and the Historians Who Dispute the Label
Which sources back which section of this article, and what its evidence base looks like.
Which sources back which section
| Section | Sources behind it |
|---|---|
| What Happened | The Hughes/Hankins review; the Smith/Hess review; Thompson via Wikipedia; Crone & Cook; Wansbrough; Hoyland; Braude/Clements on the millet system; Nostra Aetate; the vote-count source; the joint declaration; Dabru Emet; A Common Word (text and Wikipedia); Fernández-Morera; Pearce; all five Pew pages; Jenkins; the CREWS Project |
| Timeline | The Hughes/Hankins review (for the 1945 hinge); Nostra Aetate; the joint declaration; Dabru Emet; A Common Word (text and Wikipedia); all five Pew pages; the CREWS Project |
| The Argument | The Hughes/Hankins review; the Smith/Hess review; Thompson via Wikipedia; Van Seters; Hendel; Dunn; Boyarin; Crone & Cook; Wansbrough; Hoyland |
| What Others Add | Fernández-Morera; Pearce; Braude/Clements on the millet system; Nostra Aetate; the joint declaration; Dabru Emet; A Common Word; all four dated Pew pages; Jenkins |
| Conclusion | The Hughes/Hankins review; Pearce; the Pew overview report; Pew’s 2015 projection report; Jenkins |
What the evidence base looks like
- 26Sources behind this article
- 5Sections, every one of them sourced
- 17Read in full
- 8Bibliographic catalogue records only
- 1Read via a search extract
| What the source is | How many | How they were read |
|---|---|---|
| Official declarations by a state or institutional authority (the two Vatican texts) | 2 | Both read in full, at their own official pages |
| Primary interfaith texts, reproduced or self-published (Dabru Emet, A Common Word) | 2 | Both read in full, at their own text |
| Reference works: book reviews, encyclopedic pages, research-organisation reports and a peer-reviewed article | 21 | 12 read in full; 8 are bibliographic catalogue records only, confirming author/publisher/year and nothing more; 1 (a 2015 report) read via a search extract |
| An academic project’s own outreach blog | 1 | Read in full |
Reliable
Reliable, but with an interestWorth believing and reliableWeak on both, and used with careHonest, but thin
Worth believing