Talk:History of Christianity/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Style & cosmetics

starting a separate header to opine about the more surface level questions: Jenhawk777 it's going to be tricky in some spots, especially in the lead, but generally WP:SOB suggests never allowing links to "touch" as to potentially appear as one link. Sometimes, two articles are linked where the more specific one will probably suffice, as one can easily get to the broader article from the more specific one, e.g. Roman Emperor Constantine I should only link Constantine imo Remsense ‥ 论 00:15, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

during one of the peer reviews, two separate editors complained about the many "See also" etc. links. They went through and removed them all saying there were sufficient links and references in the article body. In their view, it only added clutter not clarity. So. I have already been dunned for this, and I am willing to bet someone would come along and fail it for that reason if we put them back. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:48, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with that? In general, I feel like the "responsibility" to link all the important articles is slightly misplaced: the natural links should be guided by the prose, with a central repository for links being facilitated better by an Outline article or navbox. Remsense ‥ 论 15:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

That would work. Will you do that? Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:17, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be a distraction for me right now, but I definitely would consider it if after improvements are made it still seems like a nice complimentary thing to have. Remsense ‥ 论 16:49, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Remsense ‥ 论 and Joshua Jonathan Holy crap!! This has been hours of work and the refs aren't formatted yet! I'll need to check images again too. But I like the changes. I think it's better organized. I over-combined in an effort to shorten it at the expense of clarity. It's improved now - imo. You have improved it. I hope reviewers agree. Thank you for all your work. I'm thoroughly impressed at the degree - and speed - with which all of this was accomplished. I could barely keep up! Thank you thank you thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:18, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan I have fixed all the refs except # 33 Siker 2000. I can't find it. I think it's one of yours. I have now removed the duplicate links - please God - I hope so. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:31, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I have Siker, and will add it ASAP Remsense ‥ 论 07:33, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Bless you! Thank you for that and all your help. Don't you think it's looking better? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:51, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777, since we're working so much with dates, I recommend you take a moment to refresh yourself on Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers in its entirety, as it will save you a lot of time going forward. Remsense ‥ 论 21:33, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Will do. Can you give me a quick heads up on what I'm doing wrong so I know what to look for? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:38, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Just a few tiny things: if I had to specify one, it seems a mixing of numerals for centuries with spelling them out, e.g. 1st century versus first century Remsense ‥ 论 21:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I see that Joshua Jonathan changed the Heading of the last section to violate one of those rules, so I have changed it back. I am looking at the rest. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

All the centuries are now alike without dashes. WP doesn't seem to care if "first century" is written 1st century, or first-century, or 1st-century, so long as there is consistency. So I went with the first because that was what was already here. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:19, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Got it! This is specific and tremendously helpful. Thank you!!! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:26, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

So I just went through the whole article and changed them all to be wrong?!? Ha ha ha!! LOL! That is hilarious. WP says Centuries and millennia are identified using either Arabic numerals (the 18th century) or words (the second millennium), with in-article consistency (MOS:ORDINAL notwithstanding). When used adjectivally they contain a hyphen (nineteenth-century painting or 19th-century painting). So consistency is not the main issue after all? Am I getting this right? Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:51, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I thought the article had been using spelled out labels more consistently before Remsense ‥ 论 23:00, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it had, and they are all that way - spelled out - aren't they? I think they are! All I did was remove the hyphens, but apparently when an adjective and not a noun they require hyphens which means going through the whole thing again one by one. Okay I'm not laughing as much now... :-( Tomorrow. I'm apparently too fast at responding, so I will slow down a bit. Talk to you again then. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:09, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Remsense ‥ 论. Centuries are now all written out and hyphenated and all alike (except where they appear in images etc. that were previously written as is). All numbers of all kinds don't need to be written out as well do they? Okay, no ... phew!! If you see more, please do tell me! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:06, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Early modernity

This is a section where the eastern-Orthodx Churches are missing: Byzantium was conquered by the Turks, Russia took over the mantle of the Roman Empire, with all the consequences for contemporary history... Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:13, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I went back and forth on this, but ended up leaving it out because the Cambridge history stopped their volume on the East at 1500. There are a few short mentions here and there - perhaps that's all there is? Perhaps this can go either way? Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:15, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! I'll work on it. Feel free to do so as well. Thank you again for all your work. Please take my recent edits as "less is more". I had to cut some. We added so much. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I moved and added, is it sufficient do you think? There is very little source material available. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Bias

Joshua Jonathan Thank you again for all the reorganization. You are clearly better at that than I am, and I am genuinely grateful for your input. There is no doubt the article looks and reads better. Since your work here means you can't review the next time I nominate, I want to take the opportunity to address all your concerns here.

In your comments on this article you made several accusations of bias, and I would like to ask you to specifically address those. I think all current views are included, but if you disagree, let's fix that.

Heresy has been expanded, but as one of my references says, it's hard to find anything that doesn't talk about it as identity formation these days. Are there other areas you think are problematic? You have been such a help - in spite of my speedy responses - that I want to be sure all your concerns are addressed. Thanx again, Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Jenhawk777, I'll take a look again (later). Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I've done the East too. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:13, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan I would like to add the term "checkered" to the first sentence - The checkered history of Christianity... " but I'm concerned about bias. It's true, but is it not copacetic for WP? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I have a reference for it: page v of Bullies and Saints: An Honest Look at the Good and Evil of Christian History

by Dickson; he speaks of the "checkered moral history of Christianity" - would that do? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Art

Later sections are missing art, and there is a lot that can be said. The Catholic Church basically invented Baroque art. It will add more length! What do you all think? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:12, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Use of questionable "Spread of Christianity to AD 600 - Atlas of World History.png"

The "Spread of Christianity to AD 600 - Atlas of World History.png" file used in this article seems a bit dubious to me. Christianisation of Anglo-Saxon England explains, for example, how by 600 CE, the Augustinian Mission had only just about reached Kent and there was potentially not a single Christian Anglo-Saxon king. I can't speak for other regions that I know less about but it feels misleading to use this. Ingwina (talk) 20:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Where is that Ingwina? I find no section with that title, no reference to an Atlas World History and no claims that seem incorrect. Can you explain further? Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry - it's under the "Spread and growth of Christianity" header. I should have made the file name clearer and will format it better now. Ingwina (talk) 08:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I believe you but using my f-function I still can't locate an Atlas of World History anywhere. Could you be using an older version? This is not a ref I used and I may have cut it. Do you have a ref # you could direct me too, or is it an image file? Could you tell me of what? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:24, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Finally found the blinking thing in an image! I don't use any images that are not in Wikimedia, so I assume it is there, but I went ahead and removed it just because you questioned it. Better safe than sorry. Thanx. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

The last supper

Who was those men at the last supper 105.113.8.127 (talk) 13:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

The 12 Apostles. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:36, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Neutrality

Who placed the tag and why? Please explain. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Thi This Christianity also shaped ideas of slavery. The American Revolution was also a secular project and only one of many historical events. has nothing to do with neutrality, and your tag is misplaced and misguided.

First, the lead is a summary. As a summary, it does not mention everything in the body. In the body of the text in "Late Modernity" it opens with "For over 300 years, many Christians in Europe and North America participated in the Trans-Atlantic slave trade which began in the sixteenth-century." I think that satisfies your first assertion. More discussion would be detail that would not be appropriate in an overview article like this one. This is not an article on slavery.

Next, this is also not an article on the American Revolution, it's Christian History, therefore that is the only aspect of history that it is appropriate to include here. The secular aspects of the revolution are off topic.

Anything and everything not history of Christianity itself is off topic.

These complaints are unfounded and in error and certainly do not prove a lack of neutrality. Please remove the tag. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:09, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

The lead: "Christianity also influenced the New World through its connection to colonialism, its part in the American Revolution, the dissolution of slavery in the west, and the long-term impact of Protestant missions." You have read my suggestion: "Christianity also influenced the New World from the age of colonialism onward, and Protestant missions had a long-term impact." As you say, this is not an article on the American history and the Wikipedia is not US-centric. If only certain aspects are selected (pick and choose) from the main text and world history, it may appear as advertising. The text does not mention the role of Christianity in slavery, but instead gives the impression that Christianity is solely the solution to that problem. The American Revolution is an example of a multifaceted historical phenomenon, and there are others like it in history. These things do not need to be explained in the introduction. The lead section is short and must concentrate on Christianity. --Thi (talk) 23:13, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Thi

In what way is your sentence a better summary of the body? That's the purpose of a lead. It's not an introduction.

You're right that this is not American history. But the end of the Atlantic slave trade is not solely about the US. It was a major event for Western culture including Europe, and could be discussed as a major event in the world. Christianity played a role in bringing about the end of the Atlantic slave trade according to the sources and that is not disputable.

Please check what the references say.

If you have sources that say Christianity had little to no impact on the ending of the Atlantic slave trade, please present them. Otherwise, all you have is personal feeling. You don't like it, and that's too bad but that, by definition, is non-neutral and has no place here.

The American Revolution is an example of a multifaceted historical phenomenon, and there are others like it in history. So what? What does that have to do with the History of Christianity? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:15, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

You pick and choose from the general history those things you like and ignore those you don't. You don't write in the lead section that the Christianity played a role in supporting the slave trade. That is apologetics, not neutral point of view. You could as well write in the lead that Christianity contributed to the witch hunts, rise of Nazi Germany, the world wars or some other events. The point is not what is in the body, you just have selected some things from there. The question is what is in the lead section. "In Wikipedia, the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents." "According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources." The lead must follow the general introductions to the topic. [1] --Thi (talk) 11:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Thi Picking and choosing is the nature of editing. I have now removed the phrase “dissolution of”. Is that sufficient? Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I removed the tag. --Thi (talk) 17:51, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I also added another source indicating the impact is not limited to the U.S. to address your concern that this is American biased. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Discovery of oldest evidence for Christian life north of the alps (230 - 270 AD)

You are all invited to help working on Frankfurt silver inscription (about the newly discovered oldest evidence of Christianity north of the alps), and to also cover it in this article. Renerpho (talk) 16:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Christendom

The "Early Middle Ages" section begins by talking about three different cultures: Germanic Europe, the Byzantine Empire, and Islamic civilisation. We then have a section of Christendom, which claims that the concept was "pervasive and unifying". Do the sources say if it was pervasive and unifying across Christian communities in Germanic Europe, the Byzantine Empire, and Islamic civilisation, or was it only in the former and maybe the second? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

It was used in Europe and included the East up to the big divorce. I like your placement of it. I moved it both places, but yours works best I think. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

List of things the article doesn't adequately describe

To be expanded: ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

• What an "apostle" was.
• What the result of the Council of Jerusalem was (in the last paragraph of "Early Christianity")
• What the trinity is (there should be a line in the second paragraph of "Early Christianity")
• What Christian monasticism was.
• Why did the previous version on the Vulgate focus on whether it was similar to Roman jurisprudence, and not on its massive legacy?

I checked one source, Humfress 2015, for the "art and literature (350-500)" section. There was much too high a proportion of close paraphrasing. You also need to pay attention to this. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll take care of it. Thank you for giving me something to do! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

That particular instance has been taken care of, but others may be out there. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I am bad about forgetting quotation marks. I'll put them at the beginning and forget the end, forget them entirely - I am trying to be more careful. I will be. I will do the rest of this list today, I promise. Do you want the answers here or do you want me to insert them? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

• • Dear darling hard-working friend ~~ AirshipJungleman29

1. • Apostle: Persons in the position of apostle are representatives sent out from the Christian community as bearers of a message.

• Burton, Ernest DeWitt (1912). "The Office of Apostle in the Early Church". The American Journal of Theology. 16 (4): 561–588.

1. • Council of Jerusalem

• • The Jewish Christians in Jerusalem decided to allow Gentile Christians their form of Christianity and allow Jews to keep theirs. The only restrictions given were to "abstain from the pollutions of idols and from fornication and from what is strangled, and from blood".

1. • Trinity: God in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I do not like the idea of adding this. There are no discussions of theology in this article - nor philosophy - both of which Christianity is heavy with. Both of these change over time, and impacted all kinds of things, like the Reformation, so they would have to be discussed repeatedly. They are probably important enough to be included in a history of the church - but hopefully not a history of Christianity - because its not just rabbit hole, it's a rabbit warren. If we start explaining it we will have to keep on till the cows come home - and I don't have any cows - so they will never come home - if you get my meaning.

   You do not think that excluding a topic which Christianity "is heavy with" and "impacts all kinds of things" means the article is incomplete? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

   ~~ AirshipJungleman29 I am drawing a fine line, to be sure, but academics in this field draw fine lines of meaning using excriciatingly minute detail. I am drawing a semantic line between a history of the church which would include its theology and practices and a history of Christianity in the broader sense of events and impact on society, politics and economics. When you excluded practices from Early Christianity, I felt validated in that choice. If you want it in, the article will end up at 20,000 words, I'll betcha, even if you edit it all with your magic touch. Theology is obscure to most people and requires lots of explaining and most people just don't care. So. The article is incomplete but in a complete way - does that make a weird kind of sense? Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:53, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

   I will do what you decide. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

   • Monasticism

• • The structured pursuit of the ascetic life. The first sentence of our WP Article Christian monasticism says Christian monasticism is a religious way of life of Christians who live ascetic and typically cloistered lives that are dedicated to Christian worship. That's close enough.

1. • Vulgate and law? Because it was used later to justify many of the changes made in canon law. There's a line in the High Middle Ages section on Law and Papal monarchy: Canon law became a large and highly complex system of laws that omitted Christianity's earlier principles of inclusivity. It is so significant it should be highlighted and underlined. Sociological theory has society becoming more intolerant as the Middle Ages wore on, and power was centralized, and states became more secular, but the church was right there with them. State and church were copying and competing with each other and the tolerance and inclusivity that had been so important to the early church up through the early middle ages got lost somewhere. Augustine said leave the Jews alone in the fourth century. In the thirteenth century the church wrote canon law - law - that restricted Jews to a ghetto, had them wear a yellow patch to identify themselves as Jewish, and forbid them from holding any public office. How did they get from "There is no Greek or Jew..." to that? The Roman law in the Vulgate made them think it was okay. It was too much detail to include in the article, but the mention remained. It's fine to remove it.

References

Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

• • I was trying to head off controversy with evidence of the majority view on papal monarchy in the note. I feel pretty confident that someone will come along and object to the use of that term, but it is supported, so if you think removal is right, I will accept - while grumbling. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Edit revert

Discospinster Others placed those links. It isn't right to remove them all without consensus. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

36 links is quite excessive indeed. I cannot remember seeing any page with more than 15. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:33, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

They needn't have added those links, the See also section is not an indefinite list of vaguely-related articles. ... discospinster _talk 04:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I concede. You were right, I was wrong. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC)