Talk:History of Christianity

↓ Jump to bottom of page ↓

MOS:NOTSEEALSO

"As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body."

Jenhawk, I will weed this section a bit. I see some likely duplicates, like Jesus. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Done, afaict. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

A thousand blessings upon you and yours! I can't say thank you enough - but thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

FA

This article has now been nominated for featured article status. Hopefully a reviewer will pick it up before too long, though its length will no doubt be an inhibitor. Please comment if anyone wants to do so. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

FA closed in about 6 hours after three negative comments. I understand taking criticisms seriously, but I don't understand accepting comments uncritically without fact checking. I worked on this for over two years, carefully documented everything, and it failed with not a single comment being checked for accuracy. Several comments indicated they didn't even bother to read a whole section before questioning it since answers were in the text. Not a one checked what the sources said. But it was all simply accepted. I wasn't allowed to "fix" anything. I wasn't even allowed to respond. I'm deeply disappointed in how this was handled, but I'm not embarrassed by the work I did. They don't like it, but this is what current scholarship looks like, and there is only going to be more of it. But I'm done. I'm going offline for awhile. Someone else can pick this up - or not. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Version of 3 may 2023, to check how this article was before. See Talk:History of Christianity/Archive 4#Remarkable article (2 august 2020) versus Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Christianity/archive1 (october 2024). User:Joshua Jonathan|Joshua Jonathan]] - Let's talk! 19:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Article structure and contents

Jenhawk777, let me put it more bluntly: this article could be structured in a more coherent way, with proper thematic groupings. Your recent edits to the section on "Jewish-Hellenistic background" is an example: what do 1st and 3rd century persecutions of Christians have to do with this Jewish-Hellenistic background? At the speed you are editing, it's impossible to give meaningfull input to correct such jumping back and forth between topics. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
You added it here, with the edit-summary

I am trying to follow, and I support that "Jewish-Hellenist background" is a good addition. Thank you. I may have gotten a bit overwhelmed by the citations being in a non-sfn form. Please do explain how to restructure in a more coherent way. If that means changing from years to labels, that's fine. Sections can be split. Whatever you think, I'm sure it will be good. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

removed some off topic: this is not a history of Judaism - it's just too much and it makes some unsupported claims; references need to be sfn form

That's a misleading edit-summary, and too much for one edit; do it in pieces, incremental. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I've been meaning to take a proper look at this article since its GA nom, and have started to dig in and make minor and moderate changes where I can. @Jenhawk777, please feel free to ask about anything I'm doing: I understand how much you care about this being the best article it can be. Remsense ‥ 论 08:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

One thing I notice can be emblematised by the lead: generally, ideal article leads are three or four thematic paragraphs. There's a heightened tendency to have single-sentence paragraphs here and throughout, which I think speaks a bit to more abstract structural difficulties. Remsense ‥ 论 08:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

How about if I remove the last paragraph in the lead? I thought it went to notability, but others saw it as biased. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Remsense ‥ 论

OOPs! copy error! All you have done is great! But we are adding length so fast I can't keep up!Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Joshua JonathanHaving looked over what you reinserted, I still say it is way too much for this kind of broad overview article. The discussion of period labels for one. It's interesting and applicable, but it has too much detail and goes off-topic. You have added so much, and some of it is really good, but I guarantee that if it is all left in, the next nomination will have editors like User talk:AirshipJungleman29 failing it for length that includes too much detail. He has drummed into me that, in a broad overview article, detail has to go. I left out too much in the heresy section, that's a fair criticism, but these additions go way off point in several places. This is not a history of Judaism, nor is it a history of the Bible. Choose carefully what is directly pertinent to history of Christianity only. Not all of this is. Please edit your edits accordingly. And do fix the refs. There is no time constraint. Take your time. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:41, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

No problem to shorten passages, but I've first focused on structure. A conventional structure of subsequent periods is clearer, despite the criticisms that can be raised against it - shoehorsing complicated matters in a simplistic 'table' of periods. But for an overview-article, it's more convenient. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan There is a lot of repetition of content from other sections - a restatement in different words but same ideas - in the Apostolic and Anti-Nicene sections. These sections contain too much minute detail for an article of this type. For the rest, I really like the additions to church structure and variant Christianities. I like the changes to the biblical canon and, really, I like it all, although Art might be omitted in the name of being a bit more concise. All in all, it's added another thousand words, but the coverage is much more comprehensive and complete. Some of it needs to be trimmed, but overall, I really like it. It is in fact better, and I'm grateful. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:37, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Apostolic Age

Joshua Jonathan Going over the Apostolic Age, I find some sweeping claims, some errors and repetitions and off topic content that I think that will get this failed again.

• The whole first paragraph is a rabbit-hole that doesn't add anything of significance to the actual topic. They are not main points. It should be cut. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
• The first sentence of the second paragraph is a repetition of the first sentence in Jewish-Hellenist background. It should be cut. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
• The early Christian groups were strictly Jewish, is a mistake that should be cut. Even Judaism was never 100% Jewish, and in Acts, Peter was the one who converted the first Gentile to Christianity, not Paul. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
• How they described themselves is interesting, but how does it qualify as important enough to be included in an overview? It should be cut in the name of being concise. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
• ...started his mission among the Gentiles is incorrect. Acts says Paul always started by visiting synagogues first in every town he went into. It should be cut. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
• Because of this inclusion of Gentiles, early Christianity changed its character and gradually grew apart from Judaism during the first two centuries of the Christian Era is in direct contradiction to the list of causes referenced in used in Jewish-Hellenist background. It's a sweeping claim, one of those that gets blasted by reviewers, and I don't think there is a contemporary scholar that makes that claim any more. It's a nineteenth century theory. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
• The fourth-century church fathers Eusebius and Epiphanius of Salamis cite a tradition that before the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 the Jerusalem Christians had been warned to flee to Pella in the region of the Decapolis across the Jordan River. Also interesting to me and you but it is connected to nothing. It just pops in out of the blue making a reader wonder, "so what?" It should either be cut or explained, but I vote for cut. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
• The next sentence, the first of the last paragraph, is good but out of place. It belongs in the New Testament section. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
• The last sentence is a repetition of what's in growth. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

That leaves almost nothing in this section, which seems appropriate. To speak of the Apostolic Age separately from origins and background is misleading and artificial. The whole section should be cut. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Regarding cutting "Apostolic Age": it is a periodisation used in the literature, but is could also be subsumed under "First century," or, as you suggest, "Early Christianity."Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Relevance of GA- and FA-status

I'll go over the details later, but personally, I'm not interested in raising articles to GA or FA status; to me, they look like vanity-projects. There are two GA-articles which are clearly on my mind; Adi Shankara acquired GA-status, while lacking the most basic information about the hagiographic nature of his "biographies"; and India has a number of plain errors in the lead, intentionally placed there by the main editor, despite objections from multiple editors. So, GA-status says very little to me. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:42, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Ante-Nicene period

• If the heading Ante-Nicene is removed, there are no problems with periodization since it all falls under the time frame listed as "Early". If you leave Ante-Nicene, which is generally recognized as after 100, there are some problems. It makes it look like church structure didn't develop until then, yet scholars agree the NT was written in the first century and church structure is in the NT. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
• Under variant Christianities, I would like to see this with strong unifying characteristics which were lacking in the apostolic period. verified and sourced please. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
• They had different interpretations of the Bible, particularly regarding theological doctrines such as the divinity of Jesus and the nature of the Trinity. is problematic at best. First, there is no Bible as such. Second, this is not a good description of Arianism - which is in the next Age section on developing orthodoxy. This is not a good sentence. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
• Many of the variations which existed during this time defy neat categorizations, because various forms of Christianity interacted in a complex fashion in order to form the dynamic character of Christianity which existed during this era. is a completely pointless and very wordy sentence. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
• This is a good sentence: The Post-Apostolic period was diverse both in terms of beliefs and practices. In addition to the broad spectrum of general branches of Christianity, there was constant change and diversity that variably resulted in both internecine conflicts and syncretic adoption. and accurate. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
• Under Proto-Orthodox writings, the content makes it sound as if all the early church fathers who wrote were elites and there is simply no possible way to know that. This is at best unsourced and at worst OR. This section has too much unnecessary detail as well. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
• why is this sentence necessary? here was no empire-wide persecution of Christians until the reign of Decius in the 3rd century.

Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Late Antiquity

• moving on to Late Antiquity, In late antiquity, the conversion of Constantine had a decisive influence on the development of Christianity. is a sweeping statement that will be hard to back up with contemporary scholarship.

Did he contribute? Absolutely. Was it decisive? Probably not, since it was already established in the Third century before Constantine. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

• Christianity and paganism - why change polytheism to paganism, a controversial and disrespectful term? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
• Divergence from Judaism this heading is now changed to something that is not discussed at all. That will get a fail vote right out the gate.Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
• Why is this - Developing orthodoxy - a better more descriptive heading? This section doesn't focus on orthodoxy, it focuses on heresy. Monasticism isn't about monasticism of this time period, it's about the invention of the first modern style hospital. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

That's all I can do tonight. I hope for your cooperation in these, and that you know I am grateful for your work. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Edit-speed

Good morning (evening, night, wherever you are; I just woke up after too little sleep (a burden of growing old...)); I haven't read the latest comments yet (I will), but as a side-note, Jenhawk777: with the speed you are editing and commenting, you make it pretty hard for others to keep up with you. It wouldn't surprise if, for that reason, the editors whose comments would have been helpfull simply gave up and left you alone, trusting that your edits are good enough. Unfortunately, as we've noticed now, there are a few structural elements, or patterns, which would have benefitted from sustained feedback. Since this is not the case, you have de facto come to WP:OWN the page, without your intention. But it may be worth to keep in mind: a collaborative project is probably a better project, but it means that sometimes you'll just have to sit on your hands and wait, for those other smart ones (yeah, Wikipedia offers the mixed blessing of being with other smartest kids off the class, who all usually out-smart all the others around them) to show up. Regards, and I will respond later; first try to catch some more sleep. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:10, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan. I've never had anyone fuss at me for being too fast in responding before. I always try to be sure and respond within 24 hours, on anything, on every comment made to me. Check every GA or peer review I've had. I feel bad when I take a whole day to respond! I don't want anyone thinking I'm ignoring them. You started editing two days ago and have gone through the entire article already, so that's pretty speedy yourself, and by my standards, puts me behind already. As the Wikipedia Gods are my witness, I am just trying to keep up with you and Remsense. I am still a participant in this collaboration - or am I?

Are you saying that any disagreement immediately runs you off? I love collaboration. I thrive on it. I define it as a back and forth mutual exchange. I don't define collaboration as me being required to sit and accept everything you do as unquestionable. I don't own the page and don't want to. I was thrilled to see help show up. I needed it. But I haven't abandoned it either. You seem to have assumed I am a kid in need of being told to sit down and keep quiet while the grown ups clean up my mess. I daresay I am older than you. So what? Source your claims. If your sources are better than mine, we'll go with yours happily. Otherwise, don't expect me to be awed into submission. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying that disagreement runs me off, but there is a limit to the amount of discussion one can keep up with. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Middle Ages

Joshua Jonathan This reorganization is good. I originally had it this way, but combined so I could shorten it. The church in confrontation is a category in the Cambridge History, but I like the way you combined things here instead. Some of the content is now out of its proper timeline however. I can move those. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Plus, I have already been reprimanded in one of the peer reviews for "corruption" being biased, and for having a section on renaissance as being off topic. Those should both go probably. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

You have added back in the many links to "further info" and so on that others took out as duplicating links at the end. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:02, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I can hardly believe you have gone through the whole article! You are amazing! And I agree and support nearly everything - which is probably saying something about two wiki-editors! Thank you thank you! I clearly needed the help in overall organization - not my strong suit - and you left my content - and I am so impressed I could weep! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:24, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

We are up to almost 2000 more words than it had. We need to cut some. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:29, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Not the whole article; I stopped at "Early Modern times", but probably will pick that up later. And yes, I also edit a lot, and fast, and that did put-off other editors. But I also check sources thoroughly, when needed (three books on Hinduism at the table now, for one piece of into at Bhagavad Gita), and that takes time to do it good and fair. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:04, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)