Talk:History of Christianity/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Too many pages on the history of Early Christianity

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Moved from Talk:Christianity#Too many pages on the history of Early Christianity

Proposal

There are too many pages on the (history of) early Christianity:

• Overview:

• Christianity
• History of Christianity

• 1st-3rd century:

• Early Christianity
• History of early Christianity

• 1st century:

• Pre-Pauline Christianity:

• Origins of Christianity
• Jewish Christian

• Emerging Church:

• Apostolic Age
• Christianity in the 1st century

• 2nd-3rd century:

• Ante-Nicene Period (c.100-325 AD)
• Christianity in the 2nd century
• Christianity in the 3rd century

• Diverse topics:

• Diversity in early Christian theology
• Split of early Christianity and Judaism
• Proto-orthodox Christianity

Excessive, isn't it? This way, it's impossible to reach, or maintain, any acceptable quality-standard; there are simply too many pages to watch, and it's disheartening to even make a start. There may be WP:COATRACK issues also; see Talk:History of early Christianity#"Origins". I don't think that supposed Hellenistic influences warrant separate pages (that would be a coatrack), but I've also noticed that there's a lot of info which is actually the traditional Christian, Biblical narrative on the origins and history of the earliest Christianity.

Anyway, some thoughts:

• Merge Christianity in the 1st century into Apostolic Age; that's the exact same topic.
• Merge Early Christianity and History of early Christianity into Apostolic Age and Ante-Nicene Period. "Early Christianity" and "History of early Christianity" overlap to a great extent; even the sections on "Beliefs" and "Ecclesiology" can be divided over "apostolic Age" and "Anti-Nicene period."

The combined (4 into 1) page of Apostolic Age would be about 88,000 bytes. And offer just one place to go, instead of four.

Christianity#Early Christianity and History of Christianity#Early Christianity (c. 31/33–324) can be used as overview-pages, with short sections on the relevant topics, and links to the main articles. This would also include Historicity of Jesus, Historical Jesus, Quest for the Historical Jesus; and Paul the Apostle and Judaism, New Perspective on Paul.

Honestly, I think it's a shame that a religion with 2,3 billion adherents is covered in such a messy way. We can do better than that. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC) / update Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

• Oppose merger of Early Christianity and History of early Christianity. Early Christianity and History of early Christianity are two different topics. Early Christianity deals primarily with the practices of the early church, baptism, etc., while History of Early Christianity deals with the development of orthodox views and establishment of the church. The two articles could be edited to reduce overlap, but not merged. Early Christianity is especially relevant to Restorationism and other movements and churches that sought or seek a return to the beliefs and practices of the early church - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 15:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopdia for a general audience, not the reference manual for specific religious communities. We present an overview of the relevant scholarly literature. And that literature tends tp describe early christianity in it's historical context, not as a pre-given reality. Practices don't exist without a context and a history; it's impossible to describe practices without their context and history. Why baptism? Because it just existed? Why 'salvation by faith'? Because that's what God wanted? Biblical scholarship for the past two hundred years has done it's best to provide historical context for Christianity; to present it without providing the context is a deviation from standard scholarly approaches. Especially for movements like Restorationism it's usefull to see that there was not something like a 'pure' original Church. That's what an encyclopedia is for: not to confirm one's worldview, but to present new information which would otherwise be filtered out or neglected. See Voltaire and his Encyclopedia!

And: Wikipedia needs an accessible overview of early Christian history, not four articles on the same topic. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

- did I say the article should not provide context? - Epinoia (talk) 20:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

PS: the topic of "Early Christianity" is early Christinaity, not "Early Church." See Mark Humphries (2006), Early Christianity, p.12-13. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

- Early Church redirects to Early Christianity - Epinoia (talk) 20:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay; thanks. Regarding Restorationism: they seem to refer to beliefs and practices from the Apostolic Age. So, it makes more sense to have a good section on beliefs and practices in the article on the Apsotolic Age. See here.

Regarding "Early Christianity" versus "History of Early Christianity": compare with "Christianity" versus "History of Christianity." "Christianity" describes Christianity as a living religion, as it is today; "History of Christianity" provides an overview of its history. There is no such thing as 'Early Christianity as it is today'; hence, no need for two separate articles. See also WP:REDUNDANTFORK. And, as Dbachmann commented at 29 January 2008, early Christianity is already a sub-article of history of Christianity. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

- of course there is no such thing as 'Early Christianity as it is today', but that doesn't mean we can't describe what Christianity was like in Antiquity. There's no such thing as the Roman Empire as it is today, yet we have articles on Classical antiquity, Late antiquity, History of the Mediterranean region, Christianity in late antiquity, Roman Empire, History of the Roman Empire, Diocletianic Persecution, Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire, 1st century, 2nd century, 3rd century, Judea (Roman province), Jewish–Roman wars, Second Temple, Second Temple period, Siege of Jerusalem (70 CE), etc., etc. "Sometimes, when an article gets too long (see Wikipedia:Article size), an unduly large section of the article is made into its own highly detailed subarticle, and the handling of that subject in the main article is condensed into a brief summary section. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure." "Essentially, it is generally acceptable to have different levels of detail of a subject in different articles, provided that each provides a balanced view of the subject matter." "Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another. This does not make either of the two articles a content fork." - Epinoia (talk) 04:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Epinoia: tahnk you for your reply. So, the question is: what do we treat where? I was wondering: what are the relevant practices of early Christianity? I mean, what's really worth/needed mentioning? Baptism and communal meals/eucharist were the 'boundary markers' for early Jewish/Jewish-Gentile Christianity; while circumcision was the 'boundary marker' between early Jewish Christianity and early 'Gentile Christianity, right? It seems to me that those are the really essential practices. As for beliefs, that would be the 'nature' of Jesus Christ: adoptionism, versus "High Christology." And salvation: the meaning of his death and resurrection: what did "died for our sins" mean, how was it interpreted? Is there a distinction between early Jewish Christianity and Paul's view, in this respect? In addition, the socalled "ransom theory of atonement" was not Paul's device, but developed in the second century, under influence of the Gnostics (nota bene). That also seems relevant to me. What are your thoughts? And, what beliefs and practices are relevant for Restorationism? NB: we can continue this specific conversation on another page, if you like (your or mine talk, or the talk of early Christianity). I'm looking forward to your thoughts on this. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan:- I used to be quite knowlegable in this area, but will admit that now my knowledge is sketchy - most of my reference books are gone and those I still have are dated - also, I live in a rural area and do not have access to an academic library - due to these limitations, I would not be able to make a significant contribution to the article based on current scholarship - thanks - Epinoia (talk) 15:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@Epinoia: what a pity! My library started late 1980's; I've reached an age where there's probably less time left to learn more, than the time that I've already had to learn and study. Thanks for your reply; I'll try to find more, based on your insistence on beliefs and practices, and your hint at Restorationism. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose merger this is one of the most studied topics in multiple languages. Wiki presents a very short summary of the vast scholarly literature, and its coverage is appropriate. If you want to worry about excessive coverage, pick an obscure player of an obscure sport, or better yet, a fictional character in a computer game. :) Rjensen (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Please spare me comments like If you want to worry about excessive coverage, pick an obscure player of an obscure sport, or better yet, a fictional character in a computer game. :); it's unpolite to ridicule seerious attempst to improve Wikipedia in such a way. Four articles on the same topic is not appropriate; it's distracting. Please explain what you find appropriate about such a diversion. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

if you want to be serious you would have looked at the major scholarly summaries, like Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years by Diarmaid MacCulloch (2011) (1200 pages) which devotes about 15% of his space to 21 different topics covering the first 10% of the history of Christianity. Or look at my favorite the old classic A History of the Expansion of Christianity (7 volume set): by Kenneth Scott Latourette, which devotes a whole volume to the first five centuries. Joshua Jonathan provides Not a single RS so we are totally mystified where he gets his standards. Four articles on the same topic??? Not at all--these are multiple perspectives on related topics. Multiplicity is needed to reflect the multiplicity of historiographical schools of how to write about them. Rjensen (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

So, one article per historiographical school? See WP:POVFORK. Regarding the "the major scholarly summaries," according to Google Scholar, Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years has been cited 6 times in 10 years. A History of the Expansion of Christianity is from 1914.

This is not about WP:RS, it's about Wiki-policies: WP:MERGEREASON and WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Those four articles are more or less duplicates. And "Christianity in the 1st/2nd/3rd century" seem to be duplicate WP:POVFORK articles written from a more orthodox-Christian point of view. A preference for voluminous writings is not a convincing argument to maintain four duplicate articles. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan complains that "A History of Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years" has been cited only six times--he used the Dutch language google--the English google gives 94 cites to the book since 2017 alone and hundred more earlier. The author has over 1000 cites in the scholarly literature since 2015 alone--he's really quite famous in religious history. [see https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2015&q=%22Diarmaid+MacCulloch%22&hl=en&as_sdt=1,27] . I count zero cites by Joshua Jonathan to any reliable source in any language. Instead he relies on his own narrow reading of Wiki guidelines, while ignoring guidelines like this one which applies here: "Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another. This does not make either of the two articles a content fork. " WP:RELART Rjensen (talk) 14:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

So, how are those five articles distinct? Or "multiple perspectives"? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I looked into the history page, which shows Joshua Jonathan has made a series of assumptions that are simply not true. The "early Christianity" article started in 2004 and over 1300 different editors had contributed since then. "History of Early Christianity" started on August 19, 2007 as a non-controversial spinoff of the entire 'history' section of the earlier article. The spinoff was discussed at the time with zero opposition. In the 12 years since then it has had 260 different editors. There was no dispute involved, simply a normal split when the mother article became too large. There was no overlap and no WP:REDUNDANTFORK and certainly no WP:POVFORK. Rjensen (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Regarding non-controversial spinoff, I think you should take a look at Talk:History of early Christianity/Archive 1. What's your answer to my previous question? So, how are those five articles distinct? Or "multiple perspectives"? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan has made a radical proposal based on false assumptions that they violated Wikipedia rules regarding WP:REDUNDANTFORK & WP:POVFORK. I looked at the case that has been most thoroughly discussed here on Early Christianity/History of early Christianity and discovered his allegations are unfounded. now for the first time he brings up Talk:History of early Christianity/Archive 1 --back in January 2008 there was indeed a discussion about the new article on history of early Christianity and there was a unanimous agreement with no opposition--see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_early_Christianity/Archive_1#Requested_move Rjensen (talk) 23:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The thread you've linked was about moving "Origins of Christianity" to "History of early Christianity." That move was supported, and immediately raised questions about the scope of the two articles. The next thread raised furhter questions. Now please aswer the question I've asked you: So, how are those five articles distinct? Or "multiple perspectives"? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

give up -- you have no support here. Rjensen (talk) 04:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support merges. Good proposal, for reasons stated. Having contibuted a little in those areas, I agree with you. Of course everything ought not be merged into one single article, but I am surpised how we can go on having such a scattered mosaic of articles in the current state of affairs. I would support merging the following:

1) History of early Christianity with Early Christianity,

2) Apostolic Age with Christianity in the 1st century (with the addition in the lead section "also known as the Apostolic Age", contrary to what originally proposed though),

3) Split of early Christianity and Judaism with Origins of Christianity,

4) Diversity in early Christian theology with Early Christianity,

5) Proto-orthodox Christianity with Early Christianity,

6) Jewish Christian with Origins of Christianity,

7) Ante-Nicene Period with Early Christianity,

8) Early centers of Christianity with Early Christianity.

Also, Template:History of Christianity could use a rework, as could Template:Christianity footer and Template:Christianity by century for that matter. PPEMES (talk) 12:20, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I think I agree with merging Ante-Nicene period into Early Christianity; ANP already is an almost exact copy. Also agree with merging History of early Christianity into Early Christianity. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• Ambivalent - maybe partially support - after a user gutted the Christianity in the 1st century article, I have partially revised my thinking on this. I would recommend something along these lines:

1) Early Christianity be renamed "Early Christian church" and be dedicated to describing the beliefs and practices of Christians in the Apostolic age and the Ante-Nicene period.

2) Three articles, Christianity in the 1st century, Christianity in the 2nd century and Christianity in the 3rd century be merged with History of early Christianity providing a history of the development of Christian orthodoxy.

3) Separate articles on the Apostolic age and the Ante-Nicene period (summaries in the History of early Christianity article and more detail in the Apostolic age and the Ante-Nicene period articles).

4) Jewish Christian could be merged with Split of early Christianity and Judaism and Origins of Christianity.

5) Proto-orthodox Christianity should stay as a separate article as it is about the meaning of the term.

6) Diversity in early Christian theology is an important stand-alone article as the subject is not adequately covered in other articles.

7) Messianic Judaism could be merged with Messiah in Judaism.

- cheers - Epinoia (talk) 16:06, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, there seems to develop a working base:

• I'm not sure about "Early Christian church"'; proto-orthodoxy was not the only strand of early Christianity. And a combined article on "the development of Christian orthodoxy" would serve the same objective. Also, a combined article on "Early Christianity" would naturally explain how Christianity developed from "Jewish Christian Judaism," to "Gentile Christian Judaism," to "Jewish Christianity and Gentile Christianity," to the variety of Christianities in the 2nd/3rd century, to the legitimisation by the Roman Empire at 325 AD, and the 'supremacy' of the 'Catholic' (Dunn's term) strand, c.q. proto-orthodoxy (which, according to Dunn, was flexible, in contrast to Jewish Christianity). Beliefs and practices are elements of that story: how Paul changed the perception of the observance of the Jewish commands; and how circumcision served as a boundary marker between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians; and how baptism and eucharist served as boundary markers between Judaism and (Gentile) Christianity. That's a somewhat other story than the Acts of the Apostles, but it's how scholarship perceives the trajectory(ies) of early Christianity, as far as I can see. And it's a story that makes sense; it revolves around the central question: how could a Jewish Messianistic sect become the dominant Greek/Roman religion?
• "History of early Christianity" might as well redirect to either Origins of Christianity or Early Christianity. As for the contents: it's a small article, and most of it wpuld be appropriate for "Early Christianity" or "Apostolic Age."
• There's logic in having three separate articles on Christianity in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd century. On the other hand: the whole series of articles was created by the same user, and they're ahrdly edited. It nevertheless means that there is no need for a separate article on "Apostolic Age"; apart from the life and ministry of Jesus it covers the same period.
• Merge Jewish Christian and Split of early Christianity and Judaism was on my mind too. There would still be considerable overlap with Early Christianity, but it's worth giving it a try. Part of that story is the "double rejection" of Jewish Christianity: the oldest Christianity, part of Judaism, but eventuallt rejected by both Judaism and the developing Christian tradition.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:58, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Done for Split of Christianity and Judaism into Jewish Christian; and for Origins of Christianity into Jewish Christian. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC) / update Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:59, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

@Epinoia: it's clear so far that "Early Christianity" remains. It seems to me that what you've got in mind is Early Christianity as an overview-article, and History of early Christianity as a more extensive article. I foresee that an extended "History of Early Christianity"-article would become too long, far over 100,000 kb. Yet, Christianity in the 1st century (with Apostolic Age merged into it), and Ante-Nicene period (with Christianity in the 2nd century and Christianity in the 3rd century merged into it), could as well serve that extensive function, while staying within limits. "History of Early Christianity" could then redirect to "Early Christianity," which in turn contains links to the first century and the Ante-Nicene period. This would also reduce the number of articles, without losing the overview-extended treatment structure. How about that? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: - I must admit with all the proposals and revised proposals and counter-proposals and alternative proposals that I am confused about what is to be merged into what. I've presented my ideas already and I feel that restating them would only add to the confusion - thanks for taking my opinions into consideration, but at this time I have nothing constructive to add - best of luck to you - Epinoia (talk) 23:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support. Apostolic Age should be merged with 1st Century Christianity, but not Early Christianity or History of Early Christianity which cover later periods as well. Instead, these latter two articles should be merged with each other.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 23:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree with merging Apostolic Age into 1st Century Christianity, and History of early Christianity into Early Christianity. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Question - Joshua Jonathan, could you provide an outline with your final layout? Editor2020 (talk) 22:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@Editor2020: yes, sure. Early Christianity#Apostolic Age, Apostolic Age, and Christianity in the 1st century already have now more or less the same lay-out - that's what you mean? Looking at the comments above, History of Early Christianity would be merged into Early Christianity, while Apostolic Age would be merged into Christianity in the 1st century. The 'hierarchy of articles', with increasing level of detail, then would be: Christianity#History of Christianity - History of Christianity - Early Christianity - Christianity in the 1st century.

Not sure yet what to with Ante-Nicene Age, and Christianity in the 2nd century and Christianity in the 3rd century. A hierarchy with five levels may be overdone, but there's logic in both having an article on Ante-Nicene Age, and on two articlesChristianity in the 2nd century and Christianity in the 3rd century. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Editor2020 (talk) 07:28, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Looks good. PPEMES (talk) 09:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - While some of these mergers make sense, I don't see why Messianic Judaism should be merged with Messiah in Judaism. The latter article is about a longstanding Jewish belief, while the former is about a modern Christian denomination. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:49, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd discourage from that last proposal too. PPEMES (talk) 14:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree with keeping these two separate. Messianic Judaism is a syncretic Christian religion. The Messiah in Judaism is a flesh-and-blood human being descended from the tribe of Judah and house of David. Using a humorous reductio ad absurdum, we might ask about merging Sabbath in Christianity with Ozzy Osbourne since he is a Christian member of Black Sabbath or Arnold Schwarzenegger withMuscular Christianity since he is a muscular Christian. -- Avi (talk) 19:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• While in general I agree that some overview articles may well be merged, I am a bit lost in what exact proposal we are discussing here. It looks as if every discussant comes up with their own proposal. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose all. This is way too much for one proposal, as shown by this mountain of text, i.e. wasted editing productivity. If we must, let's start over with individual merge proposals on the proper pages. I'll say in advance, however, that they don't seem very convincing given the reasoned objections put forth by Rjensen. SteveStrummer (talk) 21:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

That may be worth considering. The problem is, though, that all those pages are about the same topic (Early Christianity), divided over multiple pages. That's not economical. Improving those articles is almost impossible this way, unless one is willing to make the same edit to, say, four pages similtaneously. Individual proposals may not adress this problem adequately. Regarding the reasoned objections, Rjensen didn't adequately adress this problem of multiplicity; he never answered the question "So, how are those five articles distinct? Or "multiple perspectives"?"; so far, they're just statements of objection, . Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The boundaries of this proposal are simply too hazy. This talkpage is for discussion related to the improvement of this page. Brainstorming over the possibilities for multiple mergers is something that should be done at Wikiproject Christianity. Concrete proposals then go on the appropriate article talkpages. Striving for economy is less important than adhering to process, at least when you're talking about changes to a communal project involving the input of thousands of editors. Many if not most have worked on just one or two of the affected articles and this proposal gives very few of them proper notice. SteveStrummer (talk) 15:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks; that's a sound response. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Improper closure

Improper closure: this discussion was summarized and closed by the proposer. Mathglot (talk) 09:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

That's acceptable in this case; see WP:MERGECLOSE. See Talk:Christianity in the 1st century#Merge with Apostolic Age for a follow-up, singular proposal to merge Apostolic Age into Christianity in the 1st century, akin to part of the proposal above. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

No, it's not acceptable. You linked WP:MERGECLOSE above; if you read it, you'll see that your closure was improper:

• Uncontroversial close: A week or more has elapsed, and there has been no discussion or... there is unanimous consent to merge. – clearly not the case here: with 3 opposes, 2 supports, and an 'ambivalent', that's hardly "unanimous consent to merge". So it's not an uncontroversial close. That leaves:
• Contoversial close: the determination that a consensus to merge has been achieved should be made by an editor who is neutral and not directly involved in the merger proposal or the discussion. You are far from neutral: you are directly involved, both as the creator of the proposal, as well as a partipant in the discussion.

You had no business getting involved in the close; but anybody can make a mistake, and what's done, is done. I had already chalked it up to your not being aware of the typical procedures in use, and was prepared to leave it at that and forget about it. But when you apparently felt compelled to come back and quote the very page that labels your action as unacceptable as if it supported your point of view—well, I really don't know what to say. Maybe, stop digging? Mathglot (talk) 08:54, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:MERGECLOSE (emphasis mine):

In more unclear, controversial cases, the determination that a consensus to merge has been achieved should be made by an editor who is neutral and not directly involved in the merger proposal or the discussion.

I think you should read again the closure; it does not conclude that the pages should be merged. I've added that there is some support for the various mergers, but not decisive. WP:MERGECLOSE further says:

If there is a consensus against the merger, or if there is no consensus or no discussion and you don't believe that it is appropriate to merge the pages, then please remove the merge proposal tags and, if necessary, close any discussion.

Which does not mean, of course, that I don't think further discussion isn't necessary; but not in this form/proposal. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:02, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Results and proceedings

1. Origins of Christianity merged into Jewish Christian (Is "Jewish Christian" the most suitable name for the final, merged article?)
2. Split of early Christianity and Judaism merged into Jewish Christian (Is "Jewish Christian" the most suitable name for the final, merged article?)
3. Apostolic Age merged into Christianity in the 1st century

Good initative by Joshua Jonathan. Would it be possibly to make any more merges as proposed above, such as History of early Christianity with Early Christianity? PPEMES (talk) 12:57, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I'd definitely support that, but let's first proceed with proposal to merge "Christianity in the 2nd century" and "Christianity in the 3rd century" into "Ante-Nicene period." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Before proceeding further with these mergers it might be an idea to form an overall plan - the history of Christianity can be presented in various ways - one path is to follow the development of Christianity with the Apostolic Age, the Ante-Nicene period, etc. - another path is to proceed chronologically, 1st century, 2nd century etc. - the article Apostolic Age was recently merged to Christianity in the First Century, which seems to indicate a preference for a chronological order - so which path are we to follow to be consistent? - we should get our act together before implementing random mergers and creating a confused mess - Epinoia (talk) 20:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, my interest is in the origins of Christianity. "Christianity in the 1st century" and "Apostolic Age" are basically the same topic, which are also covered by "Early Christianity" and "History of early Christianity." That's just too much. But maybe it's also neat to have a separate series of articles on the history of Christianity by century. My next step would be to propose, again, to merge "Early Christianity" and "History of early Christianity." - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Jonathan (talk • contribs) 21:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

FTR, further merges and renames have occurred, and are generally being handled by discussion on individual talk pages. -- Beland (talk) 03:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

At second thought, the century-articles are merely duplicates. It makes more sense, andit is more practical, to stick to the established historiographic era's: Apostolic age (contained in 1st century for pragmatic reasons, to include a summary of the start of Christianity, not because of a preference for a century-by-century treatment), ante-Nicene period, late Antiquity, et cetera. The centuries-series has merely served to voice a Christian orthodox position; e.g., the undue expozitions on the Church Fathers. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:05, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Remarkable article

I've copy-edited thousands of articles pertaining to Christianity (and am fairly well acquainted with Christian history). Is it improper for me to here commend those who are responsible for producing this article which for the most part has an elegant conciseness and does what it is intended to do, directing those interested to articles covering each topic in more depth. I'm not suggesting that this be a featured article, since it needs far more references, but those who produced it deserve our expression of gratitude. Jzsj (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Ghassanid

The Ghassanids are a Christian kingdom also considered part of the history of Christianity as well. It is written in the article "The Syrians". It must be corrected that there was no country called Syria at that time, but there were Arabs or Ghassanids also about the Islamic conquest. The Rashidi conquests or the Rashidun Caliphate must be written. Samlaxcs (talk) 23:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Strictly Jewish?

Current article includes the text

"The early Christian groups were strictly Jewish, such as the Ebionites,[8] and the early Christian community in Jerusalem, led by James the Just, brother of Jesus."

With two supporting references, 8 and 11. Neither of the references support the claim that all early christians were strictly Jewish. Reference 8 only refers to Ebionites in conflict with other Christians. Reference 11 is completely opposed to the claim it is being used to support, in fact it mentions that Judaism in this period included significant numbers of non-Jews (!) called "godfearers". On page 21 James supports the existence of Gentile Christians, under certain conditions.

In short the claim that all early christian groups were strictly Jewish is original research, unsupported by the sources used and in my view false. At the very least it should read that some were, but I think a better solution would be to rewrite it completely. Does anyone disagree, perhaps want to find new sources?

Lawikcorner44 (talk) 14:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Wilken p.18: "All of Jesus's disciples were Jews, and they temained faithfull to the ancient traditions and customs of their people, observing the Jewish law [...] they had no thought of breaking with Jewish ways, nor did they have a mandate to invite non-Jews into their community." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

"History of Christianity/Jesus, pre-4th century Christianity, and syncretism" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect History of Christianity/Jesus, pre-4th century Christianity, and syncretism and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 12#History of Christianity/Jesus, pre-4th century Christianity, and syncretism until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 20:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

History of chirstianty

Interest 2001:8003:680F:F501:D82:BDA9:1C68:A7BD (talk) 10:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Fringe views

@Potatín5: Those words are indeed terrible news for true believers and Bible thumpers. But my understanding of Wikipedia is that WP:CHOPSY-based WP:SCHOLARSHIP always trumps theological orthodoxy.

My understanding is that Bauer's thesis is dominant in the mainstream academia, and its negation is by our book WP:FRINGE. So, you're removing mainstream scholarship in order to pamper fringe views.

About too non-neutral wording, see WP:NOTNEUTRAL. We don't promote WP:FALSEBALANCE.

Yes, that's the point. The naive churchgoer's understanding of Christianity is "the Bible, then the fundamental doctrines like the Trinity, then the patristic fathers debating other stuff." But in fact it was totally different: The NT was produced *by* the second generation of disciples, and reflects controversies that already had arisen in a church that was at least 40 years old by the time that the oldest material in the NT was written, then only centuries later did trinitarianism become a significant issue. There isn't really anyone who disputes this other than a small fringe of non-academic Protestants who will tell you that God prefigured later debates by divinely inspiring resolutions to them in material written centuries earlier. The article leads people to the wrong idea about the historical development of the doctrine and presents the false apologetic notion that trinitarianism was a commonly understood belief in the early church.

The beliefs of traditionalist Christians should be accurately included in the article, but its structure should not depend on them. Predestiprestidigitation (talk) 11:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 11:08, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm with Potatin5 - those were not good edits: lots of opinion presented as fact. StAnselm (talk) 13:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I would think 'Bible-thumpers' is a derogatory term that contravenes Wikipedia's 'Words to watch' and 'contentious labels' policy and undermines confidence in the objectivity and reliability of this article. 86.24.95.168 (talk) 16:08, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

How else would be describe religious nuts? Dimadick (talk) 00:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

You shove your contempt for them in your pocket. 2800:300:6291:F430:0:0:0:5 (talk) 01:11, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

We are pretty cool!

Look at this! [1] Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned references in History of Christianity

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of History of Christianity's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Lavan":

• From Fall of the Western Roman Empire: Lavan, Luke (2011). Lavan, Luke; Mulryan, Michael (eds.). The Archaeology of Late Antique "paganism". Brill. p. xxiv. ISBN 978-9004192379.
• From Religious policies of Constantine the Great: Lavan, Luke (2011). Lavan, Luke; Mulryan, Michael (eds.). The Archaeology of Late Antique "paganism". Brill. ISBN 9789004192379.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! They are not the same, and I had trouble running down the one by Lavan alone, so I am glad of this. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Standardising reference style

I intend to standardise all the current references in the article to use to use short form referencing. As part of this I'll generally tidying up the references and make sure all cites are in the correct section. I won't be starting for until at least tomorrow, so if anyone disagrees or has any questions please let me know. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Which type of short form referencing? Johnbod (talk) 13:24, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I haven't checked in the article yet, but either {{harvnb}} (or other harv template) or {{sfn}} depending on whichever is more commonly used at the moment. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:35, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I've had a chance to look {{sfn}} is by far the most common SFR in use. Always open to any discussion or ideas. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:31, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

ActivelyDisinterested You know what? Wow. Just wow. You have totally blown me away. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

You might not feel the same way once you realise how many {{page needed}} tags I've added ;) -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

All the references have been formatted and standardised to use {{sfn}} templates. One thing to note is ref #10, which I've tagged with {{dubious}}. It contains the quote That certain distinctive features of our Western civilization—the civilization of western Europe and of America—have been shaped chiefly by Judaeo – Graeco – Christianity, Catholic and Protestant., but this isn't a quote from the book it's a description of the book used on sites (e.g. Amazon, etc). The quote on page 2 is I shall try in the present discussion to turn a limelight on one phase of it: the historic relationship to our Western Civilization of Juaedi-Graeco-Christianity, Catholic and Protestant. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I also cleared up, added page numbers, or replaced bad refs were I could. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

You are amazing and wonderful and I can't thank you enough. Don't worry about those things left for me to do. The fact you found them makes it easier for me to fix them. Again, thank you. This would really have been beyond me. Thank you thank you thank you. Wow. Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

ActivelyDisinterested AArrggh!!! I am already screwing up your beautiful work! I traded out reference 182 and it keeps telling me it isn't there and I can't figure out what I am doing wrong. I'm going to bed. This makes me crazy. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Your mistake was daring to separate a number range using a hyphen! ?Obviously¿ all number ranges must be separated by emdashes (I know it's hard to believe, but there are those who care about such minutiae even more than I). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:18, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest not worrying about such things as you go about updating the article. Put the references wherever works, I can always make them all pretty again later. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Praise God hallelujah Amen and glory to the gods of Wikipedia!! In the date right? Because I put dashes in the page numbers all the time. Thank you for figuring that out! Man it was making me nuts! I am out of town for the weekend but will finish up Monday. Thank you oh great knowledgeable one! I learn something new every time we interact. Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:44, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Updating

First off let me say this is a phenomenal article. Cudos to everyone who has contributed.

IMO it just needs a little updating here and there. For example, this is in the lead:

• "In 380, with the Edict of Thessalonica put forth under Theodosius I, the Roman Empire officially adopted Trinitarian Christianity as its state religion, and Christianity established itself as a predominantly Roman religion in the state church of the Roman Empire". This was, long ago (though only for a short term), one possible interpretation, but it is no longer upheld by the majority and hasn't been in over 30 years. It is now understood that the Edict of Thessalonica was aimed at Arians, was only sent to Constantinople, and it has been fully demonstrated by later laws that Theodosius had no intention of including Jews or pagans in its decree. It was never intended as a universal law. Theodosius wrote a number of laws against heresy, but apparently it is no longer believed that he ran any kind of an anti-pagan campaign. Rome never really did "officially" adopt Christianity as its state religion; paganism continued; the Empire was not even mostly 'Christianized' before the late 500s.
• Imo, the information on Pella does not accurately reflect its source which discusses whether or not the legend of Pella is historically accurate. I think the debate should be what's mentioned, not the fact, as if it were established.
• I can supply citations for early Christian art.
• That there was no empire wide persecution does not mean there was no persecution. That needs adding.
• This is an error in fact: Constantine did not establish the "precedent for the emperor as responsible to God for the spiritual health of his subjects, and thus with a duty to maintain orthodoxy. He was to enforce doctrine, root out heresy, and uphold ecclesiastical unity." That's total baloney. It was Augustus who made himself Pontifex Maximus, the chief priest of Rome and head of the Collegium Pontificum, the highest priests in the land, and he did this in 12 AD, thereby establishing Roman emperors as religious leaders. Constantine's actual impact on religion in the Empire was small, since about 80% of the Empire remained pagan throughout his entire 31 year long rule. He did begin the end of public sacrifice, he persecuted some heretics, and built some basilicas, but that's about it. Christianity had established itself in the third century and its rate of growth under Constantine did not change.
• Monasticism should include a sentence or two on the role monks played in spreading Christianity.
• "Christianity as Roman state religion" needs some modest updating. The Roman Empire cannot be seen as "Christianized" before Julian. I'd like to add some more on Theodosius.
• Christianity in the Roman Africa province should include at least a sentence on the persecution of the Donatists. Constantine and Augustine played a part in that and it had reverberations on into the Middle Ages.

At any rate, there are a few more like these, and if no one objects to me going through it, I will update this article. If you want to wait for me to "Be Bold" and see what I do, then object, that's fine too. I will be sure everything is well sourced and cited and checkable.

First, though, I will give everyone who clearly cares about the quality of this article a chance to weigh in. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:43, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay, it's been about a month now and there is no response, so I am going to assume things are copacetic and get started. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:54, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Now that I have been through about half of this article, I am amazed at how many sections I have found with no references cited at all. Others may have one for an entire paragraph. Not the work I thought it was at first glance. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

It is a low-priority article on an obscure topic. What did you expect? Dimadick (talk) 12:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Dimadick An obscure topic? Really!?! The history of Christianity IS the history of western civilization, how is that obscure?

Describing it as a low priority reflects personal attitude not actual priorities. This article has Top priority to Project Religion; Top importance to WikiProject Christianity, Top importance to Theology, and Top importance to History. It has High importance to Project Catholicism, Project Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy and Project History.

But its level of importance, and whether you like it or not, should not affect our commitment to quality work. That's what we are here to do - not this - and so yes, I expected better. No excuses. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I am up to the modern era and feel the need to add in things that are not yet sections such as the Albigensian crusade, religious wars, witch trials, etc. As a result, I am also feeling the need to edit every section of this very long article down to 4 paragraphs or less. I will begin attempting that when I am done adding in, but if anyone else would like to begin shortening sections to include only main points, that would be great and deeply appreciated.Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I want to give a special thank you to Just Another Cringy Username who showed up and did marvelous work cutting this article down to a broad overview - removing the "granular level" as they said - which really hurt, in fact I think I'm still bleeding a little, but they did exactly as I asked, they did it boldly and well, and I admire them and am very grateful. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

And yet on a raw byte-count, the article is now 100,000 bigger than when you started in May! Johnbod (talk) 03:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Johnbod Thought you might like to know the article is now (14,211 words) or what WP describes as "readable prose size", and that's before any final editing and polishing - (which will come when I'm done with one more article that I started on before this one). It will start getting shorter then. Feel free to jump in any time and edit whatever you think needs editing. I know you have a commitment to the highest quality for the encyclopedia so I have faith in your good faith. Quality matters to me too. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome! Glad to be of service. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 06:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Johnbod I know! I know! You are so right! But look at how much it covers! I tried to just include main points - important topics that influenced what came after - controversial things - things the average person (our readers) would expect to find. 2000 years is just freaking hard to cover with brevity. I know you know that, and attempted to cope by leaving out what you could, which is exactly what I did too, but I went with Just Another Cringy Username's definition of "granular level", and they and I excluded all we could of that while adding in more of what seemed a higher level topic. There was nothing in this article on the Albigensians or Religious Wars or a few other topics that seemed more historically significant than a detailed discussion of Arianism or the Filioque clause or even art. (And now I have no doubt offended that author.)

In fact, I'm sure I have stepped on every set of toes connected to this article - stepped on them and ground them into the ground - and I am so sorry to have offended anyone. I built on what you created here without any major changes in the organization and very little in content. I added citations till my head swam - and then saw several of those sections get completely cut by JACU. Sigh. They are ruthless. :-)

You have all given me a free hand here and I think you are all amazing for doing that. But please, if you disagree on anything, make it a point to say so. I am grateful for your participation. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:01, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Four sections left with no citations, which I will of course go through a sentence at a time to verify and source, but I think I should be finished in less than a month. If there are no objections at that time I will call for a peer review and perhaps see about a GA. Any and all input is appreciated, but especially contrary views which I generally find the most helpful. Thank you all. It's been a privilege. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I think I am done. I will wait for the stupendously marvelous ActivelyDisinterested to work his magic and will follow up with a request for peer review. I am hoping to raise the rating of this article so it is more consistent with its level of importance. We'll see! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Jenhawk: You invited me to peer review this article, but there isn't a formal peer review open. Do you want to open one, or should I just post on the talk page? A. Parrot (talk) 22:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

A. Parrot I'm sorry! I didn't see you here, I answered on your talk page. I have another peer review open already and it is forbidden by the wikipedia gods that one have more than one PR open at a time. The talk page is what I've got right now. You are so awesome to do this! Really!

This article is less perfect than the other one, which I am polishing up to as perfect as humanly possible with high hopes for it. When I tried to take Biblical criticism to FA, I had no idea what was involved. I actually edited the references after nominating, which threw the numbering off and screwed it all up and made a huge mess! (I was still relatively new and didn't know diddly-squat!) It was embarrassing but highly educational. But that's pretty much how I have learned on wikipedia - by making mistakes and having people yell at me a lot - and if you don't take the humiliation personally, it actually works pretty well. I tend to remember what they said. So that other article is getting the most attention right now, but when it's nominated for - something - I will leave it alone, so it is "stable" by the time anyone picks it up, which usually takes forever. (I know now that stability is important. I understand copyrights and images and alt descriptions and even Harvard style and having all the isbns alike!! I'm like a real grown-up here now! ) Then I will come back to this article and begin polishing it. Your help will be invaluable - any help. I am genuinely grateful. Thanx again. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Slavery

Does anyone have an opinion on whether or not slavery is an important enough topic in the history of Christianity that it should or should not be included here? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:36, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Reverting rampage

Holy cow people! 14 reverts in a row? Really? Thank you to those restoring sanity. If anyone disagrees with anything written in this article, please avoid accusations of lies and just bring sources here.

Let me begin with a question I have. This was added: Estimates of the number of people who were executed have been reduced from a total of nine million people according to early nineteenth-century estimates to a total of approximately forty thousand people, not all of them were women.

I would like to understand what value there is in referencing a number that is no longer seen as valid? It isn't WP form to include every error of previous thought when discussing current thought. What value is there in going against that standard and including this one? Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

"The Oxford Handbook of Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe and Colonial America" has an introduction worth reading. The relevant aspects for us are on page 5 and 6, where it says: Historians have never taken seriously the claim, first advanced by an eighteenth century anti-clerical lawyer, that nine million witches were executed during the early modern period. This implausible claim, base on a crude extrapolation of the number of executions in one German town, nonetheless found favor among a small group of modern popular writers in the twentieth century who, for ideological reasons, wished to make the death toll from witchcraft prosecutions greater than that of the Holocaust. Modern research has resulted in a broad agreement that an estimated 100,000 individuals in both Europe and America were prosecuted over the 300 year span, and the number of executions was about 50,000. Lower numbers does not lessen the importance of this issue, but it does make me question why we would include such a mistake in our article here. If I don't get an answer soon I will add my name to the revert bandwagon (using both the 40,000 and 50,000 estimates) and removing the nine-million assuming that no one will object.

References

Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Judaism & Christianity parted 1st century

Although Christianity began as a sect of Judaism, the two parted ways definitively in the first century. Zeitgeist Gesund (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Be Bold! Get a source and make that change. It's a leftover from previous editors that, along with so much else in this article, still needs fixing. Jump in! The water's fine! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Not accurate - must be removed

This is used by some cults to spread lies on the development of the bible

                                                                                         "in other words, that the text of [most of] the Greek New Testament was relatively well established and fixed by the time of the second and third centuries" Jeffohms (talk) 01:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

That is what the source says however. Not canonicity - just content - it is generally accepted they were written before the end of the first century. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:07, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

History with Mithraism

Dear Wikipedia Editors, Please add your insight about adding these paragraphs to the article:

Commencing with a narrative deeply rooted in Christian tradition, wherein three Magi visited the infant Jesus, it is essential to recognize the term "Magi" as being intrinsically associated with the sacerdotal order within both Zoroastrianism and Mithraism. Mithraism, an ancient religion with Roman-Persian origins, venerating the deity Mitra, can trace its historical lineage back to a pre-Zoroastrian epoch. What piques scholarly interest is the presence of distinct parallels between Mithraism and Christianity.

Remarkably, this religion attained widespread dissemination across Europe, spanning from England to Germany, France and Spain, encompassing Greece and Italy, Turkey Syria and Iran. However, as the 4th century transpired, adherents of Mithraism confronted relentless persecution, coinciding with the ascendant influence of Christianity. Consequently, Mithraism underwent a gradual descent into historical obscurity, culminating in its ultimate disappearance between the late 4th and early 5th centuries. In retrospective analysis, Ernest Renan's proposition from 1882, positing that, under altered circumstances, Mithraism could have attained the eminence of modern-day Christianity, stands as a captivating historical conjecture, encapsulated in his words: "If the growth of Christianity had been arrested by some mortal malady, the world would have been Mithraic."

http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195067880.003.0001

http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/9781107449640.007

https://www.mithraeum.eu/map.php

https://books.google.com/books?id=B8AaAAAAYAAJ&q=renan+Marc-Aurele+et+la+fin+du+monde+antique P 579 "On peut dire que, si le christianisme eût été arrêté dans sa croissance par quelque maladie mortelle, le monde eût été mithriaste".

Light prism2020 (talk) 18:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

For essentially all the same reason Talk:Christianity#Similarity with Mithraism, no. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:31, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Absolute no from me. It is completely off topic here, and from the discussion cited above, is likely to be OR. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Fortunately, this discussion does not need to be continued, as Light prism has been indefinitely blocked, largely for misusing sources relating to Mithraism. A. Parrot (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! How the heck do you keep up with these things? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:03, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

In this case, I was involved in the ANI discussion, because I watch the Mithraism page. A. Parrot (talk) 20:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

That explains it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

A. Parrot comments

This is a sprawling topic, so enormous that it's one of the few that may be able to justify a length of over 14,000 words (the article's current size). But with that kind of size, it's especially important to maintain focus on the most essential points and not get bogged down in detail, and to be honest, I know Jenhawk has struggled with that in the past. So that's the biggest thing I was looking for when I read through the article, though it's not the only thing I commented on.

In general, I think the article is good at summarizing the immense range of events it has to cover, but there are exceptions in some places. When you're in doubt about what aspects of a time period should receive the most coverage, the coverage in existing RSes can be helpful; the publisher's website listing of The Cambridge History of Christianity helpfully includes the table of contents for each of its volumes, so I looked there when in doubt.

• "the text of [most of] the Greek New Testament was relatively well established and fixed by the time of the second and third centuries" — The context for this sentence implies that the canon of New Testament books was largely in place by this time, but after having read the source, I'm not sure whether that's what Porter is trying to say. He may be saying that the text of the individual books that ultimately became the New Testament was largely stable. My impression of the scholarly debate (which could well be wrong because I haven't studied systematically) is that individual books circulated among Christian communities, but we know very little about how the idea of a canon of such books emerged or how that canon developed.

• • A. Parrot It says the text of the NT and not the canon and that reflects the source - and the facts. The canon isn't mentioned until the end of the paragraph. They are different things. Is there a way you can see to make that clearer?

• "The Bauer-Ehrman thesis is the prevailing paradigm in popular American culture" — That may be so, but should American pop culture be highlighted here? The topic of this article is global, and if the English Wikipedia has a particular target audience, it's English-speakers in general rather than Americans specifically.

• • This is actually a huge big frickin' deal concerning the nature of early Christianity and the content of the NT. It is not limited to America, it is simply most popular here.

• The coverage of Constantine in the body, as opposed to the lead, skips over the key events of Milvian Bridge and the Edict of Milan.

• • Fixed I think.

• Why is there a distinct section on Roman Africa, as opposed to all the other provinces? It seems to mainly be a section on Augustine, in which case it should be labeled as such, though despite his immense influence, I feel like it should be possible to incorporate coverage of him under some broader heading.

• • I will figure this out. The section was already there when I started work and I just left it, but the observation seems fair. I think perhaps I should combine it with your observation this is too western and create a new section on all the places it went including Africa.

• "Charlemagne transformed law, and founded feudalism" — I don't see how this sentence is relevant to Christianity per se, and the claim that he "founded" feudalism is… odd.

• • Fixed.

• Having an entire section on "Kill them all and let God sort them out" is wildly disproportionate. I wouldn't bring it up here at all.

• • Dealt with in the three paragraphs requested.

• "High Renaissance was the most brilliantly creative period of western history" — A very sweeping claim and a weird bit of editorializing, best removed.

• • It actually reflects the source and since it's accurate and the Popes were at least partly responsible for it, all the art and architecture that resulted from it seems important enough to mention.

• The emphases get especially strange in the sections about the 17th to 19th centuries. There's an entire section about the trial of Galileo, and a rather long section about the Great Awakenings in North America, yet little coverage of how the Enlightenment and the subsequent revolutions affected Christianity, and also little about Christianity outside Europe and North America. For comparison, in the sixth and seventh volumes of the Cambridge history, which together cover 1500 through 1815, there are 59 chapters. By my count, two of them deal with the relationship between Christianity and science, three of them deal primarily with North America, six address the effects of the Enlightenment and the Age of Revolutions, and eight discuss Christianity outside Europe and North America.

• • I will use that source and fix this. Thank you. That's as far as I am up to today. I will work some on it all this week and get back to you again. I am so grateful to you for all of this! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

• The Merton Thesis is discussed twice (in #Economics, capitalism and banking and #Puritans in North America), and saying it is "both widely accepted and disputed" sounds weird.

• "Instead, they see it as a many centered unity of faith" — I don't know what this means.

• ""The 1960 election of John F. Kennedy was symbolic of the change in American attitudes." — I don't know that Kennedy needs to be brought up, but if he is, it has to be explicitly stated that he was the first Catholic US president.

In general, I notice two major tendencies in the article. One is a disproportionate focus on the United States, at the expense of other regions of the world where Christianity has been exported since the Age of Discovery. The second is its focus on events such as the massacre at Béziers and the trials of Galileo that have lent themselves to mythmaking by critics of Christianity. That seems to be motivated by a desire to explain the complexities of what really happened, but it means that an article that really, really can't afford to get lost in the details does so repeatedly. A. Parrot (talk) 00:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Some observations:

• • "the text of [most of] the Greek New Testament was relatively well established and fixed by the time of the second and third centuries" The text does not even mention canonicity, it mentions the lack of further edits and/or additions past the 3rd century. The emergence of Marcionism indicates that a form of the Gospel of Luke and many of the Pauline epistles were already in circulation by AD 150, and even had a religious following.
  • "The coverage of Constantine in the body, as opposed to the lead, skips over the key events of Milvian Bridge and the Edict of Milan." The religious symbolism of the Battle of the Milvian Bridge is mostly based on the works of Eusebius of Caesarea and Lactantius, who were the closest thing Constantine had to court historians. Their accuracy is in doubt. The Edict of Milan (313) is an edict of toleration by two Roman emperors, but the end of the Diocletianic Persecution was instead marked by the Edict of Serdica (311). It was the Edict of Serdica which granted religio licita status to Christianity.
  • ""Charlemagne transformed law, and founded feudalism" The Carolingian church and the role of the church in the Carolingian Renaissance are probably more relevant here. Feudalism is thought to have emerged in the 9th century, but not because of any specific action by Charlemagne. The Carolingian Empire's political system was based on decentralization and on granting hereditary lands to the leaders and soldiers of its cavalry.
  • "Having an entire section on "Kill them all and let God sort them out" is wildly disproportionate" This is a phrase from the early phases of the Albigensian Crusade (1209-1229). The Crusade itself is more significant as an attempt to eliminate Catharism by force. But the Medieval Inquisition was far more effective in eliminating Catharism than the Crusade.
  • "High Renaissance was the most brilliantly creative period of western history" I do not see the phrase's relevance to Christianity. In any case, the High Renaissance (c. 1490-1530) is considered the peak of the Italian Renaissance, but its effects on the rest of Europe should not be overstated. By the 1530s, Mannerism was spreading as an art movement, and that movement had quite an impact in the Kingdom of France, the Low Countries, and the Kingdom of Bohemia.
  • "six address the effects of the Enlightenment and the Age of Revolutions" The Age of Enlightenment (17th century-18th century) has a very specific effect on religious thought, the emergence of a demand for religious tolerance, and increased opposition to "the political power of organized religion. " The Age of Revolution (c. 1765-1849) covers a series of revolutionary waves, and the decline or demise of absolutism as a political system. But I am far from certain if there is a unifying theme in the religious thought of the period.
  • " I don't know that Kennedy needs to be brought up, but if he is, it has to be explicitly stated that he was the first Catholic US president." It is a good turning point on the impact of Anti-Catholicism in the United States, as Al Smith is thought to have lost the 1928 United States presidential election primarily due to anti-Catholic bigotry. Thirty years later, there was less prejudice about Catholicism. Catholicism started having a wider impact on American politics during the 1970s and the 1980s, as Catholics were major players in the Christian right coalition. Dimadick (talk) 08:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

A. Parrot I totally love you and all your comments. I will attend to them all, every one, I swear on the Wikipedia MOS. I knew you would catch all my weaknesses. Some of this was just too much fun to write! I will either delete the excess entirely - or move it into a note which I also love to do. Histories do often deal with the critics - it just kind of depends - sometimes histories are the critics! At any rate, I do go down rabbit holes - big overviews are the hardest! I will be back to give this my full attention soon. In the meantime, thank you, thank you, thank you. You totally rock. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:14, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Dimadick As usual you make insightful and valid comments that I appreciate. I am currently wrapped up in two other articles. I don't suppose I could talk you into just making these additions/deletions yourself could I? Your contributions would be invaluable. I know you to do fair, neutral and well sourced work. Think about it?

As to your specific comments, I have no problem with adding Marcionism if you like, though it was a second and third century movement and it accepted most of the NT books, so it does not undermine the claim. Canonicity is mentioned: There were disputes over the canonicity... and The list of books included in the Catholic Bible was established as canon by the Council of Rome in 382, followed by those of Hippo in 393 and Carthage in 397. That seemed sufficient to me. I'm okay with what you say about the Edicts. There appears to be some disagreement over Charlemagne and feudalism. I have more than one reference, but have no trouble with you just removing that. It's politics after all, but if you want to add some on the Carolingian church, feel free. I agree the Albigensian crusade is significant, and I agree it should be right where it is, but the brutality of the campaign needs to be there somewhere too imo. Don't you think? It's not as peripheral as A. Parrot thinks. If you have sources that it was the Inquisition which eventually stamped it out, please make that addition. I reduced an entire discussion of the High Renaissance to one sentence! I should get some credit for that! You can remove that sentence if you hate it with no hard feelings from me, but something has to be said about the church's contribution! It was kind of a big deal! I agree with your statement on the Enlightenment as well. I agree about Kennedy too.

As far as I am concerned, you and I are in pretty much full agreement. Yikes!

Be bold! Do what you think needs doing! I'll be back and be proud of your work no doubt! If not - we'll talk ... Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear: I have no objection to covering the Albigensian Crusade. I just don't see why the quotation needs to be discussed here, infamous though it may be. At first glance, I somewhat overestimated the amount of space dedicated to the quotation because the subsection titled "Kill them all" covers the end of the crusade as well as the massacre of Béziers. I'd put all the text on the Albigensian Crusade in one section, which shouldn't be more than three paragraphs, and perhaps only two—and which should be moved to the section on the High Middle Ages, where it belongs chronologically. A. Parrot (talk) 19:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I can agree to that - I think. I am almost done with my other article, and I am hurrying as fast as I can in order to get back here and work on this one. This one is way fun! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

A. Parrot I have been making my way through - slowly - often removing as much as I add in an effort to address as many of your concerns as possible. Even when I have disagreed about removing something, I have still taken your comments to heart. I have tried to respond to ever single thing you said. I still have the last two sections - Late Modern and Contemporary - to do but I don't anticipate dramatic changes there.

1. focus on the most essential points and not get bogged down in detail I have worked very, very, very hard (excessive detail there) at this. You will have to determine for yourself how I did. 2. The Cambridge History of Christianity] helpfully includes the table of contents for each of its volumes, so I looked there when in doubt. I followed your example. Every topic in this article has its own section in the Cambridge History. (There are about 24-30 chapters in every volume, and there are 10 volumes. I could not include all Cambridge's topics even in a summarized form.) 3. "the text of [most of] the Greek New Testament was relatively well established and fixed by the time of the second and third centuries" — The context for this sentence implies that the canon of New Testament books was largely in place by this time, No, text is not the same as canon. I think I have made that clearer now. 4. The Bauer-Ehrman thesis I went ahead and removed that specific reference. Some discussion of its claims remains in 2 other discussions - Rome and Orthodoxy and heresy - but without naming it or making it specifically American. 5. *The coverage of Constantine*The coverage of Constantine fixed I think. 6. *Why is there a distinct section on Roman Africa, as opposed to all the other provinces? removed. 7. *"Charlemagne transformed law, and founded feudalism" Gone 8. *Having an entire section on "Kill them all and let God sort them out" is wildly disproportionate. I wouldn't bring it up here at all... events such as the massacre at Béziers and the trials of Galileo that have lent themselves to mythmaking by critics of Christianity. That seems to be motivated by a desire to explain the complexities of what really happened, but it means that an article that really, really can't afford to get lost in the details does so repeatedly These both get entire chapters of their own in the Cambridge History. Being 'famous events' almost obligates anyone writing a history to mention them. I don't agree with excluding them, however, I have tried to take your concerns about "a desire to explain" and "too much detail" to heart and respond. In a history of a battle, the end of that battle matters as much as the beginning, and the legate is a critical aspect of where the Pope ended up when the war finished. If you still don't like it, the only other option that I can see is cut it entirely - and that will be problematic down the road. 9.*"High Renaissance was the most brilliantly creative period of western history" — A very sweeping claim and a weird bit of editorializing, best removed Done. Art now. 10.yet little coverage of how the Enlightenment and the subsequent revolutions affected Christianity, and also little about Christianity outside Europe and North America. Completely contrary to requests to shorten this, I thought this was an insightful and accurate comment - and too important to ignore - so I added and then added some more. There is now a BUNCH more in every period on the East and an entire Eastern section. There is a new section on enlightenment. Revolution is in one of the two sections left to do but I have every intention of writing more on that topic as well. It may be limited to America and France, but it will be there. 11 The Merton Thesis is discussed twice (in #Economics, capitalism and banking and #Puritans in North America), and saying it is "both widely accepted and disputed" sounds weird. Puritans are gone. No one else got a whole section to themselves.

So that's it so far. Not quite done yet, but getting closer. One nice thing about all the addition and subtraction - the page size still says it's a readable prose size. So far. Hope you are well and pleased with the changes! Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Additional tag

Diannaa IMO, repeating a few words, if they are combined differently, is not too close a paraphrase, and what's with removing a quote? I do not agree with these removals.

But I am actually here to discuss the additions to the article and the new tag. I know it is long, but I am going by A.Parrot's peer review evaluation that "it may be one of the few topics that deserves to be long." It seemed valid to me, so I have tried not to worry over it too much. When I am genuinely and completely done adding, I will edit out a bunch, and I will appeal to a friend who is really good at making things concise to do the same. Until then this seems premature.

A.Parrot's criticism that this article was too focused on the West, when Christianity had actually spread beyond the west from the first century, also seemed right to me. If you know a way to add Eastern Christianities without actually writing more content, please let me know, because I don't.

Adding the Enlightenment is still to come. The only thing I have kept, so far, that A.Parrot did not agree with including are the criticisms of Christianity, but imo they are as much a part of Christian History as its accomplishments and should be here.

I know that I tend to include details that provide support for claims made. I like to know why scholars think what they do, but in a long article like this one, too many details is death. If you have the ability to make things concise and still communicate the gist of things, I not only say go for it, I say thank you, and bless you a thousand times. I am willing to simply let you do your thing, or to listen to any and all suggestions here if you prefer. Don't just drive-by tag; stop and help. This is an enormous amount of work, and I have been doing it for a long time now. Some support would be great. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:23, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Where did I remove a quote? I'm not seeing it. — Diannaa (talk) 01:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

The article is currently 17865 words; the current suggested article size is 10000 words. Sorry I won't be able to help with this project as the article is currently too large for my setup and internet comnnection to easily handle. But I have performed an edit removing a few paragraphs that seem off-topic and good candidates for removal as examples of the sort of thing I think could come out without damaging the narrative. — Diannaa (talk) 01:59, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

If this article is so long that a Wikipedia regular has difficulty loading it, then it's definitely too long. The 10,000-word limit is a rough rule of thumb, and there are sometimes grounds for exceeding it, but we have to keep in mind what's practical for the reader.

Re: the criticisms of Christianity, Jenhawk's characterization of what I said seems like a misreading. A huge amount of the history of Christianity is very ugly! The problem is that this article goes into detail regarding widely held beliefs that are false, or at least distortions of historical fact, and many of those instances are events that critics of Christianity often seize upon. But this article cannot afford to go into detail about particular events because it has so much ground to cover in so little space. That's what subarticles are for. I notice that the text Diannaa cut was material that I didn't highlight in my peer review, but was an example of the same problem: going into too much detail about specific events for which Christianity has been criticized (in this case, the suppression/extinction of polytheistic religions). A. Parrot (talk) 03:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Diannaa I like your changes. As a principle, I agree that shorter is better. I also agree that I generally suck at that, but when A. Parrot said This is a sprawling topic, so enormous that it's one of the few that may be able to justify a length of over 14,000 words (the article's current size), he was absolutely right. This article needs to focus on the major aspects of Christian history, absolutely, but those must be included even if it makes the article the longest in Wikipedia history. So far that distinction is held by Cheerleading in Australia which is just over 30,000 words. This topic, covering 2000 years and East and West, deserves at least as much leeway as cheerleading.

A.Parrot, when you say this article cannot afford to go into detail about particular events it is an impossible standard because the very nature of writing a history depends upon particular events. The Cambridge History, which I have been using since you suggested it, extensively covers the Albigensian crusade (Cathars) in volume 4, chapter 12 Christians and heretics by Peter Biller. There is also an article in volume 6 by Ann Blair on "Science and religion" that includes 'The Galileo Affair' because it is taken as paradigmatic (page 426). The Cambridge History has 105 pages, in four separate articles, in volume two on the suppression/extinction of polytheistic religions). These 'particular events' characterize important aspects of this topic, and as such, were given a high enough level of importance by the pros to rate their own sections. It doesn't seem right to me that they should be excluded here because they are also popular criticisms.

When you say A huge amount of the history of Christianity is very ugly! and then tell me to exclude what are generally considered examples of that, I know that I will end up being accused of white-washing and bias. I can cut the things you mention as too particular, but I guarantee it will be an issue down the road.

How much detail is too much? How much is enough? I ask that you both allow me to finish first before reaching a conclusion on that. I will be happy to ping you when it is ready to be looked at. In the meantime, I ask that you remove the tag you placed Dianna. The article doesn't have multiple issues - yet - because the article is not finished, and it is already tagged accordingly. Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Hey, it's just my opinion that the article is too long, as I have trouble saving edits. The second tag was to give you an idea about what to consider doing about it. — Diannaa (talk) 14:26, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for that, for removing the tag, and thank you for the swift response. I am considering it with every word I write. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

"As a principle, I agree that shorter is better." Both as a reader and as an editor, I disagree. Brevity is typically used as an excuse to sweep issues under the rug, and a whitewashed history of Christianity is useless. Dimadick (talk) 16:26, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:56, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Dimadick So, I think I addressed all your concerns, what do you think so far? Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

It seems to be a pretty good overview, but I noticed a peculiar ommission in the 20th and 21st centuries. The article notes that the individualistic spirituality of the era differs from traditional Christianity. It does, but several of the new religious movements which emerged are either Christian in origin or have incorporated Christian ideas in their teachings. In the List of new religious movements, several are either products of syncretism between Christianity and something else, or new variations of Christianity's numerous branches. Dimadick (talk) 00:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Do you recommend any sources I could use? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:04, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Origins of Christianity

I believe that Christianity begun with Adam and Eve, by the way, I'm just here to discuss this before making any changes. Christianity was called Judaism at the time but Christians believe in the story of Adam and Eve eating of the forbidden tree and the old testament has prophesised the coming of the Messiah. The coming of Jesus doesn't create a new religion, it only fulfills the prophesies that that religion had made prior, modern Judaism actually split off from Christianity at the time of Jesus because they rejected the coming of the Messiah and instead don't believe Jesus to be the Messiah or son of God, Jesus called himself a Jew because although modern day Judaism split off from Christianity the term Christian has been given to those who believe in the new covenant after the coming of the Messiah, same beliefs, different term. If I am wrong I will accept it, I'm no theologian I'm just seeking truth and pushing what I believe to be truth. Dr Ulster (talk) 00:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Muslims have a similar belief about Islam, that it was Adam's religion. This is something that often comes up at Muhammad, which states that Muhammad founded Islam. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Fair point. Dr Ulster (talk) 10:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

the beliefs of Islam do not line up with scripture though and so there is no fulfillment of prophecies, whereas the coming of Jesus fulfilled the prophecies of what we call Judaism today. Dr Ulster (talk) 10:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

and so therefore Christianity is a continuation of what we call Judaism only today the new covenant applies and no longe does the old covenant apply. Dr Ulster (talk) 10:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Another point is that the beliefs of the Old Testament are still believed, quoted and used today in Christianity and every Christian you ask today wouldn't think that the Old Testament is from another religion. Dr Ulster (talk) 00:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC) Judaism split off from Christianity, not the other way around. (note that by Christianity I mean people who believe in the Trinity, Old and New Testaments of the Bible and Salvation through Jesus and by Judaism I mean those who believe the Old testament alone apart from certain verses about the Messiah) My speech wasn't the clearest to understand but I hope that you get what I mean Dr Ulster (talk) 00:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello Dr Ulster and welcome. I appreciate you coming here to discuss changes before making them, especially these changes. Most of what you say is theological, not historical, and this is the History of Christianity not the theology of Christianity. It is off topic for this article.

And while I am a theologian with university degrees, I can't say that I agree with all you have said here. What I can say is that it doesn't matter, since Wikipedia is not the place for publishing personal views. We write research papers here Dr Ulster, not personal blogs. There is a place for that, but this isn't it. Everything we write must be supported by quality secondary sources, so be careful what you insert. Other editors have the power to delete what you add, and they employ it with vigor. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, you could have a degree in how to ride a bike and it doesnt change the argument. Wikipedia is a place for factual evidence, I agree with that but even if you forget about Adam adn Eve Christianity still can be traced back to the Israelites led by Moses, they are still Christians, they were just in the old covenant. I haven't inserted anything, I'm simply here to discuss the topic as I as a Christian believe that the history of Christianity can be traced back even before Jesus in the form of the old covenant. Jesus didnt create a new religion, He fulfilled the prophecies of the already existing one. I too have the power to delete what other people add and so does everyone who has access to an online computer, it doesn't change the argument. Dr Ulster (talk) 10:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, I'm fairly new to wikipedia and I did not read your first paragraph, only your second, that is a fair point that I am discussing theology and not history but it is a fact that the Israelites were Christians but in the old covenant and so Christianity can be traced further back than just Jesus, you could argue that Jesus 'founded' New covenant Christianity but no matter whether it's old or new covenant it's still Christianity. Christianity as in those who believe the trinity and Judaism as in those who deny the divinity of Christ. Also please excuse my spelling or grammar, since this is just a talk and not an actual article i'm not reading over what i'm saying. Dr Ulster (talk) 10:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

• Salvation through Jesus death and resurrection, not just through Jesus.

Dr Ulster (talk) 00:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Your POV is not mainstream academical. You are simply taking traditionalist or fundamentalist propaganda at face value. That's not something we do in a mainstream encyclopedia. That there were the historical Adam and Eve is a WP:FRINGE view in mainstream history. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok lets forget about adam and eve then, Christianity still existed before Jesus, it's not my personal view its the true belief within the religion, it has existed far before Paul or Jesus or anyone. The Christian belief is that Christianity has existed long before anyone on this earth has and mainstream history doesn't change Christian beliefs. You cannot change Christian history or at least Christian belief on history because it goes against what mainstream historians say, if you look on the wikipedia article for the history of Judaism you can see that it started with the Israelites, and so how come this double standard exists where the history of Judaism goes back before Jesus' time but the history of Christianity supposedly does not? Dr Ulster (talk) 10:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

"the old testament has prophesised the coming of the Messiah" I am not certain if we have an article on Messianic prophesies in the Old Testament in general. Does the article Old Testament messianic prophecies quoted in the New Testament cover your concerns? Dimadick (talk) 13:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@Dimadick Yes this does indeed help, thank you awfully. Dr Ulster (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@Dr Ulster:, Wikipedia is not a soapbox for you to promote your own beliefs. Most Christian religious perspectives consider the "new covenant" of Christianity to be distinct enough from the "old covenant" of Judaism to be called a separate religion, and the utterly overwhelming majority of scholarship on the subject treats them as separate. You are free to believe otherwise, but your beliefs are fringe views and will not affect Wikipedia's coverage, which is based on the balance of perspectives in the scholarly world and not the view of individual editors. A. Parrot (talk) 16:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Dr Ulster It has been apparent from the first that you are new here, and newbies often make these mistakes about Wikipedia. It's clear that either no one welcomed you with the necessary information, or that you chose to ignore it. You should have received this:Please take a moment to familiarize yourself with what Wikipedia is and is not. Wikipedia is not just another news, forum, blog/webhost, promotional/advertising/directory, or social networking site. It is a place for serious, collaborative, scholarly assembly of knowledge about notable subjects into a high-quality encyclopedia, with verifiable references to independent, reliable sources. Many people come here with other expectations and have a difficult time as a result. The people who have answered you here are respected knowledgable editors of long standing. They are trying to help you. Your personal beliefs have no place here. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

These are not my personal beliefs, these are factual truths I understand that they are trying to help me but it is a fact that in the old testament of the Bible the prophesies state that a Messiah is coming, that Messiah comes and fulfills those prophecies, therefore there is no new religion, it is instead a fulfilment of the already existing religion which is today called old covenant Christianity. Jesus creates a new covenant as there is now forgiveness for sins, it's just the second phase of the same religion. Judaism is separate from Christianity, they do not believe in the entire old testament and so therefore they are the ones who lack succession from the Israelites. Dr Ulster (talk) 18:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

"it is a fact that in the old testament of the Bible the prophesies state that a Messiah is coming" I don't think that there are serious disputes about the existence of Messianism in Second Temple Judaism. Per the main article on the topic:

• • • • "The Persian period saw the development of expectation in a future human king who would rule a purified Israel as God's representative at the end of time – that is, a messiah. The first to mention this were Haggai and Zechariah, both prophets of the early Persian period. They saw Zerubbabel as a figure similar to a Messiah, as a descendant of the House of David who seemed, briefly, to be about to re-establish the ancient royal line, or in Zerubbabel and the first High Priest, Joshua (Zechariah writes of two messiahs, one royal and the other priestly). These early hopes were dashed (Zerubabbel disappeared from the historical record, although the High Priests continued to be descended from Joshua), and thereafter there are merely general references to a Messiah of (meaning descended from) David." Dimadick (talk) 08:50, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Fair point, I now accept that even if a fringe view is correct it may still not be added to wikipedia. Dr Ulster (talk) 18:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Work remaining

Ugh! This is the detail work that's left, that I am currently working on - (that I hate so much and tend to really suck at!) - any and all help appreciated.

• • fix all 'page needed' tags  Doing...
  • remove unused refs
  • make everything as concise as possible -  Doing...
  • image alts and copyright info for all images
  • isbn's all same form (have a formatter I will use eventually)
  • links! If this is a true overview, every section should have a "main" article listed, and they don't yet.  Doing... Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Dimadick also suggested one new addition in twentieth century on new spiritual movements, so I will add a sentence or two on that probably.

The article is about 17,500 words of prose right now, which is "readable prose size". It is not overly long for an article that covers so much imho. I think I have included all relevant topics, but if anyone thinks anything important is missing, please say so!

If anyone else has any input or suggestions, please say - or just do - what you think needs doing.

Just please keep in mind this is a "flagship" type article that needs to be a GA or a FA, so that is the ultimate goal. Please help in any way you can! Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:53, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

One point: the article size tool says "readable prose" because that's what it's measuring, as opposed to the total size of the article, which incorporates all the wiki markup. So the readout that says "readable prose size" isn't indicating anything about the readability of the article. Eighteen thousand words is extremely long by WP standards; the most bloated article I've ever seen was probably Franz von Papen as it was in 2018, which was about 22,500 words. A. Parrot (talk) 21:17, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

A. Parrot You're back! Welcome back! Yes, I understand. You're right, of course, 18000 words is definitely long, but if you have been watching, you know I have cut almost as much as I've added. If you look at the discussion of length above, it was at 17000 words then - before I added in any of the additional topics, that were needed, that you requested. That means that, overall, there are now half again as many sections, by actual count I think, but only a thousand more words in total. That required a lot of heavy editing out as well as in.

One of your earlier observations was that the article focused too much on the west. Now in the different time eras, each era is focused on that geography where Christianity was primarily active in that time period: Palestine, then Rome, then Europe, west then east, America, then Africa and Asia (while still mentioning other geographic areas). It may not be the perfect arrangement, but a focus purely on time made it unmanageable.

There is nothing in this article that was not granted at least a chapter or more in the Cambridge History. But there is no way to cover everything they did. I picked topics I thought readers would look for that historians agreed was important, and with yours and Dimadick's input, have done that, I think. That means that IMO there is little left that can be done about the length. There is enough detail to make clear why something is important enough to be mentioned but no more than that.

The article is better organized and more streamlined in every way and yet still covers more - imo. I hadn't heard from you in awhile and didn't know whether to ping you or not. You know, I hope, that I always value your insights. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:42, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

A. Parrot I have edited out - and in - every single thing you mentioned. It seems unreasonable to just keep saying 'it's too long and too detailed' without making any observation on what that means based on what has been changed. I would really like to hear back from you some acknowledgement of what has been done and anything specific about what you think might still need doing.

It might be of interest to you to know that WP's article on Napoleon is about the same page size as this one. The actual History of Christianity covers a much longer period of time, has had more widespread and extensive influence over more geographic area, and therefore has more to be covered than Napoleon, yet this article is now no longer than the one about a single individual. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I apologize for not replying sooner. I have trouble focusing on Wikipedia work these days.

I know you've put in an enormous amount of work. But Diannaa's remark above, that her setup can't even really edit this article because it's so large, sticks with me. An article that isn't editable for a Wikipedia regular isn't likely to be readable for the general public. A lot of articles end up oversized—Napoleon being a good example—because people tend to focus on the main article and not its subarticles. If you want to leave the article at this size, it would be far from unprecedented, but it wouldn't be optimal either.

Some articles on big topics do achieve comprehensiveness by focusing on the general and relegating details to subarticles. Amazingly, Philosophy, which is considered one of the ten broadest topics on the entire site, now looks poised to become an FA at less than 6300 words. For broad history-focused articles like this one, there aren't a whole lot of high-quality examples. But History of timekeeping devices (an old FA, but kept after an FAR two years ago) is under 7000 words, and Social history of viruses is under 10,000.

The problem that I consistently see with your work is that you have lots and lots of information, but it often doesn't feel like it's been fully digested and summarized, meaning you end up with odd tangents or digressions. Skipping around at random, I see Peter Brown's three-sentence description of the Byzantine–Sassanian wars (interesting, but not relevant to this article, which only needs to note that the conflict had a big impact on Christians in the region); Wolfgang Behringer's hypothesis that the Little Ice Age caused the moral panic over witchcraft (relevant to articles on witch trials, but not here unless it's the overwhelming consensus position among scholars, which I very much doubt); and two sentences on the gathering in Cane Ridge, Kentucky, in 1801 (it's not at all clear why this gathering, as opposed to countless others during the Second Great Awakening, should be mentioned here). No doubt I could find other examples if I went through line by line, which I do not have time for.

For comparison, see Middle Ages, an FA that is chronologically organized and has some obvious overlap with this article's subject matter. Although it's over 14,000 words and has been ever since it underwent its rewrite for FAC, it has a greater sense of cohesion, managing to integrate its key topics into its narrative flow. I think it should be possible to make this article as cohesive and comprehensive as that one, and in the process reduce it to a similar length. But I don't know how to make it happen, except by recommending that you study the examples I've given. Digesting and summarizing is a skill I learned on Wikipedia (with a great deal of struggle!), but not one I know how to teach on Wikipedia. A. Parrot (talk) 08:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Bless you dear A. Parrot for persevering with me. Thank you for this helpful and specific comment. I will do as you suggest and study those examples. I have cut so much and thought I had done so well! I will work at being better at summarizing. I promise. I know I'm repeating myself here, but thank you again. Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:23, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

A. Parrot I think I have done everything you suggested - thank you again btw - and am currently down to 14,200-some words. I am unsure about the whole cohesion thing. Perhaps you could take a look at the outline and the section headings and see what you think. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

A. Parrot 14015!!!! I am down to working on images - a punishment for every evil thought word or deed I have ever had... Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Jenhawk777, congratulations on your amazing work! Here is a couple of ideas for further improvement:

• for conciseness, write "according to Scholar" or "Scholar writes that" rather than "Scholar writes in Cambridge History of Christianity that", as the source is already included in the references.
• for consistency, choose between numerals and words for centuries, as both forms are used in the article.

SanctumRosarium (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Imo, including the source in the text is a perfectly legitimate WP approach to citation. I don't do it for every scholar, but "why should we care what this person says" is a legitimate question, and citing the Cambridge History seems to answer that. But I will think about taking it out, since it would remove a few words here and there. Perhaps I could go back and remove the reference for those with WP links. Jenhawk777 (talk) 10:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

SanctumRosarium Okay, I took your suggestion and removed the source title wherever there was a WP link. It reads better without it of course, but for accuracy's sake, seemed good to include in this controversial topic. Hey, how about turning your user name blue? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Some additional remarks:

• some sections focus on minor facts or scholar controversies instead of providing basic information to the reader. For exemple section #Rome focuses on the influence of the Pope over other bishops and doesn't explain how Christianity spread to Rome. This section should explain how and when Christianity arrived in Rome and how the Church expanded there.
• another example is section #Christianity as a state religion, which focuses on scholar debates on Theodosius' legacy without mentioning the Edict of Thessalonica in 380 making Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire.
• Paul the Apostle's conversion and journeys should be mentioned at least one time in the article don't you think?

SanctumRosarium (talk) 02:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

SanctumRosarium First, I agree there should be some mention of apostles as early missionaries. I had it in a note, then removed it in an effort to make everything shorter. I will fix that. Second, the Edict of 380 is discussed in the note, and it is now generally accepted that it did not make Christianity the official religion of empire. Third, if Paul gets a mention it must be in that first mention. I appreciate your comments btw! Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Maybe the Edict of 380 should be mentioned in the section. You know that many books and reliable sources still present the edict as the starting point of Christianity as official religion. The lead sentence of Christianity as the Roman state religion is: "Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire when Emperor Theodosius I issued the Edict of Thessalonica in 380, which recognized the catholic orthodoxy of Nicene Christians in the Great Church as the Roman Empire's state religion". Wouldn't readers be confused when they read both articles? SanctumRosarium (talk) 13:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

SanctumRosarium Aaargh!!! Keep in mind that this is a parent article. I am strenuously endeavoring to do as A. Parrot has explained is necessary for this to become the FA article it needs to be by cutting out all extra detail to leave only broad summaries.

You are absolutely right that there are conflicts in the metadata here on several Christianity related topics. That's because the field itself experienced a dramatic shift beginning about 50 years ago, but old scholarship is still out there, and unfortunately a lot of it is here on WP. If you look at Historiography of the Christianization of the Roman Empire it discusses changes that have taken place.

I am working to update all WP articles on Christianity, but it's a long slow slog that often involves a good bit of vitriol at me from those who do not want to let go of Gibbon. I have been working on this one article since May, and it is likely it may be until next May before it's done. I knew there would be grief over the law of 380 and tried to head it off in the note there, but it's one of those details imo. The rejection of every old idea cannot be discussed here in this article.

I suggest you take it upon yourself to do as I am doing and begin updating articles like Christianity as the Roman state religion with more contemporary scholarship. I know Cameron has written a definitive critique, as have several German scholars, demonstrating that the Edict of 380 could not have been intended as a universal law. You are right that it needs doing. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Still, it seems that something is missing. The title "Christianity as a state religion" implies that Christianity did become the official religion and readers would then expect explanations of how and when it happened. The section focuses on refuting claims that the edict of 380 or the law of 392 were the moments when Christianity became the state religion, however it doesn't explain how and when this actually happened. Or maybe the implicit conclusion is that Christianity was never officially proclaimed the state religion of the Roman Empire? SanctumRosarium (talk) 22:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Christianity was never officially proclaimed as the state religion in any law or proclamation by any emperor. What would you suggest as a better section title?

I have now added a section on missions and origins to the section on Rome. Don't give me more to add!!!  :-) I need to remove everything that is part of a broad overview! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

However, I think you have inspired me to rewrite and focus that section better. Give me a day or so. I'll be back. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

There is no need to rewrite the section, just add this sentence at the beginning of second paragraph: "Christianity was never officially proclaimed as the state religion of the Roman Empire." Regarding the title of the section you can keep "Christianity as a state religion", as Christianity was indeed the state religion in other territories such as Armenia, as explained in the section. SanctumRosarium (talk) 16:18, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done SanctumRosarium (talk) 16:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for insisting on this subject ... Can we at least write somewhere that Christianity was actually de facto the state religion of the Empire, even if it was never proclaimed as such by a law? It would really help ignorant readers like myself better understand. SanctumRosarium (talk) 16:55, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

SanctumRosarium I am going to have to revert your statement as OR. It's a conclusion you reached and is not a sourced statement, so it has to go. I have now redone that section. You may not like it because it is not as clear cut as you may need, but it's the current state of scholarship. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

SanctumRosarium Christianity was the slight majority (just over 50%) by the mid-fourth century. That can be said and sourced. Would it help? I didn't mean it when I said don't give me more to add. If you have any further confusion about anything at all or if you look for something that isn't there, please do tell me. It is a genuine help. It's on me to be concise, not you. So fire away. I will do my best to respond accordingly. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes it would definitely be helpful to include this fact! SanctumRosarium (talk) 23:16, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:39, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

A few additional remarks:

• #East–West Schism doesn't appear to be in the right place. Shouldn't it be at the end of #Early to High Middle Ages (c. 600 – c. 1100)?
• Shouldn't calvinism and anglicanism have more details on how and when they appeared? #Radical Reformation which was not as much influential has much more details
• #Puritans in North America should be before #Reawakenings, right?

SanctumRosarium (talk) 23:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

The East west schism of 1054 is the first thing in the eastern section that covers the eleventh century - the 1000's - to the 15th which is the 1400s. It's in the right place.

It is not possible to detail every Protestant group in an overview, so beyond a mention in 2 for 3 separate places, that will probably be it.

I have removed - then replaced - the Puritans twice now because the truth is, they are only included because they're American and were influential here. I should probably remove them. Why should they get a mention when no other individual denomination is singled out? I'll remove them - and that will put me under 15,000 words and meets my goal! Whoohoo! Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion about the chronology, currently we have:

1. Early to High Middle Ages (c. 600 – c. 1100)
2. Western Europe (c. 1100 – c. 1500)
3. Eastern Christianity (11th to 15th centuries)

Wouldn't it be more logical and consistent for readers to have:

1. Early to High Middle Ages (c. 600 – c. 1100)
2. Western Europe (c. 1100 – c. 1500)
3. Eastern Christianity (c. 1100 to 15th century)

And consequently to include the Schism in #Early to High Middle Ages (c. 600 – c. 1100)? The Schism concerns both the West and the East, so why should it be discussed in Eastern Christianity only when you have the possibility to address it in a prior section? Readers would expect to read about it in #Early to High Middle Ages (c. 600 – c. 1100) as the date 1054 is in the span 600–1100. SanctumRosarium (talk) 16:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

The eleventh century is 1000s and the fifteenth is the 1400s. I have now changed it to the numbers for consistency. The century is always one up: the first century is not the 100s, first century years are from 1 - 99, the second century is the 100s from 100 - 199, and so on. The schism was 1094, the eleventh century, so there is some overlap with the Western Europe section, but the guy doing the peer review made a big deal about this being too focused on the west, so in the east it will stay. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:04, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Jen, great to see you working on this (and long time no see!). I much agree with SR's chronology labeling comments—I wouldn't worry too much about that topic affecting the reviewer's balancing concerns. The current section headers and genuinely rather confusing, and I can guarantee you that this will be a repeated complaint if you pursue GA or FAC. You might also consider renaming the "Western Europe" section as "Western christianity", to better match "Eastern Christianity". Also, I don't know that a "c." in every section header is necessary—A reader who does not realize that the years are not "exact" cut offs, they also probably don't know what "c." means. Hope you're doing well! – Aza24 (talk) 06:26, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Aza24 Well hello! All good points. Will do. Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Dimadick

I think - I hope - I have finally accomplished what you requested concerning new forms of Christianity. Thank you for your patience. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Additional comments

• first paragraph in #The Age of the monk is about the church helping the poor, shouldn't it have a separate subsection?
  • No. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:04, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
• the sentence "Following a series of heavy military reversals against the Muslims, iconoclasm emerged." is confusing. It may imply that iconoclasm is a consequence of the military defeats. Is that what is means?
  • It places it in context. No one really knows why iconoclasm started but one of the guesses is that association with Islam influenced it.Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:04, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

  I went ahead and removed it just because you said it was confusing. That's okay - it wasn't one of mine. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:55, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

• "Monastic reform, which had been a major force in the High Middle Ages, becomes largely unknown." is not clear, "unknown" is too vague.
  • You can look up synonyms for a better term, but I couldn't find one. It seems clear to me. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:04, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

  I found one. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:32, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

SanctumRosarium (talk) 00:31, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, this article is now as comprehensive and as concise as it can be. It needs to stabilize for awhile - be unchanged - before I can take it to FA. If you see more that you think needs doing, please bring it here and ping me so we aren't doing and undoing. That's something a reviewer will look for. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

There was a subsection "Decline of Christianity in the West", this significant fact must be mentioned at least once. Also please see my comment above on the number of headings. SanctumRosarium (talk) 20:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

It is mentioned - in the same paragraph it was always mentioned in - it's just easy to lose track without any headings. I agree with your above statement: headings going back. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Too long

Moved from User talk:Freedom4U

 – ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 17:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Please consider removing the tag you recently placed. The article has been reduced from over 20,000 words to 14,000 which the page size indicator says is "readable prose size". It's a very long and involved topic. The Cambridge History of Christianity is 10 volumes and each volume has 30+ chapters. That's over 300 - 30 page chapters. Condensing 2000 years down to a Wikipedia article has been more work than you can imagine. It's virtually impossible to cover the topic in its entirety, so this is already a selected summary of a few high points, so there is no way to turn this into a short article. It's nowhere near one of the longest articles on WP, and really, it deserves its length. All the daughter articles already exist, and splitting it would require a topic change. It would no longer be the history of Christianity, it would have to be western, or modern, or some other piece of its history, and WP would have no parent article on the topic at all. Read it through and tell me what should be left out. If you can't, or won't, please remove the tag. Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:21, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777 I'm aware that a lot of work has gone into this and I thank you for it, but I think there are legitimate concerns about length here (more specifically, I definitely see room to condense further). Firstly, I think the article currently leans too heavily on quotes, which can be shortened into prose. Secondly, the number of sections is pretty outrageous; I see definite room to condense "Geographical spread", "Religion and revolution in America", "Regional developments", and "Pagans". Thirdly, a more minor point, I think there are a few instances where the article brings up individual historians or historical figures when it really shouldn't—in particular with historical figures it looks like it gets great man theory-esque at points. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 09:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Specific suggestions are constructive and helpful and appreciated. I can do those - at least I can try! I know I have a thing about quotes! I love them. No on ever comes along and says you misunderstood what the author was saying, but I can see they add length. I am concerned about cutting all the real content - the meat - out of the article. The pursuit of one standard can interfere with the other. It is possible to have no more than a sentence on each topic, but that would make it uninformative for anyone who doesn't already have a thorough understanding of the topic - and why would those people be reading this? I keep those sophomores in mind.

However, Religion and Revolution only has two sentences. That's too much?

Okay wait, there are actually 4 sections underneath that heading. So they have been shortened as much as my conscience will allow. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Regional developments only has 4 sections, cut down from 12, with 3-4 sentences each, cut down from, well, more. I could probably say that Christianity continued to develop along different lines in its many different geographical locations, (most of which aren't mentioned already), and that these differences led to the development of nations in some places and divergence with the rest of Christianity in others, demonstrating the power of kings over the church in this period and various other developments. But if I do that with no examples or explanation of who, what, where or when, it is my experience that some other editor will come along and say - "you claim something happens but don't explain". At least, that has happened to me before. Oversimplification causes confusion to those not already familiar with the topic apparently, and those sophomores we write for aren't. So it seems like damned if I do and damned if I don't. But I will try and see if I can straddle that line.

I did this!! I can't believe it! I think it's okay. If you agree then it's  Done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Pagans I can shorten w/o too much collateral damage to content - I think.

 Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I can definitely work on my quote fetish.

I could not eliminate them all. Many are lists and if I list those things without quoting them, Dianne will pour vengeance on my head. I summarized what I could. If it suits you, it too is  Done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Historical figures who had historical impact need to be mentioned in any history, don't you think? Who would write a history of America w/o mentioning George Washington? If it can be done, it shouldn't be! I don't think there are any historical figures in this article who don't deserve a mention. If there are, I will need to have those pointed out by name. I hope this isn't about Galileo. Galileo is considered representative of a paradigm shift that we are still impacted by today. The Cambridge history devoted a whole section to him. I don't know who else you might be thinking of, but if you can tell me who, I can certainly see about cutting them - or explain why not - which should be obvious, and if it isn't, I can fix that too.

I don't know what to do about this one yet, but the page size is now (13787 words) "readable prose size". I can hardly believe it! Thank you for that. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Please, don't let my hair-pulling anxiety lead you to think I am not grateful for the input. I am grateful. I'm sure you know that when you've been working on an article a long time, it's easy to get a little blind to some things, so another point of view is more valuable than gold. You keep right on making comments, and I will do my best to cooperate as completely as I can while still maintaining focus on the whole point of having this article. Thank you again. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:21, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

(13596 words) It's like squeezing blood from a rock... Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

(13542 words) Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Having done as you asked, I will remove the tag if I don't hear back from you about more to be done. This should probably be moved to the article's talk page as well, but since this is your talk page, I will leave that to you to decide. Thank you again for your input. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you F4U for moving the discussion. Since you returned to move this, but have no more suggestions for editing at this time, and since the article is now at (12715 words) "readable prose size", I am removing the tag. I do sincerely want to thank you as your input has, I think, improved the article. That's what it's all about. This does not close any doors I hope. If you do have more suggestions, please bring them here. I will cooperate as you can see. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777 Changes have been very good, I want to clarify what I meant about "Religion and revolution in America"—I was talking about the number of subsections under there. At the time, US history made up about half of all of the late modern section. I've also added a TOC limit which I think is very helpful. Probably the biggest room for improvement are the number of one to two sentence paragraphs and the number of one to two sentence subsections ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 14:43, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

F4U I don't see the TOC limit or its effects, but it's easy enough to apply if we can agree it's a good idea. Let me explain a bit.

I asked A. Parrot to give an informal peer review, and he was also concerned about the length. He convinced me to keep trying to edit out all unnecessary detail and referred to some articles he wanted me to read. For comparison, see Middle Ages, an FA that is chronologically organized and has some obvious overlap with this article's subject matter. Although it's over 14,000 words and has been ever since it underwent its rewrite for FAC, it has a greater sense of cohesion, managing to integrate its key topics into its narrative flow. I think it should be possible to make this article as cohesive and comprehensive as that one, and in the process reduce it to a similar length.

Good advice right? So that has been my goal: to be under 14,000 words, to create some kind of cohesion, and to have at least a little narrative flow. (I've given up on comprehensive. It just isn't possible on this particular topic.)

I chose 'cohesion' and 'narrative flow' as reasons for the sections and subsections. Each time period has a primary focus. For Late modern, it's "So turbulent was the period between 1760 and 1830 that today it is considered a historical watershed" write Matthews and Platt. Monarchies fell, old societies were swept away, the class system realigned and the social order changed and altered the world. Religion and revolution in America has four kinds of revolution demonstrating such change due to Christianity.

Yes, America is the focus there, but there is a reason. Since this is such a many armed monster of a topic, it is not only organized by time period and narrative concepts, it is also organized by the geographic areas where Christianity was most dominant during that time period. The Early church focuses on the Roman Empire, then focus moves to Europe, then the East, then America, then Africa and Asia.

If you have a better idea, I am all ears. Otherwise, it seems to me that a TOC limit might just create unnecessary organizational problems. Perhaps there is another way to approach this. I am thinking enhancing the narrative further would allow eliminating more subsections. I have the ability - and the sources - that would allow that. Let me give it a try and then you can see what you think. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:14, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Are you using the new vector skin? The TOC limit only applies to the older skins where the TOC is at the top of the page ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 21:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

F4U I redid the entire section with no subsections, enhancing the narrative. Please take a look and tell me what you think. Section headings back or no? Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes section headings should be back! The number of sections is really not a problem in this article. Headings "clarify articles by breaking up text, organize content, and populate the table of contents". They "enhance the readability of the article". The only reason to delete headings is in the case of "very short sections and subsections" such as "short paragraphs and single sentences" (MOS:OVERSECTION). Please give us back subsection headings. SanctumRosarium (talk) 19:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

SanctumRosarium I agree with you about section headings. It's easy to get lost in long sections with no division. I think we can declare consensus and act accordingly. If Freedom4U doesn't like it, they can appeal here. I will remove the limit and replace the headings. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:14, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Not having a limit is reasonable (though a bit large) in the Vector 2022 skin, but in the old Vector, it is really out of hand. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 03:24, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Headings are back, but there are now fewer of them so hopefully both of you are happy with the result. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I cannot locate the TOC limit that you refer to. Can you remove it please? Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Alright, will do ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 12:51, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you and thank you for all your input here. Your help improved the article. Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:51, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

World Christianity

This is a discussion for the last section of the article #World Christianity, which could be improved as follows:

• this section should be a subsection in #Contemporary Christianity. There is no reason to have separate sections for World Christianity and Contemporary Christianity. Both sections cover the same period after 1945 and World Christianity is fully part of Contemporary Christianity.
• subsection #Decolonization should included here from #Late modern period (c. 1750 – c. 1945) as it mostly occurred after 1945.
• this section can be shortened by addressing undue focus on minor subjects, for example:
  • is it necessary to focus so much on #Zaire and #Tanzania?
  • is it necessary to have a section on conversions from Islam? 10 million conversions in 60 years seem an epiphenomenon.
• this section should focus more on the persecution of Christians in some parts of the world which has been a major trend in the past decades. Anti-Christian sentiment in the Middle East and Persecution of Christians in the Muslim world should be mentioned.

Do you need any help to improve this section? SanctumRosarium (talk) 17:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

SanctumRosarium There is an argument to be made that it's all contemporary, but The Cambridge History of Christianity, which I have used as a guide throughout, has two full volumes on it and I simply could not do that, so I accommodated by having contemporary and world instead. It seems clearer to have them separated imo. Or maybe not! :-)

Decolonization can be moved to contemporary.

I will look at removing Zaire and Tanzania - maybe combining them with the other nations paragraph. Or maybe I should remove it too!!

No, I don't agree that more focus should be placed on persecution. It is already mentioned, though an additional sentence or two would be okay. It's a huge topic full of conflict here on WP. This article will stall completely if I go down that rabbit hole.

I can always use help, and you are free to edit as you please, of course. Anything not consistent, accurate or properly sourced will be reverted, of course, as you would expect. But I don't have a problem with collaboration. Maybe you could add that short sentence or two on persecution. Dimadick asked for an addition on the new contemporary forms of Christianity, and I have not yet gotten to that either. I looked at it, there seemed like a lot, and I went away and left it. I would be glad to see that done! Just please do keep in mind I am working to streamline. I really want to take this FA and it is still too long right now. Sigh. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:26, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Aza24 and SanctumRosarium Okay so I did what you suggested, what do you think?

I am pretty good Aza24, but this article has been very frustrating. I've been working on it since spring and the end is not yet in sight.

I am also now looking for a new section on "new forms of Christianity" to show up from SR! Hope you're okay with that! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

This is looking great, really! Give me a few days to do the new section "new forms of Christianity".

Also, should these subjects be mentioned in the article?

• church separated from the state in most countries of Christian tradition
• Christian approaches to social issues such as the role of women in the church and in society, abortion, lgbt, etc
• sexual abuse scandals in the Catholic Church
• Christian NGOs and humanitarian efforts by Christians in general
• interfaith dialogue

Not sure if they are really a topic for this article, maybe some of them deserve a few words, you'll know what to do. SanctumRosarium (talk) 00:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

SanctumRosarium

No to the first one; the opposite was true for Middle Ages. Separation was a Reformation thing, and all the results of the R. would be too much detail for this article. Besides, it's alluded to in the first great awakening.

Already mentioned in multiple places.

Hmmmm. No I don't think so. I think these are more personal failures - moral failures, failures of leadership, etc. - than failures of the church as a whole.

Hmmm. I'm leaning toward no on NGOs as well. It is like the preceding one in that they are not doctrines or beliefs or practices of the church as a whole, they are individual acts. Can't cover all of those in an overview article like this one.

What could be included is the rate of giving by Christians, and what they give to, and what percentage goes to the church itself and what toward ministries for the poor, etc.. That would be a church wide thing.

Ecumenism is already covered.

You have all the time you need to do whatever you decide to do. You are a volunteer. You set your own hours. This time of year, everyone is busy with family and activities, so you take whatever time you need. I am thinking of doing a little extra research on the whole persecution thing. I know I balked. It's growing on me. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:45, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

SanctumRosarium Keep up the good work - even if I occasionally disagree, you are doing really well at forcing me out of my comfort zone (I really love quotes) and into the summary style needed for this article. Don't get offended, please, at anything I revert. It is not a reflection of your skill, it is just a reflection of knowledge of that particular topic. I know too much, you not quite enough, so together we should be able to find a good balance. We make each other better and that's what WP is all about. Thank you for your efforts. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:51, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

SanctumRosarium Well done on the new forms section. You might consider that what makes it new and not the same old Pentecostalism from the way back might deserve a sentence. Did you see I broke off persecution? Just because you asked. I have now finished all the page needed tags. Everything should be formatted to sfn. Do you know how to do that? All the isbn's have been formatted alike. If you will, can you check that there are no sources written in all caps? Any of those will have to be changed to normal script. I am now down to images - a punishment if there ever was one. They need to all have alt descriptions for the visually impaired, and for their copyright status to be checked. I've run the copyvio detector on the article and it's clear. We're getting close. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:04, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Are you sure every ref has to be in sfn? If so you can count on me to check that.

In #Persecution, the sentence "The end of French imperialism in the Eastern Maghreb (Algeria, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco and Tunisia) led to the reinstatement of Arab monarchs, independence, and the Maghreb being home to 2 million European Catholics." has several issues:

• Lybia was not under French rule, and some of these countries did not become a monarchy after independence
• the statement that 2 million European Catholics lived in this country is confusing and misleading. The truth is that most European settlers left these countries at the time of independence. You have to specify whether the 2 million was before or after independence.
• this sentence, if you decide to keep it, should probably be moved to #Decolonization.

Can you verify these points? SanctumRosarium (talk) 23:46, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Someone else added the two million Christians and I was trying to keep it just because it was someone else's work, but apparently I did a really crap job of it!! It's not only unclear, now that I check, it apparently isn't even correct. Technically, all 5 were not colonies as such, they were all under French control or occupation at one point or another. Libya was occupied by the French from 1943 to 1951. Most settlers did leave, but not all. At independence about half a million Catholics stayed in Morocco, about the same in Mauretania, only a couple hundred thousand stayed in Algeria, and even fewer in Libya and Tunisia. That doesn't even total up to 2 million in all 5 countries. I should have checked their claim and reverted it apparently. Thank you thank you for catching that!

All refs don't have to be sfn's for a normal ordinary article, but if I want this to go FA, then yes, they all need to be alike, and the reviewers at FA prefer the neater appearance of sfn over the standard WP format. All the isbn's have to be formatted alike, all the refs have to be formatted alike - it all has to look professional. These are extremely detail oriented people, and an FA has to be virtually perfect in every way.

You keep going through and finding anything you can. You are doing a great job of catching things that I have missed. Thank you again. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:13, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777@SanctumRosarium If I may butt in here, guidance at WP:CITESTYLE is to keep an article consistent in using for example sfn-style or reftag-style, so in this article, it should be sfn all the way since that style clearly dominates here. However, if one encounters an article that is done ref-tag style, it is not the WP-way to start converting that into sfn-style just because. IMO, many editors, perhaps particularly new ones, finds reftag-style easier to work with. For example, I'd say VE favors it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you dear friend! I think this particular thing is a peculiarity of FA. When I tried to get Biblical criticism through - long before I had a clue! - there were comments about disliking the look of WP ref-tag w/page #s. It counted against the article. They plainly stated they preferred sfn.

But above all else, they must be consistent, you are so right! And sfn is what is here. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

In #Religion and revolution in America, there is this sentence "African American slaves had no rights to speak of, so few had the ability to contribute to independence, yet there were still some who did." and a picture depicting the death of a martyr of the American revolution. However, it is not clear why these topics are mentioned here. How exactly are they related to the history of Christianity? Maybe you should add some context or explanations for the readers to understand how the role of the African American slaves in the American revolution was related to the evolution of Christianity in America. SanctumRosarium (talk) 00:20, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

That seems self evident. There were only about 30,000 free blacks at the time of the Revolutionary war. About 5000-8000 of them fought for America while the rest fought for Britain because Britain promised them freedom if Britain won. Who supported independence and who didn't is the subject of the paragraph, and that should include blacks as well as Jews and Catholics - the other minorities at the time. There's a lot more that could be said. This was just to make the point that white Protestants were the primary impetus for revolution.

A lot of this article isn't about the evolution of Christianity as such. It's about how Christianity impacted society and individuals, and how they in turn impacted Christianity, and what that combination produced. It's the back and forth that comprises a true history.

The role of black Americans has been an issue that continues to haunt and trouble this country 250 years after its inception. Blacks were left out of the constitution. The framers thought concessions on slavery was a price that must be paid for gaining support from the southern delegates who depended upon a slave economy. They were convinced that if the Constitution restricted the slave trade, South Carolina and Georgia would refuse to join the Union, and the United States would never be born. So for another hundred years, black Americans paid that price while the rest of the country reaped the benefits of freedom.

It wasn't until 1868, three years after the abolishment of slavery, that the 14th Amendment defined African Americans as equal citizens under the law. Yet still, that too was an uphill battle to implement, and for the next 100 years, black Americans paid for that as well. Now I suppose you are wondering if I am black and biased because of it. I'm not. I am a southern white conservative, but it is possible that actually makes me more sensitive to this than the average citizen. I recognize injustice when I see it. All of the injustices toward all the other minorities in America added together don't equal what blacks have suffered.

How Christians treat the vulnerable has always been important, wouldn't you agree? And we have repeatedly failed the test of ethnic diversity and justice. The question of race was a big question back then, and it remains that for us today. Hmmm. Perhaps that belongs in the article as an aspect of contemporary Christianity. Black churches have had significant impact in our modern day. What do you think? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

All you say here is true. To be more precise, what seems strange in some way is that this paragraph describes the role of Protestants, Catholics, Jews and African American slaves in the American revolution, which are all religious groups except African American slaves. Maybe you could add a few words about their religious beliefs, for example: "African American slaves, many of them converted to Christianity, ..." (that's only an example and not the historical truth). SanctumRosarium (talk) 00:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

You're right of course, but I don't think it would be accurate to describe their motives at the time as religious. They are an ethnic group, but honestly, so were the others. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:01, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't want to say it, but we should consider adding a beliefs and practices section to Contemporary C. There's a bunch that maybe should be said on ethnic justice, the impact of black churches, MLKjr., and black theology in America, the Social Gospel movement and liberation theology, postcolonial theology, feminist theology, and the three distinct types of modern Christian practice: the church, the sect and the mystical practice of Christianity such as Pentecostalism. It could also include the new forms section. Oh joy. More to add. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:20, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm doing it in my sandbox. Aaarrgh! This is going to add a ton. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes all these subjects can be mentioned somewhere in the article, reasonably not more than one sentence for each of them. Do you need any help for that? SanctumRosarium (talk) 00:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I have something done now, and yes, I will appreciate your help in the form of your 'magic touch' shortening things. It mentions - literally - more than two dozen contemporary movements or issues. I am going to let it sit overnight, and see how it looks in the clear light of day. It will replace some sections already there, but it will still add length. No way around it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

SanctumRosarium Do you know who put the refs into columns? I would like to kiss their feet - metaphorically of course. I posted the new material. I changed the American Rev (because you wanted it). Grabergs removed an image he didn't like, but I am hoping he will come back with a new one. Only image copyrights left to check now I think. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

IMO, there's not really room for more in the Asia section. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

There's not really room for more anywhere, though many topics that could be mentioned are not mentioned at all. It's frustrating. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, this article does have 20+ sub articles. Theoretically, stuff could fit in some of those. Take for example Italy, which... isn't a helpful example at all, nevermind. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Btw, I think we can remove the Christian mysticism sidebar, this article is not in it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:48, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

SanctumRosarium Care must be taken to retain accuracy and correct references. Changes have been made without checking to be sure which citation still applies. One sentence ended up with 6 citations, and I know they aren't all applicable to that one statement. There were places you removed material you said wasn't in the source. Now I have to go back and recheck every change, and their citations, because if any of them are wrong, that will tank any chance of FA. Please don't do anymore while I recheck what has already been done. This is not making things better at this point. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:43, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

SanctumRosarium So I have now checked the section on black theology that you removed saying it was not in the source. Here it is: [2] The 'context' section does in fact say what you said wasn't there. Please put that content back with the appropriate citation. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for that, will be more careful next time. SanctumRosarium (talk) 11:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

SanctumRosarium Apparently not careful enough. Look at the reference section now. There is red everywhere. Please fix. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

This was because a reference was included twice, thanks for pointing it out. Please tell me if you see other errors. SanctumRosarium (talk) 22:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

SanctumRosarium You can find them yourself. All you have to do is check. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Jenhawk777, sorry for insisting on this subject, the last paragraph in #Africa contains some facts that do not seem significant in the history of Christianity. The content of the article should focus on significant facts and massive trends and evolution. For example, the fact that 65% of Melillans in Northern Africa across from Spain identify as Roman Catholic is not that significant, because the numbers are not massive. Maybe you have a very good reason for keeping this paragraph, let's discuss here. SanctumRosarium (talk) 15:14, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

SanctumRosarium This topic is arranged both chronologically and geographically. That is, it focuses on the geographic locations where Christianity was dominant in each period. For 1945 on, that is Africa and Asia. The facts are significant for the History of Christianity in those areas. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:13, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

That's a good reason, thank you for explaining. SanctumRosarium (talk) 22:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Sure. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Unbalanced Article

In the section on the Reformation, the Protestant Reformation sections are followed by the Counter-Reformation and here the article suddenly becomes negative: "In terms of politics, the Counter-Reformation included heresy trials, the exiling of Protestant populations from Catholic lands, the seizure of children from their Protestant parents for institutionalized Catholic upbringing, a series of wars, the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (the list of prohibited books), and the Spanish Inquisition." All these monstrous things may be true but extremely one-sided. Religious atrocities were committed on both sides, so the article should be balanced in reporting this. I have inserted a semi-sarcastic but true sentence in the previous section — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrystomath2 (talk • contribs) 17 may 2019 (UTC)