Talk:History of Christianity

↓ Jump to bottom of page ↓

Style & cosmetics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Early modernity

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

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

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

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

Bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Art

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

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

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

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

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

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

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