Talk:History of Christianity

↓ Jump to bottom of page ↓

New peer review

Please add any and all comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/History of Christianity/archive2 Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

My first comment is a defense of Matthews and Platt The Western Humanities as a most excellent source. This article references history, but it must also use culture, politics, sociology, the arts and philosophy to provide both context and explanation. This is critically important to understanding the history of any religion simply because it is fact that religion influences culture and culture influences religion.

There is no better source - anywhere - that provides the kind of comprehensive view of all of that than this college textbook. It is a history, a history of all the humanities as they reflected and influenced one another. I have tested every statement on the history of religion, used from this textbook, in this article, and there are no inaccuracies. Perhaps that is why this book has been reprinted - 6 times? - since it was first published. It is not limited to being a history of art as some have claimed. It is the highest quality history of the humanities, and that makes all the difference. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

The Cambridge History of Christianity is referenced 40 times through nearly as many individual authors. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

39 now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Have reduced content to below 13,000 words! Still working at reduction in size. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I got all radical and moved everything out of "Eastern Christianity" into its corresponding times. I think it's easier to follow this way. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

It has been recommended that it's time to put this article up for FAC. Any opinions on this would be appreciated. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Closed Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Question

When something in one section of an article is mentioned in another section, should it be referenced somehow? How? The investiture controversy is mentioned in the early Middle Ages but not actually discussed until the high Middle Ages. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Brief addition in the persecution section.

Hello @Jenhawk777. Although the recent revert of brief mention of anti-Christian bias in the film industry is no biggie, could you clarify which aspects you believe appeared unneutral? Did you felt that the instances were too few to be worth mentioning here and hence WP:Undue? StarkReport (talk) 01:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello StarkReport I am glad for your participation and want to thank you for coming here with a disagreement rather than just edit warring. It's a breath of fresh air.

So, let's take a look at what was added. Additionally, some individuals have pointed out anti-Christian bias in the entertainment industry. Some people, such as actor Rainn Wilson, who is not a Christian himself, have stated that Hollywood has often expressed anti-Christian bias. First, what makes Rainn Wilson an authority on what is accepted in Hollywood, or an authority on biases, or even an authority on what qualifies as anti-Christian sentiment? This makes it seem as if not being a Christian makes him an authority on anti-Christian bias - how? Does he practice it himself? How does he identify it? What qualifications does he have to do so, by what standard does he do so, using what definition? IndieWire is not a high quality source, it's a gossip rag that prints personal opinions as if they were facts. They aren't.

Similarly, actor Matthew McConaughey has mentioned that he has observed Christians in Hollywood concealing their faith to protect their careers. How many? How does he know that? That could have many explanations, and unless McConaughey has surveyed them all to be sure his interpretation is theirs, one has to allow for other possible explanations: personal privacy has to be a factor for some. A person's faith is one of our most intimate relationships. Maybe these quiet people just don't want their most intimate relationships splashed about and ridiculed in the media. It's a personal choice that is most likely made for multiple reasons - not just the one McConaughey says.

I don't know how many have kept their faith private, but I do know that many have spoken out as well. There are no numbers or percentages on either method here. There are no referenced surveys or statistics or really any facts of any kind.

This is clearly advocacy. If you wish, I will be happy to go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution with you, but I am absolutely sure they will say the same thing. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Per text, [1] i.e. comments by random actors, and sources used, IMO this clearly fails WP:PROPORTION. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

That too. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, in hindsight, I agree. I think I may have been too WP:BOLD in expanding the section without the requisite sources, but as I said, "no biggie." Thanks. StarkReport (talk) 02:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, that was gracious. Thank you. Anytime. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

MOS:NOTSEEALSO

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

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

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

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

FA

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

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

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

Jewish-Hellenistic background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remsense ‥ 论

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

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

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

Middle Ages

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

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

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

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

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

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)