Template talk:History of Christianity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Christianity (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

NPOV issues[edit]

I see a whole bunch of problems with this template. In the first place, it purports to be "Christian History", but the main link is to History of Christianity. Secondly, it imports categories of secular history, which obviously do not match the topics described. While the Second Great Awakening may have links to the Industrial Revolution, it is harder to see this connection with respect to camp meetings. Hence, this scheme has imposed a certain grid on the list of topics, which interferes with the neutrality.

The topics are basically arranged chronologically - the categories also should be merely chronological. This will also eliminate a few of the other mistakes, such as including Anabaptism with the Protestant Reformation. And including Constantine in the "Christian Roman Empire". StAnselm (talk) 23:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and it's also very US- and Anglo-centric. And why isn't there anything about Christian missions? There is so much selectivity involved in a template like this, I have grave doubts about its utility. StAnselm (talk) 23:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I can fix some of you concerns but other I do not understand.

For example "Christian History" is the "History of Christianity" or "Church History" by another name. What is your point?

I will remove some of the links to the Industrial Revolution and such.

Note well-- I only have organization and good topics/links set-up for the sections up to the Middle Ages. I will do the Reformation next-- maybe you will like it better then. --Carlaude (talk) 23:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I would view "Christian History" as an historiographical approach. And I don't think "Christian Roman Empire" is a good category at all. For example, what will you do about Christianity outside the Roman empire? StAnselm (talk) 23:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The Timeline of Christian missions on the very bottom bar. Asia, Germanic, & Scandinavian are about missions. Do you know of other that are high quality?--Carlaude (talk) 23:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no perfect system but these sections come from the sections of book on the topic (the book section have much in common with each other) -- including "Christian Roman Empire."
Christianity outside the Roman empire is covered in History of Eastern Christianity in Asia, Syriac Christianity, and Armenian Apostolic Church under the Eastern Christianity section and Celtic Christianity under Middle Ages section. We are limited to the articles that actually exist on WP.--Carlaude (talk) 14:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Nestorian[edit]

Right now this template has two very similar links: Nestorian and Nestorianism. The first one redirects to Church of the East anyway, how about we just remove the redirect and make it link directly to Church of the East? --Elonka 23:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

"Nestorian" was actually pipe linked to Church of the East, it wasn't a redirect (oh, Wikese jargon!). Either way it's confusing for a reader to see links to both "Nestorian" and "Nestorianism". I think Church of the East is the better thing to link to..--Cúchullain t/c 01:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I think it is better to leave the whole link out. The Church of the East is already covered by other broader articles-- like History of Eastern Christianity in Asia, but I was tring to work with you. Carlaude:Talk 06:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate that, the template does need a good bit of work. But I think the Church of the East should certainly be included here, it was a major historical body and really its own branch of Christianity. The only difference between it and the other articles is it doesn't have a "History of..." article yet, but it's a new article.--Cúchullain t/c 14:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
How would History of the Church of the East be needed when we have History of Eastern Christianity in Asia now? How was the Church of the East different from other non-Chalcedon forms of Eastern Christianity? Carlaude:Talk 15:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
It was much larger and much, much more expansive than any of the others. Most of the history of Christianity in Asia before the Catholic missions of the 16th century and after is the history of the Church of the East. If we are to include the Copts, the Armenian Orthodox, and the Ethiopian Orthodox, we certainly need to mention them. Even if we remove those, theologically and organizationally speaking, it also comprises a separate branch entirely from the Oriental Orthodox/Monophysites, so it should still be included on those grounds.--Cúchullain t/c 15:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the Church of the East was much larger and much more expansive than any of the other froms of Eastern Christianity in Asia-- and this is why the history of Eastern Christianity in Asia is largely about the history of Church of the East. We don't seem to need both. There is just not room for nor need for all articles on Christian history to be in the Template:Christian History. Carlaude:Talk 06:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
This is one that needs to be there. If we're going to include Oriental Orthodoxy (and there's no reason we shouldn't), we should include the Church of the East. And if we're going to include the Copts, Ethiopians, and Armenians specifically, we really should include the Church of the East.--Cúchullain t/c 13:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Restoration[edit]

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.

I made some edits concerning the Restoration. I think that this is a new age in this template because Mormonism is a new dispensation.79.209.40.231 (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes you think so; such is WP:POV. şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 05:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The Restoration is a completly new age!79.209.40.231 (talk) 13:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Then take it to Template:New Age Movement. Maybe they will find the text usefull. Christian History is completly not about anything new age. şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 19:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I see you have violated the WP:3RR with [these edits].
Pictogram resolved.svg
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, please place a new {{help me}} request on this page followed by your questions, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page.
What can be done about an anonymous violation of the 3RR? Can someone help here? şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 19:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
here is the 3RR Noticeboard.--SPhilbrickT 19:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Mormonism is not New Age! It is the Dispensation of the fulness of times! Catholics are the first dispensation, Protestants the second and Mormons the third and last age/dispensation.79.209.49.181 (talk) 19:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Come on, that sort of shit has no place here. Discussion archived. St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 10:01, 14 March 2012 (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.


...not enough information[edit]

Middle[edit]

This is not enough information. Middle Ages is more informative. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

As user tahc has not reverted my change, I take this as evidence that he agrees that "Middle" is not enough information and that "Middle Ages" is more informative. So we can close this point. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
In part yes. In "group5" "Middle Ages" is good, but it was either "Middle Ages" or "Medeival" before.
In the sub-header it is not needed as a link at all, but if it were there, then "Era:... Middle" is better. tahc chat 23:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Modern[edit]

This is not enough information. Could refer to either the Early Modern era or the Late Modern era? Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Use tahc has reverted by preferences so we do not have agreement. This point is still open. Since I started the discussion, events have overtaken it. The main article itself has been re-named to History of modern Christianity. I participated in the discussion and argued that there are two periods - Early Modern and Late Modern. These arguments were rejected. So be it. This leaves us with just one merged period in the article from the Fall of Constantinople to the present. It seems clear then, that this template ought to be bound by that decision: the section that uses the article "History of modern Christianity" as the section heading ought to contain material covered by the newly defined meaning of said article. In the case of user tahc, he does not want to do that. Indeed he wants to do further. Where I would have been satisfied with an Early/Late division, he wants to divide Late. This division hovers around 1906 or 1914, depending on his mood and it seems to be his own invention. As a piece of WP:OR it ought to be condemned. The last three sections, variously labeled "1640–1789", "1789–1906" and "1906–present", need to be pruned and re-united to one period of Modern history per the section header. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Rather than my restating too much here, please see below. tahc chat 00:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Etc[edit]

1. The lables are all unneeded as the links are already in the template and labled as you wish. If you really want them in there twice the extra should be as small as possible.

2. There is no reason to think modern could refer to either the Early Modern era or the Late Modern era-- it refers to both so I fail to see any issue on this point.

3. I was busy when you opened these opened discussions and it was reverted before I was sure how I wanted to respond. Since it had been so long now the old way, I did not see such a need to rush just for the sake of saying something. Thank you for trying to discuss. I aplogize if you felt ignored.

4. Even if you are ignored, you still need consenous for WP to undo a revert when for your bold edit per WP:BRD... at least when ever you begin a new edit or a new reason. Sometimes... many times we just cannot fit a discussion into the little edit summaries.

5. You also said nothing anywhere that I can see as to a reason for your last revert, so it just looks even more like edit warring. Please discuss. Thanks, tahc chat 21:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

1. What? 2. What? Have you even read your own comments in the re-naming debate???? 3. Apology accepted. 4. There is much wrong with this template. You are not willing to seriously engage with any change, no matter how small. Give 1 example of where you can bend on this template. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
1. Please disscus thing in complete and clear sentences. Thank you.
2. So you think there is something wrong based on comments on another page... when History of modern Christianity was moved? I am guessing that you think that if the article on modern Christianity is not split up at all, then the section(s) on modern Christianity in this template should also not be split up at all (and vice-versa).
  • In brief, the reasons for splitting up an article or not are very different than the reasons for splitting the section(s) on a template; splitting up an article is a bigger deal than the sections of a template. Template sections should be split in what ever way is of more help to users in finding links.
  • The location of the time split therein is not even at the same point.
  • None the less, if you bring others into the discussion, then they may see things your way. If there is some real reason to join the sections then maybe I will see things your way.
4. These are changes that were made, even while YOU would not or did not discuss them...
Of course even if you think that I am "not willing to seriously engage with any change, no matter how small", WP:Edit warring is still not how we get things done on Wikipedia. WP:BRD means that YOU have to build WP:CON since YOU don't like the previewous status.
This change was for YOUR sake based on YOUR input. Either way is fine with me, but you don't get to object to everything and get your own way as if you WP:Owned the page. YOUR prefered text has never had WP:CON... but even if you did have WP:CON you still need to partispate in discussions and to state any reasons, and you have not given reasons for the current change (splitting the modern era) that you are pushing, and it will not stay just because YOU want to Edit war over it. tahc chat 16:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Modern again[edit]

You think that if the article on modern Christianity is not split up at all, then the section(s) on modern Christianity in this template should also not be split up at all (and vice-versa).
Yes. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
  • In brief, the reasons for splitting up an article or not are very different than the reasons for splitting the section(s) on a template; splitting up an article is a bigger deal than the sections of a template. Template sections should be split in whatever way is of more help to users in finding links.
Disagree. While the two are independent, there is a clear guiding hand from the article. All the more so when the section uses a pipelink to the very article. That creates an expectation in the reader's mind that what follows is all expounded in greater detail in the main article. Imagine his surprise to find that the template articles only cover a fraction of the chronology of the main article. This must not be. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The location of the time split therein is not even at the same point.
The two time periods can and should be made to agree. There is no good reason for differing time periods when the means is at our hands to make them agree. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
You state now that "It seems clear then, that this template ought to be bound by that decision: the section that uses the article 'History of modern Christianity' as the section heading ought to contain material covered by the newly defined meaning of said article." (Of course all the sections that use the links to that article do all contain said material.) But I gather what you want is one section for all links for the modern Christianity time frame, even though such a change was not part of the debate on the other page, is not called for in any Wikipedia policy or guideline, and would arbitrarily hamper finding links in the template, which is the whole purpose of the template.
It was part of the debate on the other page. It was what swung the argument, otherwise the "Late Modern" name would have been kept. How would it "arbitrarily hamper finding links in the template"? Explain please. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
It is also not quite accurate to claim that article covers the Fall of Constantinople to the present; 1500 to 1640 or so is really covered elsewhere, but that may not matter to what Laurel wants to have happen.
It was made clear in the debate on the other page that the Fall was explicitly part of Modern history. How can you deny that evidence? Must I publish the quotations? Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
The change of division from 1914 to 1906 was based on Laurel's (self-limited) input, not based on my mood.
1906 was in existence before any of my edits. Why is it there at all? What evidence is there for either date as a defining splitting point in Christian, as opposed to secular, history? It is dangerously close to OR and should be removed pending supply of sources. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
If you want to prune out certain articles, then that can be discussed; but I would prefer either having more input from others on that, or having a unified set of critria for pruning, or both. tahc chat 00:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Willing to discuss pruning. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Please do not split up my comments with your comments.
I don't see any arguments at all at Talk:History_of_modern_Christianity#Requested_move based on any part of this template. Even if there had been, the result there was NOT to split, and the template WAS already split, so that implies the opposite of it being "what swung the argument." Again, even if it had been such, no discussion on one template or article has any direct authority over another template or article. If they had been articles of a similar sort like History of modern Christianity and History of modern Islam, then the change in one could be a reason to consider the same change for the other, but that is neither the case here, nor a direct reason itself.
Lumping all the links for 1640–2013 into just one section for no reason hampers finding the right link, since would have look through three times as many links that I don't want in order to find the one link that I do want.
As I have said elsewhere, the most relable sources for Wikipedia to know standard time periods of Christianity's history are the eras most often used in textbooks on Christianity's history. As Laurel has said elsewhere, "This is about presenting info in easily digestible chunks that are familliar and make sense." If you prefer not to have time periods from textbooks on Christianity's history, we can just do: 1640–1800/ 1801–1900/ 1901–present. tahc chat 02:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

isms versus periods[edit]

The template is about history (i.e. timelines / centuries / eras / periods). It is not about "isms". It starts off well with the main eras (Apostolic/Ante-Nicene/Late Ancient/Middle Ages), but then the wheels fall off. The next logical section is "The Reformation and the Counter-Reformation"; instead we get a lot of isms - Protestantism / Catholicism / Revivalism. The Counter-Reformation sits rather inelegantly in the Catholicism section instead of being the counterpoint to the Reformation. This is just wrong and goes against the whole intent of the template. Those two sections need to be pruned and then merged into a coherent section. Only then can we move to the next chronological period - Modern. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

No. The template is for histories, eras, AND key events and subjects in the history of Christianity. Some key events and subjects are about groups that are no longer around and some are about groups or ideas that are still around. Both of these can be, and are, very important to the history of Christianity.
That said, if you want to split the events of the Catholicism section into the other sections (Reformation/ 1640–1789/ 1789–1906/ 1906–present), then I am open to discuss and plan how we can do that to everyone's satisfaction. tahc chat 00:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Disagree. If a template is needed for subjects or isms in Christianity, feel free to create it. I would even support such a template. But subjects/isms have no place in a history template which is essentially an aid to navigate around a timeline. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Please stop hiding your comments within my comments. This makes it harder for myself and for 3rd parties. Just add them to the end so that we can see who made all of my comments and also so we can see when new comments are made.
Of course a template was needed for subjects in the history of Christianity, and so I did create this template. I think it would be unwise to remove the links to the eras in the history of Christianity from this template, but if you want to make a new template for just the eras and timelines in the history of Christianity, that might me a useful as a sidebar template or something. tahc chat 12:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Amendments to Modern History article. I think that both our amendments have made a big improvement to the article. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Fully protected for one month[edit]

Per request I've fully protected this page for a month. I will consider lifting the protection early if the parties edit warring can show a good faith effort to engage in discussion on the Talk page, aimed at reaching consensus. Steven Walling • talk 18:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

Please add a link to Poland in the Middle Ages section. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not ready to support this change. In theory, hundereds of articles could be writen about the Christianization of this or that country. The other links now in the template are about the Christianization of regions or empires.
Others here seem to feel the template is already too big.tahc chat 21:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
The template may be to bloated, but this is because it is clearly packed with a bunch of unimportant topics. Christianization of a major European country is certainly as important as a number of other articles listed there. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, what exactly ARE the criteria for inclusion/exclusion? It appears to be pretty haphazard.Volunteer Marek 17:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I can't currently see consensus for the change so I'm inclined to leave this addition undone and wait until the protection expired on 8 July during that time consensus for the change can be established or not.--Salix (talk): 19:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)