Talk:History of Christianity

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)

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)

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 17:46, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@Money emoji: could you please back-up your removal of large amounts of text with quotes and sources which prove your claim of copy-violations? Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:55, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan, Kind of. I don't have any specific sources I'm basing the removal off of, rather I'm basing it off of how it was added by Pseudo-Richard, a former admin who is the subject of a Contributor Copyright investigation, Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20100114. It is the oldest open CCI, and for good reason, as in many of his edits he inserted content from other wikipedia articles without attribution, or would copy from websites/books/journals in rather nasty ways. He also usually did not cite sources, and since earwig (the tool used to detect copyvios), scans the sources in articles and only does a limited google search, it can't find all of the violations, especially in such a big article. Not like that would really matter anyways, since earwig also can't access paywalled journals, books, and newspapers- all of which Richard copied from. This makes it almost impossible to figure out what is and isn't a violation, as I also can't access some of the listed sources. So, extremely reluctantly, (because this is such an extremely important article and clearly has been worked on honestly by others, yourself included), I decided to remove the content Richard had inserted into the article, being careful not to inflict damage on text he did not insert, which is encouraged by CCI guidelines. On the topic of the text removed being suspicious, the section on the East-West Schism was likely ripped from the lede of that article, the section about the filoque had rather suspicious wording ("could never be the exclusive prerogative of any one bishop. All bishops must, like St. Peter, confess Jesus as the Christ and, as such, all are Peter's successors."), the Russian section (Particularly the non-encyclopedic listing the family members), the unsourced slavic and Constinaple sections, and the unsourced third awkening section, all came off as suspicous to me and were therefore removed. Sorry for the essay and butchering the article, 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 22:00, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@Money emoji: okay, thanks; I understand. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:33, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Luther, Zwingli, Calvin

I've removed the three subsections on Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin; they are WP:UNDUE for a broad overview article on the history of Christianity. NB: the prose-section is now down to 61,334 characters.Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:04, 7 February 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)