This article 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.
The lead needs to be based what the article covers, not what one person thinks it should be covering. My edit to correct this is shown above. It was completely removed by BarrelProof. No reason was given for this being removed even in part. Even if we really wanted to change article to cover "1720 to the current date", the current lead would be a confusing way to reflect it. Furthermore, for reasons I discuss below, we do not really want to change article to cover "1720 to the current date" IMHO. tahcchat 21:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
The lead change by Tahc is post facto rationalisation for his proposed name change below. Until the substantive issue is resolved below, the name and scope should remain as it was before Tahc's intervention, as is the proper process. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 19:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
1. This is a change back to the previous and longstanding name.
2. That change to the current name was never discussed, nor was their consensus.
3. That change never had a reason or basis except to "match" the name of the so-called "main category" of the article. (Category names and article names have completely different policies in naming.)
4. This article does not, nor ever did, cover just 1720 to the present. Not even the intro was changed to clearly reflect the idea of covering 1720 to the present. Lots on 1640–1740 is included, and for good reason...
5. If we removed content on 1640–1740, we would have to create a new article. If we really needed such an article one might have been made already. Of course such an article is not needed since we alreay have this
The events of world history that indicate the shift from Early Modern to Late Modern are different than events important of to Christianity history. The most relable sourses for Wikipedia to know standard time periods of Christianity history are the eras most often used in textbooks on Christianity history, not the Wikipedia categories nor Wikipedia artilcles on world history. tahcchat 22:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Reply Is there really such a thing as "standard time periods of Christianity history"? Is it not more accurate to say that it follows on the coat-tails of the rest of the categorisation of history into eras? If such secular categorisation is wrong for Early Modern and Late Modern, then it is also wrong for Mediaeval. All use secular definitions of eras. Only Apostolic Age is truly Christian-oriented without reference to other secular movements. This means that the entire logic for articles and categories for Christian history will have to be scraped / re-written / re-named. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
The ideas, say, that "it follows on the coat-tails of the rest of the categorisation of history into eras" and that "Only the Apostolic Age is truly Christian-oriented" are youropinions and are not basied on RSs. tahcchat 04:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Spare us. The enitre article is subjective. There is no definitive agreement of whta is "Modern" for Christianity. To say that you, I or anybody else knows the answer is pure pretence. For every article that starts with Constantinople, there's one that starts with 1500, 1550, 1600 etc. So stop being precious. This is about presenting info in easily digestible chunks that are familliar and make sense. The constructs of mainstream history scholarship are as useful a construct as any other construct. There is no authority on the matter. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Reply to question user Tahc says that that article or article already exists. It's called the Protestant Reformation. If this article is renamed, it wil be presumed to cover the whole of modern history, which is usually taken to begin with the Fall of Constantinople. As the article does not go back that far, the re-name would be erroneous. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Not as erroneous as it is now. Protestant Reformation covers only that - how much does it have on Catholicism, never mind Orthodoxy? 1453 is the earliest common start date for "Early modern", 1500 or 1550 would be as common, & many would start at 1600 (separating the Renaissance from it), which for Western Christianity makes more sense, & I would support specifying that post 1600 period as the scope here (not for Orthodoxy). Johnbod (talk) 12:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
This is just silly. If the article does not go back to Constantinople, then the article name should not suggest that it does. Simples. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
But the article does "go back to Constantinople", or at least its fall, if you read as far as the Orthodoxy section. And rightly so. Johnbod (talk) 23:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Support per nom. No need for move. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I presume you mean no need for the move to the current title. --B2C 14:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Support. The troubles all stem from one user's actions in November 2012 . First the category references were changed, then the move was "justified" in terms of matching the new category names. No discussion on the talk page. No link to any discussion anywhere. This kind of sweeping unilateral work is not appreciated. But that alone does not justify supporting this move. But WP:COMMONNAME does. "History of modern Christianity", though perhaps not absolutely precise, gives a strong idea about what the topic of this article is. The current title requires familiarity with the relatively technical term, "Late Modern era". It's simply not necessary in this article per nom and other arguments above. --B2C 14:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.