Talk:History of Christianity

↓ Jump to bottom of page ↓

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)

Finally found the blinking thing in an image! I don't use any images that are not in Wikimedia, so I assume it is there, but I went ahead and removed it just because you questioned it. Better safe than sorry. Thanx. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

The last supper

Who was those men at the last supper 105.113.8.127 (talk) 13:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

The 12 Apostles. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:36, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Neutrality

Who placed the tag and why? Please explain. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Thi This Christianity also shaped ideas of slavery. The American Revolution was also a secular project and only one of many historical events. has nothing to do with neutrality, and your tag is misplaced and misguided.

First, the lead is a summary. As a summary, it does not mention everything in the body. In the body of the text in "Late Modernity" it opens with "For over 300 years, many Christians in Europe and North America participated in the Trans-Atlantic slave trade which began in the sixteenth-century." I think that satisfies your first assertion. More discussion would be detail that would not be appropriate in an overview article like this one. This is not an article on slavery.

Next, this is also not an article on the American Revolution, it's Christian History, therefore that is the only aspect of history that it is appropriate to include here. The secular aspects of the revolution are off topic.

Anything and everything not history of Christianity itself is off topic.

These complaints are unfounded and in error and certainly do not prove a lack of neutrality. Please remove the tag. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:09, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

The lead: "Christianity also influenced the New World through its connection to colonialism, its part in the American Revolution, the dissolution of slavery in the west, and the long-term impact of Protestant missions." You have read my suggestion: "Christianity also influenced the New World from the age of colonialism onward, and Protestant missions had a long-term impact." As you say, this is not an article on the American history and the Wikipedia is not US-centric. If only certain aspects are selected (pick and choose) from the main text and world history, it may appear as advertising. The text does not mention the role of Christianity in slavery, but instead gives the impression that Christianity is solely the solution to that problem. The American Revolution is an example of a multifaceted historical phenomenon, and there are others like it in history. These things do not need to be explained in the introduction. The lead section is short and must concentrate on Christianity. --Thi (talk) 23:13, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Thi

In what way is your sentence a better summary of the body? That's the purpose of a lead. It's not an introduction.

You're right that this is not American history. But the end of the Atlantic slave trade is not solely about the US. It was a major event for Western culture including Europe, and could be discussed as a major event in the world. Christianity played a role in bringing about the end of the Atlantic slave trade according to the sources and that is not disputable.

Please check what the references say.

If you have sources that say Christianity had little to no impact on the ending of the Atlantic slave trade, please present them. Otherwise, all you have is personal feeling. You don't like it, and that's too bad but that, by definition, is non-neutral and has no place here.

The American Revolution is an example of a multifaceted historical phenomenon, and there are others like it in history. So what? What does that have to do with the History of Christianity? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:15, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

You pick and choose from the general history those things you like and ignore those you don't. You don't write in the lead section that the Christianity played a role in supporting the slave trade. That is apologetics, not neutral point of view. You could as well write in the lead that Christianity contributed to the witch hunts, rise of Nazi Germany, the world wars or some other events. The point is not what is in the body, you just have selected some things from there. The question is what is in the lead section. "In Wikipedia, the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents." "According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources." The lead must follow the general introductions to the topic. [1] --Thi (talk) 11:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Thi Picking and choosing is the nature of editing. I have now removed the phrase “dissolution of”. Is that sufficient? Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I removed the tag. --Thi (talk) 17:51, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I also added another source indicating the impact is not limited to the U.S. to address your concern that this is American biased. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Discovery of oldest evidence for Christian life north of the alps (230 - 270 AD)

You are all invited to help working on Frankfurt silver inscription (about the newly discovered oldest evidence of Christianity north of the alps), and to also cover it in this article. Renerpho (talk) 16:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

List of things the article doesn't adequately describe

To be expanded: ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

• What an "apostle" was.
• What the result of the Council of Jerusalem was (in the last paragraph of "Early Christianity")
• What the trinity is (there should be a line in the second paragraph of "Early Christianity")
• What Christian monasticism was.
• Why did the previous version on the Vulgate focus on whether it was similar to Roman jurisprudence, and not on its massive legacy?

I checked one source, Humfress 2015, for the "art and literature (350-500)" section. There was much too high a proportion of close paraphrasing. You also need to pay attention to this. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll take care of it. Thank you for giving me something to do! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

That particular instance has been taken care of, but others may be out there. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I am bad about forgetting quotation marks. I'll put them at the beginning and forget the end, forget them entirely - I am trying to be more careful. I will be. I will do the rest of this list today, I promise. Do you want the answers here or do you want me to insert them? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Christendom

The "Early Middle Ages" section begins by talking about three different cultures: Germanic Europe, the Byzantine Empire, and Islamic civilisation. We then have a section of Christendom, which claims that the concept was "pervasive and unifying". Do the sources say if it was pervasive and unifying across Christian communities in Germanic Europe, the Byzantine Empire, and Islamic civilisation, or was it only in the former and maybe the second? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

It was used in Europe and included the East up to the big divorce. I like your placement of it. I moved it both places, but yours works best I think. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)