Talk:History of Christian thought on persecution and tolerance

message: To anyone who cares, I have now removed the tags as I believe this article's issues have been resolved. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tags removed 

message: , I read through it, or most of it anyway. Too much to absorb, but a lot seems pretty fair. It's very sprawling, and not easy to say if some stuff would fit better in other articles. I noticed a blockquote thing under History_of_Christian_thought_on_persecution_and_tolerance#Anti-paganism that doesn't seem to be a quote of anything. Per WP:TOOBIG it's between "Probably should be divided" and "Almost certainly should be divided". The lead mentions scholars that aren't mentioned in the rest of the article, but that can wait until you're done with rest of the article. Since the lead is a summary, IMO it shouldn't mention any modern scholars at all. Perhaps some of it could be moved to a "terminology" section. Well, I'll guess I'll try to keep reading, a little at a time. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh my gosh!  Oh my gosh!  I'm so excited!  You showed up and you have thoughtful comments!  You're amazing!  I'll go work on those right now! The scholars referenced in the lead are leftovers from the original article--where they were never mentioned again--so that should definitely be done.  I put a redlink for fourth century Christian thought which is a huge sprawling topic all by itself--putting four paragraphs on it really hurt me...--but every one of these periods could be a topic of its own, and maybe should be, you are so so right! I really tried to stay on topic and limit what I said, and this is not the way I would have gone about covering this topic probably, but all the examples used were in the original article so I kept them.  Was that wrong?  I tried to keep as much as I could. Mostly the original article had nothing on Christian thought and was primarily about what the author saw as bad behavior--Christian or otherwise. Are you thinking it should be divided into multiple articles or just deleted?  It was a lot of work but I totally get that it's too damn big!  How do articles get divided when it means creating a bunch of new ones?  I don't know how to do that. You're so wonderful!  Thank you!Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed the blockquote I think.  If you don't like it we can just remove the whole thing! :-) Yay yay, you're so great!  There should be chocolate cake! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Your wish is my command. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Should I shorten and condense the historical background section?  I could use it I think in the same way you are thinking of terminology--or I actually thought that since there is historical context in each section--what would you think of completely removing the entire historical background section?  That would significantly shorten the article!!  Please say yes!  I go now.  I'll be back in a few hours! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay I'm back.  I think I will go head and take what's relevant out of history and do away with that section altogether. If you hate it, we can always revert to the earlier version right? Let's see if that doesn't clear up some of the redundancy and length issues.  It might still need to be divided, but there'll be less of it to mess with. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

text: That's a brilliant idea.  They will be most welcome.  I really need additional input in the modern era.  I know mostly the fourth century and the middle ages.  And God knows I always need oversight.  :-)  Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: user 50.49.147.136 reverts - As I explained on your talk page, I reverted two changes you made as they were about personal style preferences that added unnecessary verbiage, and in two cases now, were also emotionally loaded. You also added the heading "Goa inquisition" without including any content. Empty headings should be removed.  When you have content, add it then. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:14, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You made a claim about why the witch trials ended that I know is not only without support but is wrong. You like to include pathos, but this is an encyclopedia, not a passion play. Please don't make unsupported claims. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  user 50.49.147.136 reverts 

message: I began reading, finally, thank you for the invitation. I find the first sentence a bit too complex, and do we need Christian so many times. I guess we can't take for granted that readers know Enlightenment and Middle Ages, - consider linking. While I like the Contents structure, I find it rather long. You may want to limit the display to a certain level of detail. Not too familiar with the topic, I am surprised that "thought" is singular, only to explain that thoughts differ (thought differs?). That's it for now. More bits to follow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: YAY!  You're here! I will try redoing the first sentence and not use Christian so many times. :-) I started writing as though people would be familiar with the middle ages--and then went back and redid all the history stuff because I realized how wrong I probably was. I could put all of it in one "historical" section if you think that would be an improvement--should it be divided by "Ages" in the way the rest of it is? That might end up making the contents longer.  Of course, I could just have "Historical background," cram it all in, and not bother with headings.  Sort of like I did on Biblical Criticism.  :-) Do I understand correctly that you think I need fewer headings overall?  I can do that.  Easy peasy.  'Thought' is as I found it when I got it--which never once discussed thought, only alleged and controversial behaviors.  I suppose we could ask for a change of title, but why bother really?  I have taken thought as a formal definition of theology etc. There are actually books on Christian thought.  How about that?  Thank you Gerda.  If there was a President of WP I'd vote for you. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  (blushing.) Thank you, waking up to this wonderful response. For the moment, don't change too much, just take in, and I will take in, and this process is what I love about this project. I have a FAC open, and perhaps compare. The question came up how to introduce a term readers will not know, - I said link, another explain. Just link to medieval and enlightenment (and more such terms), good for those who don't know. Is there an article on thought in that theological/philosophical sense? (I said I'm not familiar.) I wish we had a way to see a TOC both overview and (show:) expanded, because all we have so far (afaik) is TOC limit, saying all at level 3 (or what) should not be visible. It's still there, has headers in the body, sections you can edit, just not all this white space right at the beginning. I use it in my articles on compositions when it comes to movements. You may want to mention the key words of headers of the "lower" (not shown) levels in the one above. - Now, after this pleasant start in the morning, I'll exit for real life errands, have yesterdays song to polish (with a DYK I liked, see?), and a list of songs for tomorrow (please correct, add ... - so surprised there are not more), so please be patient, again ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooops!  I went and redid the whole thing!  Well, if you don't like it we can always put it back.  What's TOC?  Have a great day!  Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  TOC is Table of contents. When you don't know any WP term, just out WP in front, WP:TOC. Will look later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll remember that, thanx.  I don't know for sure Gerda, but I don't think I like all the historical background crammed in together--there's just too much--and it's hard to remember what has to do with when.  It doesn't separate naturally because all of this is historical, the entire article, and it's more confusing this way I think.  I'm thinking of putting an under construction banner back up and putting the history back in each section.  If you can help me figure out--(just tell me what to do)--how to fix the TOC so it's better, I think I would like to go back to the multiple divisions and sections it had before because it made it possible to follow the winding path through this complex and obscure set of ideas. It's too easy to get lost now I think. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I decorated my talk for Pentecost, and some of it is about understanding coming from different languages, which may be English and German, and trained in philosophy and not. I think I said just the opposite of cramming history together: link to terms such as medieval and enlightenment, no more. Happy in-spirit-ing ;) - will look later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, so I got over-cooperative and got ahead of myself and made a bunch of extra work for nothing!  Jeez Louise!  I will do the linking--and undo the mess I made.  Thank you for your patience. I like your talk page 'decoration.'  My church still is not meeting anywhere but online--which I am kind of enjoying.  I can get up and go to church in my bathrobe... :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Gerda comments 

message: There is a quote under contemporary Catholic views from Cardinal Ratzinger that repeatedly comes up as a copy-violation--but it's a quote--so it shouldn't be a violation.  I have been to the Teahouse to ask how to resolve this and so far, nothing has worked.  Does anyone out there have an idea how to fix this?   It's got to be something about formatting but darned if I can figure it out!  Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: What message are you getting? The quote looks to be correctly marked. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 12:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  It looks correct to me as well, but when you run the copyvio on this article, that stupid quote constantly shows up as a copy violation.  I don't understand why and want it to stop! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:   Oh. I don't think Earwig's copyvio detector makes any attempt to exclude quoted material, possibly as a feature, allowing its use as a quote verifier as well (i.e., to make sure quotes are accurate). Other examples in the article include the LA Times quote of Pope John Paul II. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 22:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  So it's okay and I shouldn't worry about it? Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:   Correct. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 22:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy-vio from Ratzinger 

message: I changed a number of section titles from "... (year1 ~ year2)" to "... (c. year1 – c. year2)" per MOS:CIRCA. However, I'm now questioning the inconsistency between the ones like "Dark Ages (c. 500 – c. 800)" and the ones without the circa ("High Middle Ages (1000–1200)" and "Witches (1450–1750)"). I'm thinking the "c." can be eliminated (e.g., "Dark Ages (500–800)") since date ranges like these can be assumed to be somewhat fuzzy by default, right? If they're changed now, I won't feel compelled to leave another anchor since the circas would have been there for only a few hours. I do see some more mis-capitalization of sections, too. Any objections to the following changes?
From                                                                   	To
Early Christian Thought from the First century to Constantine          	Early Christian thought from the first century to Constantine
Historical background of Christian thought from its beginnings to 350CE	Historical background of Christian thought from its beginnings to 350 CE
Antiquity: from Constantine to the Fall of Empire                      	(should "Fall of Empire" be "fall of the Roman Empire"?)
Fourth Century Christian Thought                                       	Fourth century Christian thought
Dark Ages (c. 500 – c. 800)                                            	Dark Ages (500–800)
Early Middle Ages (c. 800 – c. 1000)                                   	Early Middle Ages (800–1000)
The Trial of the Talmud                                                	The trial of the Talmud
Late Middle Ages (c. 1200 – c. 1400)                                   	Late Middle Ages (1200–1400)
The English Protestant 'Call for Toleration'                           	The English Protestant call for toleration
—[AlanM1 (talk)]— 22:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm so glad I met you!  Thank you so so much! Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section titles