Talk:Early centers of Christianity

message: This section is very biased towards Rome and the western empire. Rome is just one center of the Early centers of Christianity. I tried to improve the situation but was reverted, so I say goodbye and good luck to those who value NPOV and care to fight typical wikipedia stupidity. 75.15.193.175 (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: I tried to edit the section on [[History_of_early_Christianity#Spread_of_Christianity|Spread of Christianity]] but was reverted

message: I find the notion from the statement "the new religious group" in the article slightly misleading. The Jewish synagogue in Antioch was not a new religious group, but rather a transformed one. It was the entire Jewish community that became adherent to the Nazareene strand. Suddenly the Jews of the city opened their congregation for Greeks and others. What we call christianity was rather seen as a realisation of the old Judaic mission. --Xact (talk) 22:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Not entirely ''new''

message: Hi,
Just noticed that the end of section 2.3.1 Judaism and Christianity repeats six lines of text from the previous part of section 2.3 Apostolic Age, starting from  " The Council of Jamnia..."
178.103.130.1 (talk) 00:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  repetition of text 

message: Shouldn't we remove the Too long Appellation? The article has been reduced by 50% while the appellation was placed. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:24, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too long? 

message: We've recently had renames of Christianity in late antiquity, and Christianity in the Middle Ages (from formula "History of". We already have Early Christianity. So suggestion would be to simply merge this "History of early Christianity" with "Early Christianity". Interwikilinks seem to confirm the validity of this position. Chicbyaccident (talk) 05:27, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would guess anyone could see the WP:NPOV issues, not to speak of risk of confusion, with such an article name. So anyway, what is the broader scope, please? And why cannot that broader scope be implemented into Early Christianity? Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:25, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: by broader scope I meant that the "History of early Christianity" at least makes some mention of other Christianities (considered heresies). The "Early Christianity" article makes no mention of any alternatives to the Proto-Orthodox church - it's perspective is closer to History of the Catholic Church with emphasis on doctrine on Baptism, the Sabbath, Organization, etc. - I think that merging the two would make for a long, unwieldy article - it might be better to merge "Early Christianity" with "History of Christianity". Epinoia (talk) 14:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I don't really see that problem. "Early Christianity" obviously implies "History of the early Christianity", doesn't it? Why can't the mentioned content in History of early Christianity, including that which you mentioned, be merged into Early Christianity? If anything, doesn't your comment seems to confirm that you would support that solution, since you disapprove of the current state of Early Christianity? "[I]t might be better to merge 'Early Christianity' with 'History of Christianity'". Fair enough, but then the question about the article name remains. Why choose the longer version, seemingly contradicting WP:CONCISE? Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think it can be done, I have no objection. - Epinoia (talk) 20:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:   Thus, would you mind altering your vote (if needed with condition)? Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:35, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: - I am still ambivalent about this. I think the two articles have a different focus, Early Christianity on the beliefs and practices of early Christians and History of Early Christianity on the development of early Christianity. It is not unusual to have two articles like this: there is a Protestantism article and a History of Protestantism; there is a Catholic Church article and a History of the Catholic Church; etc. - and I haven't seen a clear reason why the two should be merged - there is some duplication in the Spread of Christianity section, but otherwise they seem like two distinct articles - I don't see the advantage of merging them - but if there is a consensus to merge, I am ok with it - so far there doesn't seem to be a lot of support - Epinoia (talk) 22:02, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:   Isn't the difference that these mentioned entities are existing ones, whereas Early Christianity isn't by any comparable criteria? Chicbyaccident (talk) 22:52, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:   - sorry to seem obtuse, but I don't understand what you mean. (I'm not trying to pick a fight here, or be obstructive, I am sincerely working in good faith, but I need a definite reason to support this change) - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 01:53, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:   Both the Catholic Church and Protestantism are existing phenomena, but with history. They both merit separate articles with two different scopes; general scope and history scope. Whereas Early Christianity is altogether a historical concept and as such merits only one article with one scope: the history scope of it. To illustrate: how meta does it have to be? Do we need History of historiography of Early Christianity? I mean, you could theorerically argue for it, but wouldn't one single article with one single history scope suffice? Meaning that the article Early Christianity deals with the history of Early Christianity, the history of the historiagraphy of Early Christianity, the history of modern historiography of Early Christianity, the history of medieval historiography of Early Christianity, controverses of historiography of Early Christianity, the archeology of Early Christianity, and everything else pertaining to Early Christianity, collected in one single article called: Early Christianity? Chicbyaccident (talk) 06:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:   - I still think that Early Christianity describing the beliefs and practices of Early Christians deserves an article distinct from History of Early Christianity, an overview of the development of Early Christianity - analogous to the automobile - we have an Automobile article describing the mechanical device, and a History of the automobile article, outlining the development of the automobile - there are hundreds of similar examples - Epinoia (talk) 16:30, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

text: Yes, but again, the difference is that Car is an ongoing, present, alive subject. Then it merits a separate "History of" article. But that is, again, not the case with Early Christianity. We only have Christianity in the Middle Ages for the same reason, and no "History of Christianity in the Middles Ages" on top of it because that is redudant for the same reason as "History of Early Christianity" is redundant when we already have "Early Christianity", since that includes - or rather is - History of Early Christianity" implicitely. Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  - we will have to disagree on that - best wishes - Epinoia (talk) 17:08, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge to Early Christianity 

message: :The intention of History of early Christianity was cover events as they leads to further events throughout the time period; to cover change within the time frame.
:The intention of Early Christianity was cover more the traits of the religion over the whole time (1) to the degree it was stable within the time frame and (2) in contradistinction other religions and other time periods of Christianity. 
:Sometimes article become more and more similar because Wikipedians copy something the have for one article into as many others as they can. We not necessarily have to keep both articles but we do need to divide up the topic sufficiently to keep the articles size well below 100K in length. Also-- detailing crap from outside the time frame will also not help. That is why we have the other articles. tahc chat 16:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Joshua Jonathan that the distinction between what changed during the period and what is stable is a difficult one to apply in practice to this topic, and probably not helpful to readers. Currently the Early Christianity article contains both, intermixed. A more logical division into subarticles would be to follow the existing structure and the length can be easily reduced by merging details down into Apostolic Age and Ante-Nicene Period. -- Beland (talk) 17:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That would indeed be the most reasonable option. 'Stable traits within a timeframe' may be fond in creeds, but not in history; nor can those "traits" be distinguisged from events. The first primary sources (the New Testament) attest to a variety of opinions and beliefs within earliest Christianity, most notably the inclusion of Gentiles; what's more, it's exactly this divergence of beliefs that led to the change of earliest Christianity as a "sect" within Judaism, to a gentile religion. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If that is your plan, Beland, then you should merge them both into Christianity in the 1st century and Ante-Nicene period. Renaming that one to Christianity in the Ante-Nicene period would also work. tahc chat 00:47, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I will sync them up first so the merge-down only has to be done once; the whole process will definitely take a least a few days. Apologies in advance for any mistakes and rough repairs, as the articles are long and the diffs complex (which is also why it's slow going); I'm sure the result will benefit from other eyes. -- Beland (talk) 01:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thumbs-up, and go ahead! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. tahc chat 15:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Support. I'd also support the rename proposal from Ante-Nicene period to Christianity in the Ante-Nicene period by . PPEMES (talk) 23:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, but it would really be better to propose that over at Talk:Ante-Nicene period instead. tahc chat 17:52, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  intention and size 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Early centers of Christianity which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 16:47, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress