Talk:History of Protestantism

Incomprehensible jargon

I am a non-religious person and often visit Wikipedia to read about Christian history. Maybe it's because I know so little, but there is so much I would like to learn and I get excited when I see something I know nothing about.

But having read a great of the entries on Christianity, I must say that I am disappointed with much of the writing I see. For one, just about all the entries, anything having to do with the church, are just too incomprehensible for an ordinary layperson like myself. I am just compelled to ask: Just who are these entries intended for? Christians for fellow christians? Too many of the entries seem written by the same person. They all sound the same and all sound equally ambiguous.

I think this is unfortunate. I would like to educate myself. While not perfect, Wikipedia can be a powerful tool for academic knowledge and a useful source of information.

If the writer of entries like "christianity," "reformation," or what's the other one... "Holy Spirit," is reading this, please see if you can make them more accessible to an uneducated reader like me. I am eager to learn about what you have to say, but it's got to be in words that are understandable for us non-believers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Douglask (talk • contribs)

I am a person of faith in Jesus Christ, and I have to agree with the statement above. When one reads such an article, much of the words used to explain the subject are some what complex to understand. It seems that if you do not have a dictionary with you at the time of reading, you become overwhelmed with understanding what is being said. It would be more practical to write it in a more simple, everyday common joe language so that any reader, whether highly educated or of little education, can leave with a good understanding of what they just read. Don't get me wrong, but I thought I heard one time that all major newspapers were to publish each article so that a 5th or 6th grade elementary student could read with comprehension? I think this would be a good idea to consider! BUT, most of all, know that we are appreciative of the material and article made available for free. With thanks... Mr. Kevin S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.172.38.154 (talk) 05:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the article is written in such a terse fashion; they're trying to cram a lot of information into a small space. Also, of course, these are not professional writers, and you get what you pay for, as they say. I try to improve grammar and awkwardness of style as I'm reading along, but in some cases my knowledge of the history in question is not sufficient to be able to make significant improvements.Spiritquest (talk) 16:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Good clarity can be achieved without being a professional writer. We're not expecting Shakespeare here. Angry bee (talk) 20:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for a task force on the History of Christianity and related articles

I have proposed a History task force on Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/General. Please read the proposal, comment on it and consider joining. --Richard 17:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Why copy large swaths of information from another article?

I noticed a number of revisions which reference "Copying text from Protestant Reformation" but I see no cause to duplicate this data in this article? I would generally say this was done in good faith and so I don't think it is reason for a reversion but I believe some discussion should be had on why you would add in whole section verbatim from another article. Why not just add it as a See Also? I propose this be reverted if no reason be given for such changes. TimonyCrickets (talk) 05:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for assuming good faith. My rationale is that the sections (and even the outline of sections) was so anemic that major surgery was needed. Protestant Reformation had the material in reasonable condition so I copied it over merging it with the material that was already here. Now, it may be that the resulting text in this article needs to be summarized (see WP:SUMMARY) but I think the result after the merge is much improved over what was here before. --Richard (talk) 05:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I entirely see your point after looking deeper into the content. I am a bit new so do forgive any of my lack of understanding. Never the less, I think a summary might better serve the purpose with a pointer to the Protestant Reformation article rather than a verbatim copy. Although I know little about the topics it would be my pleasure to attempt to complete the summary and put it in a sandbox for you to see as an example. If you think that might be beneficial, I would be glad to do so. TimonyCrickets (talk) 23:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

If you are up for the project of summarizing the txt, feel free to be bold and just do the summarization and then paste it in. I personally am terrible at writing summaries so I would be grateful if you did it. If someone objects to what you write, they will either revert you or (hopefully) edit your text to improve it. Since you say you're new, may I suggest that you read WP:BRD. It's a model that I try to follow. --Richard (talk) 02:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Interwikis

I took out the Portuguese interwiki because it pointed to the History of Christianity in general, and not to the Protestantism specifically. Other interwikis seem also incorrect to me. Someone might want to take a look. --Bluedenim ^(talk) 16:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Use of "Great Schism"

The use of the term "Great Schism of Western Christianity" in section two is confusing, as traditionally "Great Schism" refers to the division that occured between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church beginning in 1054. Therefore, following the Wikipedia article entitled "Western Schism," I'm changing the term in this article to "Papal Schism" to improve clarity.Spiritquest (talk) 16:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The Waldensians

This page also needs some reference to the Waldensian movement of the 13th century, since this is considered by many to have been an early precursor (possibly the earliest) to the Protestant Reformation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiritquest (talk • contribs) 16:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup

I removed the cleanup and neutrality tags. If someone wants to put them back please include a note here on particular items needing work. Thank you. RJFJR (talk) 20:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

This article reads like someone's 95 theses -- first draft. Angry bee (talk) 20:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you have something specific that is problematic or are you just throwing rocks? ReformedArsenal (talk) 21:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Muslims and the reformation Charles M. Falco

I wish to remark that I heard a not so recent lecture by Charles M. Falco that there is evidence of the Protestant seeds of thought began much earlier amongst Bacon, perhaps by a muslim scientist on the basis of optics. There's some remark regarding this in the Islamic contributions to Medieval Europe, should it also be mentioned here? Faro0485 (talk) 09:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on History of Protestantism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090115043534/http://www.umbc.edu:80/history/CHE/techerpages/Eppard/teachernotes.html to http://www.umbc.edu/history/CHE/techerpages/Eppard/teachernotes.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on History of Protestantism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20030812184751/http://www.gallup-international.com:80/survey15.htm to http://www.gallup-international.com/survey15.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060521210204/http://11.1911encyclopedia.org:80/C/CH/CHURCH_HISTORY.htm to http://11.1911encyclopedia.org/C/CH/CHURCH_HISTORY.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on History of Protestantism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060909175126/http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv1-49 to http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv1-49
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061024081839/http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv1-50 to http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv1-50
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070202101418/http://baptistpillar.com/bd0547.htm to http://www.baptistpillar.com/bd0547.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of Protestantism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090412201801/http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Hussites to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Hussites
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090207120421/http://archive.elca.org/communication/brief.html to http://archive.elca.org/communication/brief.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:36, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Hussites.gif

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

History

Protestant movement (why,when,how, and progress of the movement 2405:201:AC05:C8E8:55AC:2FB9:49BA:57D4 (talk) 14:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Great Awakenings

In both the overview and body of the article the Great Awakenings are described as: "periods of rapid and dramatic religious revival in American religious history". The sections become problematical when (in the overview): "In the First Great Awakening, John Wesley founded Methodism which in turn sparked Evangelicalism" and "The Salvation Army was founded during the Third Great Awakening". True this is marginally clarified in the main body under First Great Awakening: "Historian Sydney E. Ahlstrom saw it as part of a "great international Protestant upheaval" that also created Pietism in Germany, the Evangelical Revival, and Methodism in England", but under the Third Great Awakening there is still: "Significant names include Dwight L. Moody, Ira D. Sankey, William Booth and Catherine Booth (founders of the Salvation Army)".

Now I'm sure that learned editors of this page are well aware that the English Anglican priest John Wesley developed his ideas based on a number of influences from his studying, the state of the Anglican Church at the time and the English society he saw around him. It's very true that early in Methodism's development from a group within the CofE to an independent organisation the American connection occurred. Likewise the English Methodist Preacher William Booth founded the Salvation Army in the East End of London, England.

I'm no expert in this field, but I do think that the way it is written up misleads the reader. Difficult I know in summary form, but without some knowledge of the subject, the current article does tend to indicate that both the Methodists and the Army were US products grown out of American culture.