Talk:Christianity in the 1st century/Archive 1

The problem with the statement in the lead pic

 * "Paul was a Hellenistic Jew and his influence on Christian thinking has arguably been more significant than that of any other New Testament author."

The problem with this statement is that it is clearly a Protestant bias (the source is the Anglican Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church). My suggestion is to just delete it as Undo_weight. If it is to stay it needs to be balanced to represent all of Christianity, not just Protestantism. For example, by the addition of this line: "however Eamon Duffy cautions he was "not it's founder"." Are we really to believe that all of Christianity finds the Epistle to the Romans more significant than the Gospels? 75.14.219.222 (talk) 17:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oxford University and Oxford University Press are not religous or Anglican orginazations. They have no ties to the Anglican church. This is also not a comarison between Epistle to the Romans and the Gospels. It is more a comarison between all of a Paul (all his Epistles and parts of Acts) and each particular Gospel author. User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 15:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Incense and Altars - no, not in the 1st Century
According to Schaff, the earliest mention of the use of incense was not until the 4th century.

According to Brattston:


 * The ante-Nicene Christian documents that have come down to us indicate that ancient Christians did not use incense in their worship at so early a period. On the contrary, it was expressly prohibited. Some church fathers merely state this in passing as a simple item of information while the same or other authors expressly condemn censing. References to it are unaccountably absent where one would most expect to find them if it had a place in Christian worship in the first three centuries. Early exegetes uniformly allegorised Scripture references to incense as having a spiritual rather than literal meaning. There is one exception to this exclusion of incense from ancient Christian rites, but it is of dubious authority and does not purport to represent actual practice.

According to Warren (The Liturgy and Ritual of the Ante-Nicene Church, by Frederick Edward Warren (pages 129ff)):

§ 12. Incense. — There is no evidence for the use of incense in Christian worship during the first three centuries. The offering of incense was so intimately associated with the worship of idols, and with the early persecutions of the Christian religion, that we may well conjecture, though we have no proof, that it was the association of incense with idolatry, and with suffering for the truth, which accounts for its non-use in the earlier days of Christianity.

The famous prophecy of Malachi was frequently commented upon in early Christian literature but though its Eucharistic reference is nearly always maintained, the allusion to incense is either passed over in silence or explained as referring to prayer in connection with Rev. v. 8.2.

The following words, used by Tertullian, may be evidence that incense was not used in Christian worship in his time. He says that —

'as a Christian, he offers to God the rich and better offering which he himself has commanded, namely, prayer proceeding from a chaste body and an innocent mind, inspired by the Holy Spirit; not grains of incense of the value of one as, not the exudations of an Arabian shrub, not two drops of wine,' etc.

It is possible that this, being a rhetorical passage, should not be pressed to prove the non-use of incense any more than it can be pressed to prove the non-use of Eucharistic wine.

Arnobius speaks of idol-worship and of the use of incense in terms which make it morally certain that he had no knowledge of any custom of using incense in Christian worship [Adversus Gentes, lib. vii. caps. 26-28 ; P. L., v. 1135-1145.]

Lactantius, in a very fine passage on 'the true worship and sacrifice due to God,' speaks of the uselessness of external offerings of victims, vestments, gold, silver, incense, etc., in language which seems to imply, though it does not directly state, that none of those things formed part of Christian worship in his time. [Epitome Div. Institt., cap. lviii. ; P. L., v. 1135-1 145. Origen has a fine passage to the same effect (Contra Celsum, lib. viii. capp. 17-19).]

Incense is first ordered for use in the Apostolic Canons, and in the writings of Dionysius the Areopagite, both post-Nicene authorities. See List of Authorities, pp. xii, xiv.

According to Schaff, several writers found the absence of altars in Christian worship offensive, and commented on that, forcing Christians to explain how it was even possible to worship God without altars and incense and sacrifice.

--Jonathan.robie (talk) 13:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Christianity in the 1st century. 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/20070210102404/http://www.ibri.org/DVD-1/RRs/RR013/13jamnia.html to http://www.ibri.org/DVD-1/RRs/RR013/13jamnia.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:08, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Christianity in the 1st century. 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/20110208073816/http://stthoma.com/ to http://www.stthoma.com/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101209052136/http://www.tyndale.ca/sem/mtsmodular/viewpage.php?pid=67 to http://www.tyndale.ca/sem/mtsmodular/viewpage.php?pid=67

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Peter in Rome
I decided it was best to remove the entire section on Peter and the Twelve. I think it's possible that some mention of these issues will reenter this article in the future. If this is included, I would like to see it as part of a discussion of Christianity in Rome in the 1st century, or Christian views of authority in the 1st century, with sources focused on these topics, rather than 2nd and 3rd century primary sources and modern authors discussing later concerns of papal supremacy and Petrine primacy. Daask (talk) 13:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Merged "Apostolic Age"
I've merged Apostolic Age into this article per WP:BOLD; it's the exact same topic. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  12:01, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * At second thought, "Apostolic Age" may be more WP:COMMONNAME; moved content to that page. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  12:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Bethlehem
This article places Jesus' birthplace in Bethlehem, while his birthplace is actually disputed. Per the main article Nativity of Jesus: "most of those scholars who reject the historicity of the birth at Bethlehem argue for a birth at Nazareth, a few suggest Capernaum, and other have hypothesized locations as far away as Chorazin."

The accounts of both Matthew and Luke are ahistorical and should be discounted. Threating the Gospels as reliable sources on Jesus is a very bad idea. Dimadick (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Since these events are for the 1st century BC-- they are just removed as off topic for the 1st century AD. tahc chat 15:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * - hi, I restored the deleted events (before I saw your Talk page comment) - as both the Nativity and Herod are mentioned in the Gospels, these events are relevant - the BC dates are from modern scholarship and not traditional dating - the establishment of the year 0 is arbitrary anyway, so there is no firm frame of reference - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 16:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * This page is not about "Christianity in the Gospels" or such-- it is Christianity in the 1st century-- and no one holds these to be in the 1st century. It doesn't matter if they are also about Christianity. tahc chat 02:36, 30 March 2019 (UTC)


 * That includes the birth of Jesus, of course. "Christianity in the 1st century" is a convenient short-cut, not a mathematical boundary line. See also Delbert Burkett (2002), An Introduction to the New Testament and the Origins of Christianity, Cambridge University Press, p.26, on the term "Before Christ": how could Jesus be born before before himself? Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:04, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

"off-topic" and "not 1st century"
User:Tahc reverted my re-orderning of the material at this page, and the addition of sourced info, with the topic-summary Remove as off-topic: not 1st century. The info they removed is about the life and ministry of Jesus, and scholarly views on Jesus; and about Paul and his stance regarding cirsumcision and salvation by faith. In my universe, Jesus lived in the first century CE. And authors like Stendahl and Dunn are among the most relevant sources for Paul, and are to be preferred above having three separate subsections on the same topic ("circumcision controversy"), sourced from primary sources. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  04:09, 30 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Per WP:BRD, gain WP:CON via discussion first before making controversial edits. These additions are already covered in other articles and this article is already overlong. tahc chat 17:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)


 * 81,000 bytes is not overlong.
 * Those topics are indeed covered in other articles; see WP:RELART.
 * WP:BRD is no excuse to remove sourced info (22,000 bytes); it is intended to improve articles by discussing edits. If you think it's not an improvement, or "controversial," please explain exactly which additions you find controversial, and why; see the subsections below. See also WP:BRD-NOT:
 * Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  18:11, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Please use wikilinks including section links where appropriate. It is not necessary to copy the entire content of sections from other articles into this article.  That’s what wikilinks are for. Mathglot (talk) 03:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:RELART:
 * Nevertheless, I've shortened diff diff diff my section on Jesus, in response to your concerns;
 * But please explain why the section on Jesus should be based on primary sources, and present only a faith-perspective; and why it is appropriate not to present a short overview of the relevant scholarly research; see also WP:RS and WP:NPOV, and the section below;
 * Please explain why the old version of the info on Paul, which is strongly based on primary and outdated sources, and neglects the relevant scholarly literature, is to be preferred over my text, which explains why the circimsision-issue was so important for Paul, and makes reference to the New Perspective on Paul; see the section below;
 * Please explain what the objections are to restructuring this article.
 * Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  05:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Please explain what the objections are to restructuring this article.
 * Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  05:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Background
I replaced

with


 * Web-references


 * Notes

This provides a short overview of the background of the Hellenistic-Jewish origns of Christianity, and a short overview of the scholarly research on the life and historicity of Jesus. This is required per WP:RS and WP:NPOV; the article should present an overview of the relevant scholarly literature, not only a faith-perspective based on primary sources. I kept the unsourced info which was already there in the section on Jesus. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  19:11, 31 March 2019 (UTC) / update  Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Though WP:RELART says that articles can have overlap in info, in response to Mathglot concern's, I've shortened this diff diff diff this:

[Shortened version of my text:]


 * Web-references


 * Notes

That's seven lines of sourced info, compared to four lines of unsourced info and three lines of over-sourced info. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  06:39, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Paul - Inclusion of Gentiles
I replaced three pieces of text on Paul

with the following information:


 * Web-references


 * Notes

The original information:
 * was unnecessarily scattered over three places;
 * depends strongly on primary (Bible-texts) and outdated (Catholic Encyclopedia, 1917) sources; see WP:RS;
 * contains WP:OR: The decision of Peter, as evidenced by conversion of the Centurion Cornelius,[6] was that it was not required, and the matter was further addressed with the Council of Jerusalem. Around this same time period, Rabbinic Judaism made their circumcision requirement even stricter.[7]
 * does not explain why this issue was so important for Paul;
 * does not make any reference to the New Perspective on Paul, that is, Stendahl, Sanders, Dunn and Newt. See WP:NPOV:


 * I probably don't have to explain the significance and academic weight of Stendahl, Dunn, and Sanders. But in case I have:
 * Stendahl, The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West, 513 cites
 * Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 1837 cites
 * Neil Elliott, Taking the Measure of an Earthquake: Comments on the 40th-Anniversary Edition of Paul and Palestinian Judaism:
 * Dunn, The New Perspective on Paul, 487 cites
 * As a reminder, Jamin A. Hübner on Paula Fredriksen's When Christians Were Jews:
 * As a reminder, Jamin A. Hübner on Paula Fredriksen's When Christians Were Jews:

My text does explain the importance of this issue for Paul, with references to Stendahl, Sanders and Dunn. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  19:11, 31 March 2019 (UTC) / updated  Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Acts of the Apostles
Acts of the Apostles is a primary text; it typically presents a church-pov on the origins of Christianity. Per WP:RS and WP:NPOV, we cannot base a whole section on such a primary source, without explaining what this text is:

Source: Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  07:23, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Diff links and wall of text
I intend to respond in due course, but it is it's difficult to interact with a wall of text as above; it's hard to know even where to post a comment.

Please note that for comments of the type, "I replaced &lt;BEFORE TEXT> with &lt;AFTER TEXT>" it is not necessary to copy-paste sections of text from the article into the Talk page. In fact, it can be counter-productive, since it makes it harder for other editors to follow your actual Talk page comments which are drowned out by the long inclusions. Such copy-paste sections can be replaced with a diff link instead.

For example, the entire long section headed Background above, can be replaced with this diff link. If you want to show each of the two versions of the article text individually, before and after your changes so that the rendered pages can be compared, you can use this BEFORE link and this AFTER link. (And if you want to get really fancy, you can do a side-by-side comparison of two versions at the same time; ask on my Talk page if you're interested in this.)

Please use the Talk page for adding new text discussing your many good ideas for improving the article, so other editors can see what you're saying, and respond, without it being drowned out by a WP:TEXTWALL; experience shows that this will reduce responses, or generate Tl;dr responses, which (presumably) is not what you are looking for. Mathglot (talk) 17:56, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


 * thank you for your reply, especially the tone of it; appreciated. I've collapsed part of my text in response to your advice. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  18:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * See diff, diff, and diff, for the convenience of having the same structure at those duplicate articles; it makes it much easier to synchronise the further development of those articles. Restructuring is only the groundwork; the real work is checking and adding info, based on WP:RS. For your info, I'm reading several books at the moment, by Dunn and Hurtado. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Scholarly views on Jesus
I don't like it at all to revert any of your edits, because I highly appreciate your work, and the quality of it; but I think that, in this case, per WP:NPOV, a section on Jesus should not only provide an overview of what the Bible, a primary source, tells about him; but also what critical scholarship tells about him. The quest for the historical Jesus represents a significant change in the perception of Jesus. But there may be, of course, compelling reasons not to include this info, so I'm looking forward to your thoughts (which can also be stated in editing, of course, as so often is the case between the two of us). Best regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  04:31, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I've merged part of that info on the quest with the rest, and removed the other part. Seems lime an acceptable compromise to me. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  09:34, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Do what you feel is correct. Editor2020 (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Thomas in India
This is not fact, not proved, just is a legend. We don't know anything sure about Thomas's life because there are no authentic documents left. --Milei.vencel (talk) 06:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * - see Verifying different types of statement - "The policy on verifiability is clear that the criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." The fact is that it is recorded in Acts of Thomas - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 18:17, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

You want proof? Evidence that there were Jews in IndiaCochin Jews evidence for a Roman presence in History_of_Kerala#Spice_trade_(3000_BC_-_1000_AD). Please read through these works. I want peer review and push on verifiability.Manabimasu (talk) 13:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That there were Jews in India and Roman contacts with India certainly does not prove that St Thomas went to India. There is not even any proof that there ever was such a person.Smeat75 (talk) 15:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Merge with Apostolic Age

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal
Apostolic Age and Christianity in the 1st century are the exact same topic, acept for the time-period (with or without Jesus). Having one article on the same topic is quite more effcicient qua editing. NB: while "Apostolic Age" is more in line with WP:COMMONNAME, "Christianity in the 1st century" gives a more inclusive coverage. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  04:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Comment - Are you famliar with WP:FORUMSHOPPING? I notice that:
 * You closed Talk:History of early Christianity on 3/19, pointing it at:
 * Talk:History of Christianity, which you opened 3/19, and then closed and summarized yourself on 4/12.
 * And now, this one. It's somewhat frowned upon to keep jumping around from one article to another, starting the same, or similar discussion after a short interval, especially without linking to the previous discussions. This has now been done in the links above, so you should be okay to continue your discussion. Mathglot (talk) 09:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Following the advice to limit the merger-proposals to singular proposals; the previous discussion became too complicated, but made clear that Early Christianity should stay. This is the first of those two sub-proposals. Thanks for adding the links. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  10:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - after the failure of the other merge proposals, it might be an idea to let this rest for now, to avoid confusion, and reopen the discussion in a couple of months when it can be approached with clear heads - right now this issue is tangled up with the other merge proposals - there's nothing wrong with the articles as they stand so waiting a while will do no harm - in peace - Epinoia (talk) 17:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Epinoia; that's a heartfelt wise advice. All the best, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  17:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support. I don't think we need to make this more complicated than it has to be. The previous discussion seemed largely in favour of this merge, or at least not decisively against. I'd insist this specific merge request here ought to proceed as started. PPEMES (talk) 20:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Jut wait; give it due time. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:38, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. There seems to be no opposition. Why don't you go ahead? PPEMES (talk) 07:39, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I've posted a closure-request at Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  07:50, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That seems to be taking time, though. Are you keeping an eye on it? PPEMES (talk) 14:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * If merged, merge to Apostolic Age, seems a more accurate name (did the apostles and first century adherents call themselves Christians?). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you mean as a condition? PPEMES (talk) 15:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thoughts
You're good to go. The question of the actual article name could be dealt with post merge. PPEMES (talk) 15:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No, better discuss this first. the problem is, with Apostolic Age, that it will give discussions about the scope of the article: include Jesus Christ himself, yes or no? When "apostolic Age" is a redirect to "Christianity in the 1st century," this problem can be avoided (on semantical grounds). Yet, otherwise, when merged to "Apostolic Age," we could add several "See also" links (Ministry of Jesus, Life of Jesus in the New Testament, Historicity of Jesus, Historical Jesus, and Quest for the Historical Jesus) to the "Apsotolic period" subsection. Maybe I should just do that. What are your thoughts on this?  Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  15:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * - I don't have a strong preference either way. From a quick Google search (unreliable: Arguments to avoid on discussion pages and WP:GNUM) it would appear that Apostolic Age is the common name (WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NAMINGCRITERIA). But Christianity in the 1st Century is more neutral in tone and gives broader scope; for example, the disciples did not become apostles until given a commission and so Apostolic Age excludes the first part of Jesus's ministry, the nativity, etc. Also, Christianity in the 1st Century may make it easier to separate the gospels from the apostles as there are many who fervently believe that the gospels were written by apostles and regularly edit articles to reflect this view. As the gospels were probably written in the first century, the title Apostolic Age may give undue weight to the position that the gospels were written by apostles. Also, Apostolic Age may be too closely tied to the development of Proto-orthodox Christianity and Pauline Christianity and not give appropriate weight other forms of Christianity, such as the Nazarenes and nascent Gnosticism (although the Split of early Christianity and Judaism article has now been merged with Apostolic Age article). - not sure how significant these points are, just some thoughts. - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 16:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Cit1c has more pageviews than AA. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  04:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Talk:Apostolic Age:
 * I've merged "Apostolic Age" into "Christianity in the 1st century"; it will never be perfect, but C1c is indeed more neutral, and more inclusive. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've merged "Apostolic Age" into "Christianity in the 1st century"; it will never be perfect, but C1c is indeed more neutral, and more inclusive. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Second half of 1st century
Does the lead section proportionately cover that without mentioning with apostolic fathers, including Ignatius of Antioch who first coined the term Christianity? Also is it really fair to ommit the Primacy of Saint Peter? PPEMES (talk) 08:28, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is fair to omit the primacy of Simon Peter, because it not important to understand the Christianity of that 1st century.
 * It was only an issue latter on-- when Rome wanted to try an establish a reason for the primacy of Rome. tahc chat 19:04, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

way over long
This article way way over long. It is already longer than Early Christianity ever was. This merge (as you have done it) only makes it worse. An obvious place to cut is background info on modern efforts into the historiography. This seems to be more numourous the Jesus section than the actual information about Jesus. tahc chat 04:43, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Also-- stop making things even long by "explain jargon". The great thing about Wikipedia is that the read can just look up term that they don't know with hyper-links. Explaining jargon is add length to no good purpose. tahc chat 04:46, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I pargly agree wigh you. The section on Jesus is in deed long. There are two subsections on the historical Jesus that could be merged. But you argue again for a non-historical approach. "The actual Jesus" does not exist; what we have is textual sources, and interpretation of textual sources.
 * But overall, the article length is fine; the main text is ca. 6000 words. That's far within the limits. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:21, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


 * There is no reason to treat Jesus as non-historic. Any number of ancient persons have Wikipedia articles written in straight forward prose even when they lived before the time of photographs and tape recorders.
 * Jesus didn't exist? Says who? Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone is arguing that. I think what Joshua Jonathan is saying is that different groups have come to different conclusions about Jesus' life, and some discussion of the written sources they base those conclusions on is important to understanding of that subject and subsequent development of various forms of Christianity. -- Beland (talk) 17:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree this article is too long, but for logistical reasons it may get slightly longer for a short period. I've barely begun the merge from Early Christianity; as it turns out the two articles once again have a lot of passages that are word-for-word copies that have diverged. It's difficult to both resynchronize those texts and rewrite the destination text at the same time, and there's a burning need to finish the merge because Early Christianity is a user-visible mess in the meantime. My plan was to finish the merge, and get everything from both articles piled in the same place, Marie Kondo style, and then figure out what paragraphs might be consolidated and what details might be moved into subarticles. The section on Jesus' lifetime can definitely be condensed because there are different ways of saying the same thing, and the "quests for Jesus" coverage probably doesn't belong in this article's chronology (as opposed to the information gleaned from and the sources used by those quests, which definitely does). We can also offload some details to Jewish Christianity and put a better but shorter summary here. Some information is potentially moving from History of Christianity to Early Christianity to Christianity in the 1st century and then on to subarticles and I'm trying not to drop anything on the floor while it's in transit. The good news (pun intended) is that because there was so much word-for-word copying between articles, even the resynchronizing phase is substantially reducing the amount of prose covering this subject across all articles, a huge amount of which was redundant.

As we trim this article for length, we have to be more careful to make good edits (consolidating redundant phrasing, moving to subarticles and leaving good summary-style paragraphs here) rather than blindly refusing incoming information or textual improvements due to overall length. In particular, explaining jargon is a mandate from the Manual of Style, which explicitly says to use parenthetical clarifications (or wholesale rephrasing) instead of relying on links. (See WP:JARGON.) -- Beland (talk) 17:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It says to "minimize" jargon, but you can still explain too much. If no one is complaining about the jargon, then maybe it great as is. I wish you would at least do all the merging first, and only later "explain" or remove jargon.tahc chat 18:58, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't add explanations unless I had trouble understanding it on first reading myself. When they encounter jargon-laden text, most people get bored and give up and complaints are rarely filed. -- Beland (talk) 02:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * how did you come up with 82kb diff? The prose counts nearly 6000 words, nearly 36,000 characters. That's ca. 36kb. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  20:28, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Ask me on my talk page and I will let you know. tahc chat 18:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)