Talk:The City of God

Weak Article
The City of God is one on Augustine's most significant works (together with certainly The Confessions and On Christian Doctrine, and perhaps On The Trinity)and is far more important than this article suggests. It includes major doctrinal discussions such as Original Sin, the Christian view of The Supreme Good, the Nature of Angels, amongst others. Since Augustine was undoubtedly the most important Christian apologist and philosopher until at least Thomas Aquinas, the significance of his principle works on the doctrines of the Church should be clearer. Agilberttx (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed. WP:BB.  We'll all look forward to your edits. Llamabr (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. This article is truly terrible.  Example: the final paragraph of the opening section which alleges that Augustinian dualism is entirely a result of Manicheanism, and then cites the entry for Manicheanism in the Free Dictionary.  That violates, surely, Wikipedia standards "no original research."  This article desperately needs attention from an expert, still, six years after this section "Weak Article" was edited.  Moving this section to the top.  Matthew Baldwin (talk) 13:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Against the Pagans
-- sometimes titled The City of God Against the Pagans Sometimes, indeed! If anyone can find an edition with such a title on the titlepage, by all means return it to the entry, with its reference. Whoever wrote this stub has never handled a copy of this book. Wetman 08:55, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Mine does. Penguin Classics Edition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.43.227.18 (talk) 06:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe the author of the stub used the Cambridge University Press  edition (ISBN-10: 0521468434 | ISBN-13: 9780521468435). Burschik 09:47, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

lol. Wetman your 10 year old comment can still make me laugh. Matthew Baldwin (talk) 13:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Article rename with no discussion
The proper name is without the "The" -- it is a Latin text, the is not used. And, the majority of articles link to it without the the. Stbalbach 01:29, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * It isn't a Latin text, it's an English title; the English title is always given with the article, thus Wikipedia policy is to use the article. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 09:11, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I should add that the fact that articles have links without the article isn't significant (their authors would usually link to the version of the title that existed) &mdash; a point borne out by the fact that most of them had incorrect links to Augustine (either Augustine ot St Augustine). Some used the articleless link but piped to the version with an article.  Others were in fact trying to link to a novel by Doctorow called "City of God" (or to an episode of Buck Rogers); I've changed all these, I think. Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 09:26, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The English title is not always precendent, see Magna Carta versus "The Great Charter" for example, it's based on popularity. I based my reasoning on the article not being used for latin names, as in "The Magna Carta" (a mixture of english and latin which is improper since Latin has no "the"), but now that I think of it, a pure English translation of De Civitate Dei would have the article, and the English version is how it is most well known. I agree with the rename. Stbalbach 14:48, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where you got the idea that the English title is always given with the article. I did a search on amazon.com and while there are copies of the book with the article it seems the majority are without it.  I think we should move this page to City of God.--Lairor 22:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Commons
Can anyone offer insight on placing the Latin and English-translated texts onto the Commons?

Query
"the separation of Church and State that characterized Western European politics through the Middle Ages and beyond."

I can't for the life of me see the sense of that statement. How so?


 * The Catholic Church and monarchs were in constant power conflicts throughout the Middle Ages. Unlike for example in the East where the Church and the state government were one and the same thing. Stbalbach 15:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

The Catholic Church and monarchs were in constant power conflicts throughout the Middle Ages precisely because there wasn't a clear separation between their respective spheres of influence.Not only that but the Pope was a monarch in his own right in the appropriately named Papal states.In the East the Church and the state government were two separate institutions with separate hierarchies and officials regardless of their close interaction.Now of course, this discussion is hardly appropriate for this article, but ill-informed and plain false statements should be corrected... --Padem 21:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Edits
--Stbalbach 00:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) The use 4-dashes at the top of the article is non-standard. It's just not done. See any other article for example.
 * 2) The "looking upward to heaven" motif is common knowledge to anyone who has studied Late Antiquity. See academic source on Christian Art or the works of Peter Brown.
 * 3) The word "Despite" is loaded with meaning, it implies a value judgement. "Although" is more neutral.


 * 1) The horizontal line is to be found in many other srticles (how many have you looked at out of all those on Wikipedia?).
 * 2) The passage about "looking to heaven" was poorly presented, and added little if anything.
 * 3) "Despite" is no more value-laden than "although" (and the change left the sentence making no grammatical sense). --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 22:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

--Stbalbach 23:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Well, Ive edited probably over 5000 articles on Wikipedia and this is the first time Ive seen anyone use it. Nor is it on most (any?) featured articles. It's non standard.
 * 2) I dont think its poorly presented and I think it adds to the article. Thats just your opinion.
 * 3) Ill leave your "despite", despite my reservations of its POV usage.


 * 1) Kate's Tools tells me that I've edited 10,952 different pages, which may explain why I've seen this many times.
 * 2) It's not just my opinion;the English was odd, and difficult to follow. What do you think that it added? --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 13:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) Sure, show where in the style guidelines it suggests using a line break at the top of articles, or show some Featured Articles that use it, and I will agree that its standard. There are a lot of non-standard and strange things done on Wikipedia, proof it's done elsewhere doesnt make it right.


 * 1) The passage re-enforces the theme of a transition from a worldly pagan view to a heavenly christian view that was occuring at the time. City of God was an important part of that tradition and transition. This is standard Late Antiquity historiography. Please read Peter Brown. --Stbalbach 17:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Edit about the film
User:143.109.58.84 has written information about the movie City of God in the article. I have reverted it and copied the text to Talk:City of God (movie). JoaoRicardotalk 05:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Long-Line at top of article
This is a section for discussing the removal of the "long line" the top of the article.


 * With long line
 * Without long line


 * Reasons for removal of the line at the top of the article:


 * 1) As far as I know, Mel Etitis is the only editor that does this. The vast majority of Wikipedia articles do not have this long line. It is inconsistent in appearance.
 * 2) According to Annotated article (a demonstration on how to properly write an article using the MoS), there is no "Long Line" at the top of the article.
 * 3) According to Manual of Style, Section "Miscellaneous notes: Keep markup simple" it says:
 * Use the simplest markup to display information in a useful and comprehensible way.

--Stbalbach 15:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It's ugly (my own personal opinion on why to remove it), will look different in different skins (technical reason to remove it), and it's inconsistent usage (MoS reason). &mdash; Saxifrage &#9998; 17:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) I've seen it on many articles; it's preferred by some editors (incuding me) because it clearly distinguishes between what's part of the article and what isn't.


 * 1) It was at some time, a year or so ago, suggested that it be made part of the dablink template, but the decision was against, because many articles use multiple instances of the template (not because there was anything wrong with the line itself).
 * 2) There is no MoS or other policy or guideline against it, to the best of my knowledge.
 * 3) I'm unaware of it's looking significantly different in any skin or browser; can you give details? --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 21:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I was inaccurate. What I mean is that in terms of graphic elements, its role in the page is more and less fitting depending on which skin is used. For instance, in Simple and Classic there is a horizontal rule very nearby that does not match in width, colour, or length. In Nostalgia there is a horizontal rule directly above the dab text, adding a boxiness that may or may not be desireable (but, to the point, is something that depends on the skin used). This might constitute a stronger or weaker argument against it depending on who's æsthetic sense is being applied. :-)
 * Personally, I would have voted in that original poll against for æsthetic reasons. If the vote was against but only for technical reasons, then my æsthetics are obviously in the minority. However, my point about consistency stands: if there's support for it being done manually, then it should be proposed and adopted formally rather than used sporadically on arbitrary articles. In other words, if you could not do this to every article yet for lack of support, it should not be done to only the ones that you edit. This is unlike the only other "editor's preference" style issue I'm familiar with, which is British English versus American English usage. Besides, that one is codified in the MoS. &mdash; Saxifrage &#9998; 21:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Mel, The distinction is indented and italic, just like Main article: notices. The line is redundant, there is not need to distinguish two times. The MoS and corresponding Annotated article shows how things should be done, there is no need to spell out all the endlessly possible non-standard way to do things. --Stbalbach 23:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok I found specific discussions that say not to use a horizontal line at the top of articles (like hunting for rabbits).

In Guide to layout, "Lead Section" "See also line at top" it says:
 * ''A "see also" line is sometimes put at the beginning, to link to an article about another meaning of the word, or in the case of a link that many readers are likely to follow instead of reading the article. Do not make this initial "see also" a section. In such cases, the line should be italicized and indented using templates. A horizontal line should not be placed under this line.

Further, in Hatnotes it specifically says:
 * In hatnotes, A horizontal dividing line should not be placed under a note, nor after the final item in a list.

I think this pretty much clears it up. Mel, I would ask that you either change the rules by consensus, or refrain from using the dividing line in "hatnotes" according to the commonly agreed on style rules above.--Stbalbach 15:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The latter is a proposal that is still being discussed; the former is in an article that is neither a guideline nor policy, and the bit about the horizontal line appeared five days ago, with no discussion on the Talk page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mel Etitis (talk • contribs).


 * So? It's precedence. It shows that if you continue on this course and force a vote it is highly likely you will loose. Others have spoken on this issue before. And BTW, it is not YOU who is "airing the issue" it is me. If you were to be responsible, and air the issue, you would engage in a proposal on the MoS pages instead of this edit warring. I'm simply following what is standard layout, which is supported in a number of places. -- Stbalbach 22:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You've opened a discussion concerning the removal of the line, but still insist on removing it before the discussion is complete (or has even been going on for very long). There is also discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style (which you started) and Wikipedia talk:Guide to layout (which I started); in neither place is there overwhelming support for your position (in fact the only third-person opinion has been support for the line).  Please stop trying to get your own way here before discussion is complete and consensus reached.  --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 11:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Both of you should cool it. Stbalbach, yes, stop revert-warring: discussion will eventually determine how it should look. Mel, you too, it's unbecoming of an admin who should know better. Besides, Mel, I'm hardly chopped liver, so saying that there is only one third-party opinion and it supports you is a bit of a stretch. &mdash; Saxifrage &#9998; 22:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have made myself clearer; I was referring to the other discussions (and I missed one; Wikipedia talk:Hatnotes). It doesn't make things easier that there are at elast four parallel discussions on the same issue. Could we leave this one and concentrate on the others, as they're more general? Whether we can combine the other three somewhere I don't know. Any suggestions? --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 13:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Reference to this discussion from Requests for comment/Style issues
I found this discussion from a 'Requests for comment' subpage. If you intend to consolidate multiple lines of discussion at another place than this, I would suggest removing or changing the entry on that page.

Regards, User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 23:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Separation of Church and State
"His theology supported and even helped to define the separation of Church and State that characterized part of the Western European politics through the Middle Ages and beyond. One notable exception were the Papal States in Italy, today downsized to the State of Vatican, ruled directly by the Holy See of the Roman Catholic Church. Moreover, throughout the Middle Age the Pope claimed the right to depose the Catholic kings of Western Europe and tried fruitlessly to exercise it, such as was the case with Henry VIII of England and Henry III of Navarre."

Excuse me if I feel a tad skeptical that any of the Church Fathers genuinely advocated the separation of Church and State. My reading of this passage is that it's one POV followed by an equal and opposite POV. FilipeS (talk) 15:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Feel free to explain why. There's no immediate reason why it should be so, the addition of free-spirited thinkers to the roster veritably constituting, if nothing else, a boost to credibility, do you not think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.235.141 (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, there is no source for the first sentence, which is certainly the most important of the piece. Remove it? Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I would remove the whole passage, myself. It all smells of POV-pushing. FilipeS (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, let's. The person who added it was...interesting; it was adversus hereticos. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Did it. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! :-) FilipeS (talk) 21:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The Ever Lurking O'Donnell
The way this article reads, you'd think James O'Donnell had written it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.242.227.32 (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

move?
I moved The City of God to The City of God (book) and made City of God the disambig page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC) 
 * Would anybody be opposed to moving this article to City of God. This was discussed previously, but it didn't really go anywhere.--Lairor (talk) 07:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe an equal disambiguation should be created at City of God. Quite a lot of people will not have heard of this book, but do know the film by that name. So this should probably be moved to City of God (book), City of God (manuscript) or City of God (5th century). —Ruud 15:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aervanath (talk) 08:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with the proposal. Augustine's book is the most important usage (at least, for which we have an article) and the definite article in the title is unnecessary. As to Ruud's objection, far less people will have heard of any of the other Cities of God than of the book. Srnec (talk) 08:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I never heard of the book or the film, but I knew of the City of God as a Christian religious idea. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've heard about the film and the religious concept, not this text or the other things, a dab seems appropriate at City of God. I'm neutral on this particular text. 76.66.198.171 (talk)
 * Personally, I had never head of this book before stumbling on this page, but did know the movie (although by its original name Cidade de Deus, but I assume its better know by the name City of God in English speaking countries) which also seems popular on IMDB. —Ruud 17:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Augustine's book is still translated and printed today, and is being studied by undergraduates all over the world in secular universities. So let's just ask ourselves: where will the 2002 Brazilian crime drama be in 1600 years? (N.B. There is no article on the religious concept of a/the "city of God" yet.) Srnec (talk) 22:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I wouldn't dare speculate what the situation would be in 1600 years, but I think making an editorial decision on the state of affairs such an extremely long time is as unwise as making editorial decisions based on a state of affairs that is only going to last for a very short period of time. So let's take a more a reasonable time of 10 years. Now, I personally had not heard of this text until a short while ago, so I assume this text is not extremely widely known outside of theological circles (now I may not be a good judge of this so please convince me otherwise if I am wrong). On the other hand I do know several people who happen to like and therefore know of the film and are still likely to do so in ten years time. Now an unequal disambiguation should only be created if one topic is very significantly more likely to be looked up than the others combined, which I am not convinced is the case here (a more objective criterion of this might be that City of God (film) attracts more edits than this article does.) —Ruud 22:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This should be moved; it is referred to as "City of God" much more often than as "The City of God". I would move this to City of God, and have the film at City of God (film). Or we could go old school and move this to de civitate Dei. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Move
Anthony, it seems to me that there was some degree of agreement that its called "City of God" more than "The City of God"; no-one really supported maintaining the "the". Compare a google scholar search for ""city of god" augustine" (10900) vs ""the city of god" augustine" (6780). Any chance you'd move this to City of God (book)? carl.bunderson (talk) (contributions) 16:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

"Symbolically"? Outline Needed

 * It was in this atmosphere that Augustine set out to provide a consolation of Christianity, writing that, even if the earthly rule of the empire was imperilled, it was the City of God that would ultimately triumph — symbolically, Augustine's eyes were fixed on heaven, a theme repeated in many Christian works of Late Antiquity.

One may not believe in heaven one's self, but I think it's pretty clear that Augustine believed that heaven was rather more a mere symbol. I'm removing this word and properly spelling "imperilled."

Also, the article could well use an outline or overview of the contents of the various books of the work. JKeck (talk) 13:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Bizarre and ill-referenced comments under Importance to Historiography, now removed
We had bizarre comments about Augustine writing "right after" the Edict of Milan and the First Council of Nicaea, both a long lifetime in Augustine's past. And we had some quotations from a number of literary figures who were quoted or referred to in De Civitata Dei. None made the article any better and I have removed them all. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Manichaeaism
I got rid of the paragraph on Manichaeaism in the background section of this article. The claims that the paragraph makes seem to be based off original research: it is certainly not explicitly stated in the text, there are no citations to scholarly research that support this idea, the idea is not universally supported, and its truth is debatable. The fact that the work contrasts good and evil (and even if we consider that Augustine was previously believed in Manichaeaism) does not imply that the work was influenced by Manichaeaism, which makes much stronger claims about good and evil. This does not mean, of course, that the paragraph is false; however, citation is needed, and as it stands, the paragraph is misleading. 65.112.10.51 (talk) 15:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Translation not listed??
My translation is Tkacz/Kries, but isn't listed here? 98.197.147.187 (talk) 05:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)