Talk:Christian mysticism

Eastern Orthodox mysticism and Hesychasm are suspiciously missing here. Western bias? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC) [reply ]

At Wikipedia: WikiProject Council, I have made a proposal for a new WikiProject - WikiProject Mysticism. Please let me know whether any one reading this article would be interested in joining such a WikiProject. Vorbee (talk) 18:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC) [reply ]

This article uses "c.q." a few times, presumably as an abbreviation for "casu quo" which is a somewhat obscure bit of Latin. I would like to edit those instances to be clearer, but I am not certain of the intended meaning. For example, in the lede paragraph I'm unsure of the relationship between "contemplatio" and "theoria." Can someone help clean up this mystical Latin? 73.242.100.208 (talk) 13:24, 11 February 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

@73.242.100.208: I added the term; it seems to be a 'standard' term in Dutch, but not in other western languages. Dutch equivalents would be "oftewel" ( in other words, i.e., aka) and "danwel" (fairly untranslatable, but "or" would come close). Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:21, 11 February 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

@DuncanHill re:

• If you insist on using sfn then you have to define the ref properly, not leave it to other people to fix it for you. (Charming, follow up)

I don't "insist on using" anything, let alone {{sfn }}, so I'd really appreciate it if you didn't make wholly unwarranted assumptions and impertinent inferences in edit summaries directed at me. I was merely making the best of an already appalling mishmash of cite styles and notes. If I made the odd mistake, it's infinitesimal compared to the frankly abysmal, mismatched, and confusing litany of awful already there. Have I caused you loads of these problems somewhere? Did my error truly warrant this level of snit? I usually fix errors on WP, but I'm aware I make mistakes. Are you perfect?

Nor do I leave my errors for "other people to fix it for you.". That was completely uncalled for. I'm often embarrassed when I later pick up on various snafus I've made and make a habit of reviewing my edits to look for them. They're mostly still there for me to fix. When other editors do fix for me, they generally, thankfully, seem much kinder than you apparently feel the need to be. AukusRuckus (talk) 14:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

How long do you usually wait before seeing if an sfn you've introduced works? DuncanHill (talk) 14:47, 28 March 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

It's not that I "wait" to see if an {{sfn }} works. I trial them then and there. I thought I'd checked them all: clearly some got through. I miss things sometimes, despite my best efforts. (Have you seen how convoluted the notes/ sub-notes [ye gad!] /citations /further reading, is in the article?)

My remark about coming back later to recheck, was in response to your assertion that I was going "leave it to other people to fix". (Where did that come from?) Not saying I should just "publish" without checking for errors and only worry about it later (if that's the thrust of your question). Just attempting to communicate how conscientious I try to be: I take editing seriously. I find that coming back with fresh eyes I can see things, often as glaringly obvious, that I sometimes miss when I'm in the thick of a complex (or even simple!) edit. I definitely try to catch errors before I hit "publish changes".

I'm sorry I made the mistakes, perhaps they were egregious ones. It's otherwise hard to see why the need for remarks about leaving fixes to others; I've never behaved that way. I'd intended to make a bit of project of the article, over a week or two, but it's clearly not a place I should be. AukusRuckus (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

BTW, I've also noticed and fixed non-functioning sfn refs by other editors, so I do notice them. At least sometimes! I will frequent the "Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors" page that you pointed out, for a more systematic approach. AukusRuckus (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

If you add User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js then you can see errors highlighted on the article page as soon as you save - it makes it much harder to miss any! If you watchlist Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors then you'll see additions to the category whenever you visit your watchlist. That's how I saw it today. It came up on my watchlist that you had added this article to the category a couple of hours previously. Several other articles came up as being added by other editors. Your edit summary explicitly referred to citation formatting. I have absolutely no interest in the article, and it's only on my watchlist now because of this thread. If it doesn't get added back to the error category then it's extremely unlikely I shall ever even look at the article again so please don't avoid editing it for my sake. DuncanHill (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2025 and 9 May 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ShyannaG (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by ShyannaG (talk) 01:54, 3 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• C-Class level-5 vital articles
• Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in Philosophy and religion
• C-Class vital articles in Philosophy and religion
• B-Class articles with conflicting quality ratings
• B-Class Christianity articles
• Mid-importance Christianity articles
• B-Class Christian History articles
• Low-importance Christian History articles
• Christian History articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• C-Class Spirituality articles
• Mid-importance Spirituality articles
• Spirituality articles needing attention
• C-Class Religion articles
• Mid-importance Religion articles
• Religion articles needing attention
• WikiProject Religion articles
• C-Class Mysticism articles
• High-importance Mysticism articles

• All Wikipedia vital articles