Talk:History of Christianity

↓ Jump to bottom of page ↓

Early Middle Ages

~~ AirshipJungleman29 The first paragraph of this section now has the results of Islamic action before the explanation of what it was. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, the "Middle East" is a specific area that does not include Egypt and Armenia, the countries specifically mentioned in the source, so this change is not supported by the sources now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Aside from the "Middle East" most certainly including Egypt and occasionally including Armenia, you've compelled me to go and have a look at the sourcing for the two times "the Middle East" is mentioned in the first paragraph of "Early Middle Ages":

• "A vibrant Asian Christianity flourished in the Middle East in the eighth century" it turns out that the previous version was direct plagiarism of the source, Macdonald 2015, and the new version isn't much better. Meanwhile, the second source, Jenkins 2008, does not mention Egypt or Armenia on pages 8 or 9.
• For the other instance ("However, in a series of military campaigns between 632 and 750, the Islamic caliphates conquered much of the Middle East and North Africa"), Barton 2009, p. xvii. does not mention Egypt or Armenia and only mentions any Muslim conquest for half a sentence. Meanwhil, the most Matthews and Platt have to say on the chosen pages is "In contrast, Islam did not appear until the seventh century, when it began a meteoric rise and quickly spread across the Mediterranean world". As a reminder, the original sentence these sources were cited for were "Born in the seventh century, Islamic civilization, in a series of Arabic military campaigns between 632 and 750, and diplomacy, conquered much of Syria, Mesopotamia, Egypt, Persia, North Africa, and Spain." I don't know what's going on here.

So first problem: I don't know what source you were talking about that specifically mentions Egypt and Armenia. Second problem (bigger): text-source integrity. Third problem: there is no explanation of what Islam was, so I don't know why that's a problem too. Please help me understand. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

A vibrant Asian Christianity flourished in the Middle East in the eighth century is in fact on page 31 of Macdonald, and it is in the article without quotes. I am thoroughly ashamed of my carelessness. Mea culpa. Also, the citation of the previous sentence (Brown 2008, pages 6-8) somehow got moved. I've moved it back. The rest of it is in Dorfman-Lazarev and Bundy and somehow Bundy is also gone. What a mess, but I think you've cleared it up. Perhaps I will add some Bundy back, would that be okay?

Second problem, I thought the stuff about variety forming Europe was in Herrin. On pages 7, 10 and 90, she speaks of the "particularity" of the West, and Christianity's unity and variety, but the specific claims referred to here are in Rowan Williams not Herrin. Somehow, again, this seems to have gotten lost. Herrin underlines the specifically Western phenomena that set European ‘Christendom’ over against the Byzantine world and early Islam alike — the lack of a single well-defined locus of sovereign power other than the ‘para-state’ of the Church, territorial division, limited and contractual models of authority — and shows with consummate skill how these emerge in the interaction of the new Germanic kingdoms, the papacy and the empire, and how the empire’s structure is itself modified in its confrontation with Islam in such a way that space is left for the former western provinces to find new patterns of power relations and a highly distinctive ideology, fueled by tensions absent from both Byzantium and Islam. He goes on to talk about "the novelty of Western European polity" which altogether made me summarize as I did. But perhaps I understood incorrectly. Perhaps you can convey the essence of the idea better, that East and West developed differently largely because of the absence in one place, and the presence in the other, of a central authority; of the presence of variety instead of forced unity. It seems significant.

I think the stuff on Islam is either Rosenwein or Rousseau if I remember correctly. I will find it. Don't waste your time on it. It's my place to do since I'm the one that put it in there, and I'm the one rasing the question here. Thank you for taking the time to respond. I'll be back but it will probably be tomorrow. I'm traveling. Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

~~ AirshipJungleman29 I made the change on Islam that I was concerned about. If you don't like it feel free to revert without argument.

At first, I didn't like the period rearrangement - periodization is heatedly debated amongst scholars who divide it up in several different ways. Then I just decided, we can too! There isn't specifically a source for what we have now, but I don't guess there has to be??

At any rate, I am figuratively bleeding all over from all the deletions, but I am adjusting to the changes, mostly, eventually concluding they are not only good, but that I actually like them. Shudder, sigh. I can see that you are working hard and accomplishing a great deal. When I ask questions or "kick against the goads" a bit, it isn't because I am ungrateful or unadmiring of you. I remain in awe. I see that all of that could be said more simply: thank you.

How about that Carlstak showing up and doing so much good work too? Remsense and my old friend Gråbergs Gråa Sång have also shown up. This community effort just about makes me cry with gratitude. I am so thankful for you all. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the mention, Jenhawk777. For just a millisecond I wondered whose gonads you were kicking.;-) Carlstak (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Aching, aching, I tell you! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

In the Early Middle Ages, it mentions consecrated kingship. Should I add that Charlemagne was the first to be crowned by a Pope in that rite? Is that too political? Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:11, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Nevermind, I know the answer. I hope you are over all the aching I have given you and are having nice night out. I am having a nice day at home where I am not doing any quoting. Happy New Year! Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Religion scholars use odd and obscure quotes - but you may be closer to the mark than I! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

The paragraph beginning "In both East and West" is very reliant on a single source. Sentences like " a symbiotic relationship existed between church institutions and civil governments connecting Canon law and secular law" are also pretty meaningless. There may be a meaning intended, but none is apparent currently. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

~~ AirshipJungleman29 I am so sorry! I did not see this comment until today. The paragraph has now been redone, and an additional source has been added. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Eastern empire in lead

@Jenhawk777, the present wording concerning the early medieval Byzantines is deeply uninformative and essentially takes up its valuable space, and if there's a factual error there, I cannot figure out what it is. "The Eastern Empire became the Byzantine Empire" is, strictly speaking, deeply misleading, and arguably downright erroneous itself.Remsense ‥ 论 05:39, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

(Also, I am aware the need for concision here, but am presently confused if I did not do well enough here, as your edit made each of the following paragraphs longer.) Remsense ‥ 论 05:42, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Rosenwein, [1] on page 39: In the seventh century, the Eastern Roman Empire was so transformed that by convention historians call it something new, the 'Byzantine Empire', from the Old Greek name for Constantinople: Byzantium. ... War, first with the Sasanid Persians, then with the Arabs, was the major transforming agent. The Formation of Christendom, a Princeton Classic by Judith Herrin, says the same, that Byzantium didn't really become Byzantium until the seventh century but she takes an entire book to do it.

If you check out the diff [2] you will see that I subtracted 39 words.

I don't mean to offend. I'm getting antsy waiting on User talk:AirshipJungleman29 to finish. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:22, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

I am not offended in the slightest, I likewise hope my previous impatience, which I again apologize for, doesn't put you into worry. That is not the same thing as what you wrote: there is quite a different implication of "A was transformed by X, to become B" and "B is the term for A after it was transformed by X." Your phrasing makes it sound like a more total material transformation than a convention of periodization, which is how the source quoted characterizes it. Remsense ‥ 论 06:34, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Then go ahead and restate it as you see fit. If it is representative of what the sources say, I will have no problem with it. The previous edit referred to the Byzantine empire before the period described as the beginning of the Byzantine empire. My understanding of the sources is that "A was indeed transformed by the ongoing experience of X, to become B". Herrin discusses it at some length as an actual transformation into an independent polity between 600 and 750 - along with Islamic civilization and the beginnings of Germanic Europe in the same period. Even if it is just a convention for historians, it is convention that "B.E." wasn't used till later. They referred to themselves as Romans. Our article Byzantine Empire says there is no agreement on a date for its beginning. I'm okay going with that - though I don't have a source. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

I will be arriving shortly; I must drive through Remsense's current FAC though, as I have promised—and that has an explicit time limit. Too many candles, too little time. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:41, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

On that note, @Jenhawk777, if there's any particular points you'd like another set of eyes on, let me know. Remsense ‥ 论 22:42, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Remsense ‥ 论 Would you be willing to find and add some content on the Renaissance popes of the Late Middle Ages? They are the popes who renovated Rome, built the Vatican, and were known for their lavish lifestyle and corruption. I used that term previously when I had them in the text and upset one reviewer enough to not only give me a negative review but to become overwhelmingly negative about everything I wrote thereafter. Excluding them is a glaring absence, but I can't figure out how to include them without using the term that upset him so much. I suppose their nepotism, their kids and mistresses, etc. could just be mentioned, but that's a lot of detail just to avoid one word. What to do? If you could help with that, some consensus of some kind would carry some weight. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

You couldn't really have given me a better assignment, because I'm fascinated by that period. Am working on it as we speak. Remsense ‥ 论 01:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! And bless you!! I am genuinely grateful. I also have a question about your comment below. Go there! Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:07, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Bless you as well for your kindness regarding my being unjustifiably moody and kneejerk during this process. Remsense ‥ 论 04:08, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Ha ha! That's me on a good day... Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:19, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Remsense ‥ 论. Thank you! Thank you! I just saw all the work you did today. I am especially grateful for the techy-technical stuff - I suck at that!! Having a friend who is good at what I am bad at is a great gift! Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

lead sentences

Thi We apparently don't remember that discussion the same way. As things stand now, it is glaring that nothing at all is mentioned from that period in the lead. The sentence Christianity influenced the Industrial Revolution, the American Revolution, and Abolitionism on three continents. is an accurate and representative statement. Please demonstrate that your removal is justified by showing it does not represent source material. Bring sources, please, not opinions. Otherwise, let's take this to admin.Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Everything can be sourced by source material, the question is how representative it is. The lead section is a general summary, it must represent the general view, the general summaries. The sentence suggests that all the good things exist due the Christian influence and ignores other aspects. It highlights part of the general history, the American revolution, and at the same time ignores all the other revolutions (which faced the Christian opposition). Britannica: "In alliance with the spirit of the Enlightenment, the so-called ′democratic′ revolutions of the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries aided this process of undermining Christianity. Roman Catholicism in France, Eastern Orthodoxy in Russia, and Protestantism in former European colonies in Africa and Asia were identified—by their enemies if not also by themselves—as part of the ancien régime and were nearly swept away with it." "The age of the revolutions—political, economic, technological, intellectual—was an age of crisis for Christianity."" [So "Christianity influenced the Industrial Revolution" is too simplistic.] The sentence credits the whole Christianity as a source of abolitionism, but in the article body only some Christians are said to participated in the slavery ("there had been Christians in Europe and North America who participated in the Trans-Atlantic slave trade.") The Lausanne Movement: "However, with the advent of the humanism of the 15th century, followed by the Enlightenment movement of the 17th and 18th centuries, and especially with the industrial revolution of the 19th century, the influence of the churches of the West decreased in many aspects of public life. -- Today, Christianity is being viewed in the South as an alienating Western religion. -- First, the historical legacy of slavery, which led to the ‘inferiorization’ of the souls of Blacks. Second, colonialism, which attacked the languages of the ‘barbarians’. Third, Christianization, which did not honor the culture of the colonized and destroyed the little that remained of their traditional heritage." [3]

Let's see for example Britannica's section History of Christianity: Christianity from the 16th to the 21st century: "During the formative period of modern Western history, roughly from the beginning of the 16th to the middle of the 18th century, Christianity participated in many of the movements of cultural and political expansion. [American revolution is just a detail outside the general scope.] The explorers of the New World were followed closely by missionaries—that is, when the two were not in fact identical. [the role of missionaries is stated in the lead section.] [If you want, the lead section can include something like "Christian thinkers were influential in politics, philosophy, economical thought and science."] -- In alliance with the spirit of the Enlightenment, the so-called “democratic” revolutions of the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries aided this process of undermining Christianity. Roman Catholicism in France, Eastern Orthodoxy in Russia, and Protestantism in former European colonies in Africa and Asia were identified—by their enemies if not also by themselves—as part of the ancien régime and were nearly swept away with it. -- The age of the revolutions—political, economic, technological, intellectual—was an age of crisis for Christianity. [In my view, this can be covered by the sentence "Christianity faced many challenges" which is currently in the lead.] -- The 19th century was called the great century in the history of Christian missions, both Roman Catholic and Protestant. [this is reflected accurately in the lead section] -- The 20th century saw additional challenges to the Christian cause in the form of totalitarianism, of resurgent world religions, and of indifference. Both the relation of church and state and the missionary program of the churches thus demanded reconsideration." [this is the scope of the last chapter in the lead] --Thi (talk) 21:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Thi This: The sentence suggests that all the good things exist due the Christian influence and ignores other aspects. is patent nonsense. There is no such thing as a discussion of "all good things". That's meaningless. You yourself say It highlights part of the general history,... which is correct, but then goes on to make another false claim: at the same time ignores all the other revolutions (which faced the Christian opposition). What would those be? You discuss the Enlightenment - which is in the article - and if you think that is inadequate, then add to it, but don't claim it isn't there.

Christianity influenced the Industrial Revolution" is too simplistic. it's detailed in the text. A simple statement is sufficient for the lead.

The sentence credits the whole Christianity as a source of abolitionism, no, it doesn't, but feel free to add a "some" in there if you think it's needed. Really, "some parts of Christianity" is an applicable restriction to every single statement about it in the entire article, because it has never been uniform, but that would be a tedious writing style and unnecessary because it's implied. Because no one makes claims for 100% of Christianity about anything. It has never been that unified. But the slavery section refers to Christian ideology which is less varied.

If you want to add the Laussanne movement in the After WWII section feel free, but it doesn't belong in the lead.

Nothing in your last paragraph seems applicable.

In all this wall of text there is no good quality source that contradicts what is said in the sentence you dislike. Get a source that isn't another encyclopedia; make a statement that satisfies you. Do the work, don't just remove the work of others because you don't like it. How would you say it? Because something needs to be said about a period omitted right now just to suit you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I have provided sources, clarified the historical context, and suggested sentences in case you need more, the current version provides everything needed on topic of history of Christianity, the religion. If you must tell the history of Christianity in four paragraphs, the American revolution just is'nt part of it. According to any expert, it is not part of the big picture, the summary of the topic, you just particularly like that detail, and it makes the small section misleading. --Thi (talk) 00:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

What? The founding of America is not part of the big picture? Clearly we are never going to agree. Let's call for a Third opinion. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:21, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

In no way, shape or form is this the event one plucks out from the Christianization of the New World. America was already a Christian continent by the 1770s, and I'm afraid this reads like civic mythology affecting the assessment of due weight.Remsense ‥ 论 03:24, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

The single mention of America revolution in the body is in the section on the 1770's. Verbal battles over the (revival) movement raged at both the congregational and denominational levels creating divisions which became 'Parties', which turned political and eventually led to critical support for the American Revolution. That's the entire content - one sentence - so how is that not due weight? In what way is that civic mythology? I will hold off on posting the third opinion till hearing back from you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:59, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I am skeptical, I suppose. I was overly strong, but I am on the fence. Remsense ‥ 论 04:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Please explain. I value your opinion. Skeptical about what exactly? On which fence? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:09, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Allow me to think about it, because I've re-re-read the section in question and realized I've been too cavalier in my position once again, because a few surrounding things I thought were not there actually are, which makes the weighting far more reasonable to me. Some day, I will learn. Thank you very much and apologies. Remsense ‥ 论 04:12, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

No problem! We all skim, which makes it easy to miss things - and let's face it, this article is long and involved and easy to get lost in. So, what does this mean you actually think about the sentences in question? Should I go ahead with the request for a third opinion? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:18, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

This I can only restate: Get a source - a good quality source - that isn't another encyclopedia. Make a statement that satisfies you, that reflects those sources and body content, and add it right in there. You can. Be bold! Do the work, don't just remove the work of others. How would you say what you think needs saying - without dragging on? Because something needs to be said about a period that is completely omitted right now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:30, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Thi and Jenhawk777 need help resolving a content dispute over a summary sentence in the lead that says: Christianity influenced the Industrial Revolution, the American Revolution, and Abolitionism on three continents. Thi removed it saying, "The sentence suggests that all the good things exist due the Christian influence and ignores other aspects." The sentence doesn't say whether that influence was "good" or not. It just says it was an influence. Removing the sentence is problematic since that leaves the lead with nothing at all on an entire period. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:47, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

This has not actually been posted yet, I stopped when Remsense responded above. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:00, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

A request has now been posted. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm here from 3OR. Ok, I've taken a look through the back and forth and the discussion seems to revolve around whether or not the removed sentence constitutes a WP:NPOV violation by implying that "all the good things exist due the Christian influence and ignores other aspects." I've reread it a couple of times now and I don't see that that is the implication. The sentence is pretty neutrally phrased and seems warranted given the article's discussion of Christianity's impact on multiple aspects of the topics covered.

The major policy guideline for this Lead section is WP:LEAD with the key guidance being that the Lead is a summary of the article's contents and highpoints. That the statements made in the removed sentenced are in the body of the article and sourced seemed to be agreed to by all parties. That they represent significant context in the article also seems relatively uncontroversial.

There is some discussion on whether the sentence should have more nuance. Perhaps, but please see WP:LEAD again and note that this is meant to be a very short section with very condensed summaries of the body and its relevant context to the reader. If the reader has interest in additional nuance, that is what the body of the article is for.

To the extent there should be additional topics or relevant context added, I would suggest someone post some suggested language to start a dialogue.

Squatch347 (talk) 01:43, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Squatch347 Thank you for a thorough, well-reasoned and fair response. I am grateful for WP's community that shows up when needed. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:20, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

A few comments on coverage

This is an impressive article on a massive topic, but I am not sure it has a fully balanced comprehensive coverage yet. Two points: I find it odd that "Colonialism and missions" has so much content on the missions to Asia, which seem almost insignificant compared to the Spanish/Portuguese conquest of South America, which is only hinted at in a quote. Another issue I would like to see discussed (or at least mentioned) is that Catholic bishops in Central Europe used to be princely rulers of their territories for about a thousand years (the most notable are the Electorate of Cologne, Electorate of Mainz and Electorate of Trier and of course the Bishop of Rome's Papal States, but there are a lot of these). The temporal power of prince-bishops is part of why investiture of bishops was such a big deal. —Kusma (talk) 09:17, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Kusma and thank you! Since Christianity had cultural impact, this article has to include some aspects of other kinds of history, but it is a history of the religion first and foremost, and that limits what of those other things can be included. Military "conquest" would be off-topic for this article. On Colonialism, it is hard to decide what to include, but it was not actually a Christian movement. Missionaries - who joined what would have happened whether they went along or not - had a different agenda than colonial governments, sometimes opposing them, and sometimes cooperating with them. Detail on every country cannot be included. But if you have content on Spanish/Portuguese missions (that is not too much detail) and is focused on the history of the religion and not military conquest, then by all means, be bold and add it.

I know it's especially frustrating because there is no single topic in this entire article that has adequate coverage! As a broad overview, details are generally excluded, and individuals who specialize in certain eras find important things are brushed across with single statements, which frustrates and annoys them. I sympathize. But it's not one topic that is treated that way - it's all of them - and that's out of necessity.

Catholic bishops as princely rulers is one of those topics, I'm afraid. It's brushed across in at least two places, but it doesn't rise to the level of importance that requires more imo. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, you do need to explain at some point in which way the church held territory before you can say "The church became a more imposing institution as it consolidated its territory" in the "Centralization" section. Temporal rule by the church, be it in the Papal States, Terra Mariana or in the Holy Roman Empire (File:HRE Dioceses Prince-Bishoprics, c. 1780.jpg) was not just a small footnote, but had a central role in the history of Europe for a thousand years that is still visible in its cultural impact over 200 years later, for example at Würzburg Residence. —Kusma (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Kusma Church properties are first mentioned in the last paragraph of Late Antiquity, though it is contested by scholars who say the papal states did not exist before 962. I think I will move that L.A. mention, tomorrow as it's already late here, and add a statement that the church owned property, which is no surprise, but otherwise, there is no call for a deeper discussion of a relatively minor point.

"Temporal rule" would need to be carefully and fully defined and sourced - that blue info page has no references; of the "two swords" of the church, one was temporal power, but it was always contested. The High Middle Ages saw the church at its maximum power and influence, but even then, it was limited by the power of kings - France and England, at least. I don't know what the Würzburg Palace has to do with anything.

All that aside, what it really comes down to is the focus of this article. A history of the Holy Roman Empire and its peculiarities cannot be included in a broad overview. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:15, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Jenhawk777, you do realize that you'll never be done with this article, don't you? You'll be a hundred years old with over a hundred thousand edits to it, and still be adjusting this, and correcting that.;-) Carlstak (talk) 00:13, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Gro-o-oan... I have nightmares! Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:00, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

If I can get it to FA, I swear I will leave it to its fate! Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:16, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Kusma I have added two entries - one in Early Middle Ages and one in High Middle Ages - though I am guessing that User talk:AirshipJungleman29 will remove it all when he comes and edits for conciseness. We'll see. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:26, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I do think the power and wealth of the church in the Middle Ages needs to be very clear, so something about this needs to be mentioned. A lot of things may generally need to be moved to subarticles with just a WP:SUMMARY here. —Kusma (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Kusma The church was at its most powerful in the High Middle Ages, and the wealth gleaned from its properties were largely what enabled that, but the church was never all powerful, not even over its own properties. That's partly what the investiture controversy was about. And even in the Papal States "In the 13th century, none of the popes considered it their right to intervene in the fiscal system of the city-states, their institutions, the administering of primary justice, or many other affairs.Carocci, Sandro (2016). "Popes as Princes? The Papal States (1000–1300)". In Larson, Atria; Sisson, Keith (eds.). A Companion to the Medieval Papacy: Growth of an Ideology and Institution. Brill. ISBN 9789004315280. Still, I think you were right and Papal States deserved a clearer mention. I hope it's clear now.

References

Good Luck @Jenhawk777, I suspect FA isn't possible for an article of this type (too many negative editors), but I admire you for trying Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:55, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:29, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Norfolkbigfish Thank you for the admiration, but it would be even more of an encouragement if you showed up for the review once I renominate! You are probably right about it not being possible to get FA just because of its type, and you are also right that there certainly have been lots of negative editors, but mostly even negative comments are helpful in the end. I have redone this article multiple times now, and will continue to do so until all negative comments have been addressed. Its importance level means it needs to be FA. I don't intend to give up on that. You may write me here in another 5 years... Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:21, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

It is a huge topic and it is really difficult to cover comprehensively without letting one's own biases and interests affect the neutrality. I usually chicken out and write about uncontroversial niche topics, so I have a lot of respect for people who try to tackle something like this. I'm sorry if I am yet another editor criticising the article for not including my pet topics while being too detailed elsewhere; I appreciate it must be quite frustrating. Wishing you perseverance and brilliant ideas, —Kusma (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Bless you! Thank you. Your input was genuinely helpful. Adding it made a connection that wasn't there previously. Pet topics have definitely been an issue! But at some point, if I do this long enough, that all has to come to an end - right? Please say yes! All input and all criticism is welcome!!! I may argue - and then act on it anyway... That is so-o-o me! So it all ends up good! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

All kidding aside, Jenhawk777, I think what you're doing is heroic. I wish you all the best in your endeavor—it's more than I would want to take on, but you're up to the challenge! Carlstak (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Carlstak All kidding aside - no wait, when does that ever happen with me? But I do want to say thank you with sincerity - no kidding - your comment has given me a lift. Thank you. And thank you for your recent edits. You rock. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:04, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

OK, here are a couple of small things/suggestions for cutting:

• The first century: The codex, the ancestor of modern books, was used by first-century Christians, but the Egyptian church likely invented the papyrus codex during the next decades. I would drop this sentence; while this is immensely important in the history of bookbinding, it is of minor importance in this article.
• Ante-Nicene period (100–312): The first persecution by a Roman emperor was under Nero, in 65 AD, when, according to Glynnis M. Cropp, the Apostles Peter and Paul were killed. Two things: 65 AD is not post 100 AD but in the first century. The years of death of Peter and Paul are not definitely known; you should not give so much importance to a single person's opinion here without explaining that there are other theories. Best to just remove Cropp and Peter and Paul here.

I am also a bit surprised by "open to everyone" followed by "unique type of exclusivity"; I am not convinced you need that paragraph at all if you wish to cut. —Kusma (talk) 23:59, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Kusma Hmmm ... let me think on this a bit, and maybe do a bit more research. Off the top of my head, I don't think I agree with the first one, your second point is probably valid, and on the third one, no way! It is too terrifically significant to leave out. In the early church, there was no canon law, but there was inclusivity; in the Middle Ages, there was humongous canon law, yet all the reams of law left out those earlier principles of inclusivity. It is too important a change to leave out, and describes the character of each period. I wish I could print it in bold - with big arrows pointing to it!! I am going out of town this weekend, so I may not get back to you on this till next week. Never fear! I always return eventually, and I will give you an answer on this! Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:00, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

"The first persecution by a Roman emperor was under Nero" Claudius' expulsion of Jews from Rome may have targeted Christians as well, because they were seen as a Jewish sect. Pet the main article: "The passage may suggest that in the mid-first century the Romans still viewed Christianity as a Jewish sect. Historians debate whether or not the Roman government distinguished between Christians and Jews prior to Nerva's modification of the Fiscus Judaicus in AD 96. From then on, practising Jews paid the tax, Christians did not." ... "Louis Feldman states that most scholars assume that the disturbances were due to the spread of Christianity in Rome. Dunn states that the disturbances Suetonius refers to were probably caused by the objections of Jewish community to preachings by early Christians; Dunn moreover perceives confusion in Suetonius which would weaken the historical value of the reference as a whole. Lane states that the cause of the disturbance was likely the preachings of Hellenistic Jews in Rome and their insistence that Jesus was the Messiah, resulting in tensions with the Jews in Rome."

References

Dimadick (talk) 08:08, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

This is great, but it's gone now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:42, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Left codex, removed persecution, left inclusivity. Be back tomorrow evening. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:41, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Persecution

Should some of the above from Dimadick - on persecution in the first century - be added to that First century section? What do all of you think? It probably was significant in the religion's early formation. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:47, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Global view

The article seems to lack a global view. For example, only one mention of Ethiopia or Nubia. No mention at all of the Church of the East, albeit passing mentions of Nestorians and Assyrians. One of the former is wrong, however: Coptic missionaries did not spread the Nestorian faith, since they were not Nestorians theologically or ecclesiastically. The Church of the East spread to China and India centuries before the colonial era. There is nothing about the Desert Fathers. The Mongol conquests, a pretty watershed event, are unmentioned. I recommend Bernard Hamilton's The Christian World of the Middle Ages for an accessible global approach. Srnec (talk) 21:01, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Srnec While I appreciate the interaction and the caring this demonstrates, none of it is correct. The "east" and specific Eastern aspects and locations are mentioned in every section from Late antiquity up to and including Late Modernity. Look harder. Try looking for "Byzantium" or "Constantinople" or "Eastern Europe" or "Russia" or any of the other multiple references. China is mentioned 9 times; India is mentioned 6 times. Asia is referenced 18 times. Ethiopia is actually mentioned 4 times, not one.

Perhaps I misunderstood, but I think this is what's said here: "During the second half of the sixth century, Coptic missionaries advanced up the Nile, allowing the miaphysite faith to become the prevalent form of Christianity in Nubia, Eritrea, and Ethiopia." (page 66 Dorfmann-Lazarev, Igor (2008). "Beyond empire I: Eastern Christianities from the Persian to the Turkish conquest, 604–1071". In Noble, T.; Smith, J. (eds.). The Cambridge History of Christianity. Vol. 3. Cambridge University Press. pp. 1–18. doi:10.1017/CHOL9780521817752.002. ISBN 978-0-521-81775-2)

There is a mention of the beginnings of monasticism, but there simply is not room for any real discussion of the desert fathers. This is a "broad" overview article.

The Mongol conquests are not unmentioned. They are mentioned in the first paragraph of the Early Middle Ages.

Please do take the time to verify claims before posting here. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

The article states Coptic missionaries spread the Nestorian faith up the Nile through Upper Egypt to Nubia, Eritrea, and Ethiopia, but Nestorian ≠ miaphysite, the opposite.
It would be odd to mention the Mongols under "Early Middle Ages" and I do not see them there. I do not see them anywhere.
I do now see two references to Ethiopia (but one is the above-quoted footnote).
Ctrl+F India does not show 6 mentions but 2 and one is about Jews in Goa. Srnec (talk) 02:26, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Srnec My bad! You are right, I read it backwards! I am grateful you caught that. And a second apology, you are again right, there is nothing on Mongols. There is nothing on any of the "barbarian" groups. That was a conscious decision, seeing them as off topic. If there is an argument for including them, please make it. After getting a degree in religion that included "History of Christianity" classes, I have spent the last almost two years reading nothing but "Histories of Christianity" almost every day. I still find things I don't know. So please explain why Mongols should be included in a history of Christianity. I do know they had significant impact on western culture up to the time of the crusades, but beyond that, I don't think I know why they should be included here. I look forward to learning something new from you. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:26, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

You know what? Instead of wasting time enlightening me, why not just BE BOLD! and write something up and add it yourself? Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

A tangential waste of time

@Jenhawk777: I know that you will again think that I am rude but I must suggest you should not edit this article until you have absolutely no knowledge of basic facts about the history of Christianity. (I refer to your remarks above about the miaphysites and the Desert Fathers.) You could edit articles about certain periods of Christian history and about the history of Christian denominations to understand the topic before returning this article. This approach could add value to our community. You have been wasting your own time for months without a chance to improve this article and you have been pushing other editors to comment your work. Borsoka (talk) 03:30, 12 February 2025 (UTC) Yup, I think people (including me) are prone to overestimate their competences. The gist of being a productive Wikipedian is getting hints that you don't know that you don't know a topic. E.g. I no longer edit the articles pedophilia or Hinduism, because I got such hints that my knowledge of these topics is subpar. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:19, 12 February 2025 (UTC) Borsoka, I cannot speak for Jenhawk, but I think this comment is unacceptably incivil; Jenhawk's efforts have significantly improved this article. If you have knowledge about the "basic facts about the history of Christianity", please add them to the article. Comment on content not contributors. Thank you in advance. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:23, 12 February 2025 (UTC) Sometimes receiving a "cold shower" is more helpful than hiding stuff from them, fearing that it were offensive. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:32, 12 February 2025 (UTC) Yes, I am sure AirshipJungleman29 is convinced that my comment is uncivil. I think my suggestion is extremly friendly and humane. I hate watching when people are suffering and vasting their own and other editors' time. If Jenhawk accepts my suggestion they may have a chance to improve and complete this article in the future, otherwise they have to face frustration for years. Borsoka (talk) 04:37, 12 February 2025 (UTC) So you prefer this version of the article? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:19, 12 February 2025 (UTC) I have not compared versions of the article. I purely referred to the fact that a basic level of knowledge of the article's topic is needed to improve an article. Borsoka (talk) 09:22, 12 February 2025 (UTC) Borsoka You're wrong. First, NO WP editor is meant to rely on their own knowledge. The ability to do research - without preconceived ideas - is what's required. Second, anyone who claims to have a total knowledge of this topic is dishonest. But even if that were humanly possible, relying on that would be counter to WP policy on OR. Third, this topic is too damn big for anyone to know everything, which makes it possible for anyone to make a mistake in the many, many details. My previous experience with you has demonstrated that you do sometimes make factual mistakes, they are just rarely acknowledged. But that's why the Wiki-community is so valuable. People like Srnec and ~~ AirshipJungleman29 show up and help and make things better. Last, instead of condemning me for something I shouldn't actually be doing, just be a positive contributor to the article. Please don't comment on me anymore. That too is against WP protocol. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2025 (UTC) "My previous experience with you has demonstrated that you do sometimes make factual mistakes..." - yes, this is the problem. You usually do not understand the problem with your edits and remarks so you think you are right (as it is also demonstrated by your remarks above which prompted my suggestion). Borsoka (talk) 01:48, 13 February 2025 (UTC) Borsoka Mistakes are not always mine, as other discussions above demonstrate, but when they are mine, I always, 100% of the time, go back and admit and fix them. There are no examples of me ever doing anything else. I have more than one diff - that I have kept a record of - with you being shown to be factually wrong and never admitting it. Applying your standard to yourself would mean you should no longer edit. I would appreciate it if you would indeed practice that anywhere I am. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:52, 13 February 2025 (UTC) I also have done no comparison, I just work logically: as Jenhawk does not have the "basic knowledge of the article's topic needed to improve the article", the current version primarily authored by them is not an improvement, and we must revert to the version that came before. Is there a flaw in the reasoning? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:20, 12 February 2025 (UTC) Again, I am convinced that Jenhawk should not edit this article. I will not oppose a proposal about the deletion of Jenhawk's all edits from this article. Borsoka (talk) 18:34, 12 February 2025 (UTC) You can start an RfC. For myself, just as I opposed the removal of all your edits on Middle Ages, I will oppose any such proposal on this article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:24, 12 February 2025 (UTC) Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2025 (UTC) Rude, quite possibly, but "you should not edit this article until you have absolutely no knowledge of basic facts about the history of Christianity." also makes no sense. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2025 (UTC) Ahhh - a mistake! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:57, 12 February 2025 (UTC) Given the way Borsoka writes English, I'm not sure he should be editing English WP. As his user page says, "you can never say a wikipedian editor that their contribution to our project does not worth shit." Nice.;-) Carlstak (talk) 00:19, 13 February 2025 (UTC) Yes, the way I write in English is terrible. However, this problem can easily be fixed with other editors' help because I am not convinced that I can write in English. I proposed a solution to Jenhawk: they should edit articles about subtopics to better understand several aspects of the history of Christianity. Nevertheless, if you want Jenhawk to suffer and they want to suffer, I will not (and cannot) put an end to your game. Borsoka (talk) 01:48, 13 February 2025 (UTC) Good lord. I quote: "However, this problem can easily be fixed with other editors' help because I am not convinced that I can write in English." That's funny, because I am not convinced that you can write in English, either. You say "...if you want Jenhawk to suffer and they want to suffer"? And "Game"? I'm beginning to think that perhaps you came here just to cause trouble. Carlstak (talk) 02:31, 13 February 2025 (UTC) I am really glad that we agree on one point: on the low level of my English. Unfortunatelly, this will not put an end to Jenhawk's sufferings and frustration ([4]). However, I think this conversation leads to nowhere, so I stop it. Have a nice day. You are really entertaining and made me cheerful early in the morning. Thank you for it. Borsoka (talk) 03:55, 13 February 2025 (UTC) Borsoka On what basis do you base your assumption that I am suffering? Did you ask me? Have I ever made any statements to that effect to you? To anyone? Anywhere? That Diff you reference is not evidence of frustration, it's me inviting someone else to participate in this huge project - which I have also extended to you. If you find something wrong, just fix it, discuss it, do something constructive, but don't come here and make derogatory comments about me. You say it's okay for you to make mistakes in English because "this problem can easily be fixed with other editors' help" but you don't allow that same approach for me; if I make a mistake, it's proof I know nothing, and all my work should be deleted. That's a double standard, an injustice, and an unkindness personally directed at me. That's not a remedy for suffering. That's a cause of it. You crossed a line here. Please don't comment on anything I write anymore. Just stay away from me. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:39, 13 February 2025 (UTC) You should have copied my full text to understand what is the difference between us: I do not pretend that my English is perfect and I do not try to convince reviewers aggressively that my sentence "He have took up armes to devendd her countrie" is grammatically correct. I will not surf your edit history to find your remarks about crying during the night, and I cannot prevent you from wasting your own time. However, I gladly stop this conversation with you to save my own time. Borsoka (talk) 05:07, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Jen, you may have misunderstood Srnec's comment somewhat - the Church of the East (aka the Assyrian Church or "Nestorian" Church) is not the Church of Constantinople, Russia, and Eastern Europe. It was also not in communion with the Miaphysite (or "Monophysite") Churches that today form the Oriental Orthodox Churches.

Agree with him that the article may lack some global perspective on the Christian East and may inaccurately conflate some Eastern Christian communities. For instance, the only mention of Assyrians in the article is the last sentence of Heresies and Schisms - The Fourth Council's assertion...was rejected by the Armenian, Assyrian, and Egyptian churches, who split from the rest of Christianity and combined into Oriental Orthodoxy. Can you check your references on this statement? The Assyrian Church split over the third Council, Ephesus. This is maybe meant to be the Syrian, or Syriac Church? The statement as written is not correct.

Not to say you need to be an expert on all this! It would be great if someone who was really well versed in Eastern Christianities could help. I'll see what I can do to help, but I'm not an expert and haven't been able to help you as much as I'd hoped the last few months.

Always great to check in on the article and see how much it's improved! Seltaeb Eht (talk) 01:47, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Seltaeb Eht Thank you! I will do as you suggest and go back and recheck these points. I DO need an expert! I am weak in knowledge of the East, so I am really grateful for your help. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:58, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Srnec and Seltaeb Eht I found the recommended book and the needed info on the church in Persia. Apparently, it didn't recognize the authority of the Council of Ephesus, but that caused no breach. It outright rejected the Chalcedonian definition of 451 and that led to the formal breach of 482. That's when the Persian church formed a separate communion and called themselves the Church of the East. So it looks like the church did not actually split over Ephesus, and that the article is correct in claiming it became independent because it rejected Chalcedon. There were also Syrian Orthodox in Persia. By the sixth century, almost all Christians in Syria and Mesopotamia were Syrian Orthodox (Jacobite). I will go and add these citations and hopefully make that section a little clearer with some prose adjustments. I will be back with more on Nestorian and myaphysites. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, should have included the reference: Hamilton, Bernard (2003). The Christian world of the Middle Ages. Sutton. ISBN 0750924055. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

References

Srnec I love this book! Thank you for recommending it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Srnec and Seltaeb Eht I would very much like to hear back from you on that disputed paragraph. I am working hard in my sandbox gathering more on the East to add to the article as you suggested. I have no idea how much we will end up with, but using past histories as a guide won't work because there has long been an established western bias in nearly all previous scholarship. We'll see what we see, but I hope that will include your participation. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:15, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure what paragraph we're talking about? Srnec (talk) 23:59, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

The third paragraph beginning "Controversies..." located here History of Christianity#Heresies, schisms and councils. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:50, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

New question

Srnec and Seltaeb Eht and AirshipJungleman29 It's my understanding that WP:weight means we are supposed to represent current scholarship on a topic i.e. not give a minority view an equal presentation with a majority view. The problem here is that both primary and secondary source material on the East is a fraction of the material available on the West. Should the article reflect that? It doesn't really count as a minority view in my mind, however, it seems legitimate to be concerned that giving the East equal space conveys a false impression of the state of scholarship. What's your opinion? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:04, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Is anyone suggesting giving the East equal space? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, more space anyway! I'm unsure how much is being advocated. Perhaps they wioll answer and say. I'm thinking "more" is appropriate, but not more than maybe a third of the article?? Representing the amount of source material available would be an even lower percentage. What do you think? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

A third of the article?? I'm fairly certain that what is being asked for is no more than a paragraph or two in total, tops. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 06:35, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, overall about a third maybe. The paragraph discussed above is certainly not all there is, but the article might genuinely need more. (I just deleted a list of everything on the East in the entire article.) I found that every section has something, but no section has much. Perhaps I should just go ahead and see what might be considered important, then you can judge and delete what seems unnecessary. It's more work for both of us. The article is to the point where I hate adding anything new, but I am afraid Srnec and Seltaeb Eht are right. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

The question is what do survey histories of Christianity do. I cited one (Hamilton) as an example of a global approach to (most of) Christian history. One volume out of nine in Cambridge's History of Christianity series is titled "Eastern Christianity". I don't have more concrete advice because it seems to me the structure of the article is very "Western". As an aside, a whole section devoted to "Christianity and Nazism (1930s)" seems undue. And the image selection leaves something to be desired. A 17th-century image to accompany Gregory the Great? Srnec (talk) 04:21, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

The image section does need to be improved; I have noted a number of poor (in image quality and accuracy) early modern depictions. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:59, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I'll have to get back to Srnec even though I agree with you on all counts because I have company this weekend, and I have to address AirshipJungleman29 first. Jungleman, in your latest decimation (I mean edits ) you tagged the use of "folk" in the first paragraph of Late Middle Ages, but I am unsure what would be better. It is a valid term used by scholars - folk tales, folk remedies, etc. - to designate ordinary people. The refs are: Lazzarini & Blanning 2021, pp. 7–8, don't offer an alternative; they just talk about the events. Taylor 2021, pp. 109–110 also discusses events and beleif in Armageddon being borne by late medieval Europe- would that be an improvement? It seems just as vague to me - what parts of medieval Europe? - but if you like it we'll use it. The third reference, Matthews and Platt, begin their chapter 10 with "Many who lived during the "calamitous fourteenth century"..." But again, "many" seems just as vague. I'm a bit stymied, so I am hoping you can explain what you have in mind. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:48, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

"Many of the people of medieval Europe" maybe? That's a lot of words to replace "folk". Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:22, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I did something. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:09, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I am stunned that the accusation of corruption of the Renaissance Popes - one of the three main causes of the Reformation - has been completely removed. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:05, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

"Luther's theses challenged the church's selling of indulgences" Jenhawk777? If there was anything else, it certainly wasn't identified as "one of the three main causes of the Reformation". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I was referring to the sentence on the Renaissance Popes: Reformation Protestants condemned these popes as corrupt for their lack of chastity, their nepotism, and the selling of "hats and indulgences". It's the only mention of the accusation of corruption, the reasons for it, and its alternative view which is in the same paragraph in the first sentence - and is also gone now. My reference to main causes was just a short-hand for discussion here. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:14, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I've been holding my peace until I had a better footing in the article, but I have to agree with Srnec that the article is very euro/western-centric. It is concerning that there is an entire section on Nazism and Christianity, but not a single mention of Christianity in the vast continent of South America, apart from its depiction on a world map—neither is there any discussion of modern evangelical Christianity, especially the inroads it has made in the Latino communities in the US and Latin America generally. I could go on. Sorry, but the article is woefully incomplete. Carlstak (talk) 21:53, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

The good news is that thanks to a lot of trimming, with some still to come, we now have over 2,000 word of possible additions to play with. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I have made note of everything I have to do in response to recent edits. It will take me a little while, but you know me, I will get to work immediately. I intend to take full advantage of those 2000 words ... Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello Carlstak you certainly have footing with me, and mostly I agree with your comments. The Nazism section is maybe the last of the original sections left, but if there is consensus to trim it - well everything else has been trimmed! There is nothing sacred about it just because it's old. Be Bold! and trim away! Christianity in Latin America is mentioned in a couple places, but not to any degree of comprehensiveness. I think I'm afraid to go down that rabbit hole. Please feel free to edit in, or bring here to discuss whatever you think should be covered. I do however, think that modern evangelical Christianity has fair mention if you consider that it includes Pentecostalism. More can always be added if there is consensus to do so.

I do see consensus that the article needs more on the East, but the question remains: how much more? In his above comment Srnec says: The question is what do survey histories of Christianity do. So, I did a random survey of the Internet Archive: A history of Christianity by Kenneth Scott Latourette has 16 pages that covers 150 years in the Late Middle Ages on Eastern Christianity and that's pretty much it. In An introduction to the history of Christianity, A.D. 590-1314, by F. J Foakes-Jackson there is no dedicated section; there are a total of 30 mentions of Byzantium/Byzantine, and none for Eastern Orthodoxy throughout the book. A short history of Christianity by Geoffrey Blainey, has 23 mentions of Byzantium, in the entire book, which are almost all mentions of the city. The article doesn't reference any of these, and I don't think they are good examples, but they were available.

The article references the Cambridge History of Christianity multiple, and as Srnec says, it has one volume out of nine on the East, and it covers a limited period of the late middle ages. There is a chapter in that volume, accessible through the library, that we should probably all read: "Beyond Schism: Restoring Eastern Orthodoxy to the History of Christianity" by Scott M. Kenworthy.

The article references MacCulloch's book "Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years"; it has a total of six out of its 25 chapters that discuss the East. Robert Louis Wilken"s "The First Thousand Years: A Global History of Christianity" has no dedicated section as such but has references throughout - some of which I think I will use and add in. And now Hamilton. There are no survey type histories that I can find that do not have a predominance of West over East. There are other sources in the article, but it's late, and I'm tired and this is a lot of text just to say, I agree, but how the Hell do we implement it? Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:30, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks for your reply, Jenhawk777. I should say right off the bat (to explain my point of view) that having been abused by so-called "Christians" all my life, I consider Christianity an abomination, and have no doubt that Jesus Christ himself, who was not a Christian, would agree. I had a vision when I was 19 that clarified this (my Cherokee great-grandmother had visions too). Of course this should have no bearing on whatever changes I might make to the article, and it won't. I want to say that in my opinion, you should forget aiming for featured article status, as there is no way to cover this vast subject with any kind of real comprehensiveness in a mere 10,000 words without turning it into a collection of links to other articles. As WP:HASTE says, "Sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage." I've certainly seen some not-so-great articles that won that gold star. Carlstak (talk) 16:44, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Carlstak. No explanation necessary. The nature of religion offends many, and Christianity specifically has a very mixed moral history, so it has done its share of offending and then some; but as you say, since we are committed to keeping our work neutral, while I may sympathize personally, it has nothing to do with this article. I believe that of you, that you will be unbiased, so really, that's all we need to know, and we do know that.

I am getting mixed signals about FA however: on the one hand, you say forget it, it can't be comprehensive, and on the other you quote that it just needs to be big enough to be comprehensive. I think we'll have to wait and see where we end up after more research, more editing in, and more of AirshipJungleman29 's editing out using his verbal chainsaw to cut me into tiny little pieces - that I am then actually grateful for. I must have a masochistic streak, but I truly do think he's amazing. He has a knack for getting at the jist of things. He has cut enough to make adding back in a non-issue for length, so we can concentrate on comprehensive. (Besides, after I add content on the East, he'll cut half of it back out again, add a comment on what a stupid waste of time that was, and the result will be a more comprehensive yet still concise article.) Working together makes that possible.

So, let's focus on making the article comprehensive about the East. It is a fact that there is less source material on the East. My question goes back to: should our content reflect that or not; if yes, how much? I am thinking no. I am thinking Srnec's standard won't do because what's in most existing books is a Western bias. Using that as a rule to go by just perpetuates the problem. I think we are going to have to decide for ourselves how much and what to include. I'm just going to start. Feel free to jump in.

Don't worry over FA. Every time I have put it up for FA, I've learned something - something about this article, history, the FA process - none of it's been a waste. It's clear it isn't quite ready yet, but it has improved, and continues to improve every time one of my wonderful fellow editors shows up. So thank you. Your efforts are appreciated. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence. I'm just gradually saying what I really think, as I didn't want to come stomping onto the talk page out of the blue with a bunch of criticism. As you know, half of the art of writing is knowing which parts to cut, and AirshipJungleman29 has a nice sharp knife for the task, but I would cry if one of the longer articles I've written were subjected to the GA/FA process and eviscerated. If it were up to me, this article would be at least 300,000 bytes.;-) There is so much to tell, even in summary form. Something seems awry when the Hoodoo article has 275,577 bytes (419 sources), and this one has only 195,150 bytes (570 citations). Carlstak (talk) 20:45, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:01, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

In my view, the best articles on Wikipedia are not those which just know what to tell, but those which also know what not to tell, because they know they are part of an encyclopedia. Hoodoo hasn't quite got to the latter stage. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:59, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

You're right of course, so maybe it's Hoodoo that's awry and not us! One way or the other, we are committed to being as comprehensive, and as concise, as possible. I am currently researching more on the East and writing in my sandbox, but I promise to do my best to keep to that standard! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

You young whippersnappers and your "Featured article criteria". Yes, the lede should be concise, but aren't comprehensive and concise mutually exclusive, especially regarding such a vast subject as "History of Christianity"? When I was still a teenager I bought a used set of the Encyclopedia Britannica, less than ten years old, so not too horribly out-of-date, and some of the articles were many pages long, took maybe an hour to read with any understanding. It demanded a real commitment to read all that text, and in such tiny print. There's no place for that sort of detail in the WP fast-food culture, even though something like 95 percent of readers read no more than the lede, if that much. I accept that, but I don't like it. I am a fossil.;-) Carlstak (talk) 03:14, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

PS: I'm just kidding, sort of.;-) Carlstak (talk) 03:14, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Carlstak, I am a retired senior citizen with 14 grandchildren and one great-grandchild. I've been married for 53 years. I doubt you are older than I. It's nice to be mistaken for young though - I think ... except maybe not in this case since this seems to imply that young = shallow. I don't - I can't - agree with that.

Detail is the bugaboo that AirshipJungleman29 is constantly on me about. He edits, tries to teach me, corrects and instructs, and I still write too much detail; he insults my work and ridicules me, and he still can't break me of including the juicy details that to me make history interesting and make him pull out his hair in exasperation. I have no idea how old he is, but I do know, he's right. I think of him as young, around the age of my grown grandkids, and I tell you I would be proud to call him mine. He's good and kind, and he's brilliantly talented, and he's taken the time to help me. He has been as dedicated to improving this article as I have been. I think the world of that young "whippersnapper" and imo, if the world had more like him, it would be a better place.

The details I love always end up on the cutting room floor. Because. This is an encyclopedia. An Article can be both comprehensive and concise if it doesn't include too much detail. Sigh. I know how you feel. It's like a cut to the heart, but he's right. He's just right. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:53, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I had a pretty good idea you weren't actually a "young" whippersnapper, Jenhawk777. I have great respect for your work and AirshipJungleman29's. I just like to make jokes and wanted to inject a little comic relief.;-) Carlstak (talk) 13:29, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I guess I'll take whippersnapper, coming from you relics of times past; probably better than being the apocryphal gadfly. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Haha. I was going to tell Jenhawk777 that I'm 103 and have been married for 83 years, but I didn't think the cagey old bird would buy it. Carlstak (talk) 00:30, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

All right you two. Down in front! Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:26, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

"West over East"

Moved to user talk:jenhawk777

Statements of fact unsupported by the given sources

I have a question for our friend AirshipJungleman29 when he returns from his vacation. As a matter of wiki hygiene I fact-check articles when I have time. I have done an overhaul of such a high-profile article as Christopher Columbus and an overhaul of Francis Drake, among a number of others, and I have invariably found statements of fact that are not supported by the given source. Already, with just a few fact-checking queries, I have found that some of the sources given in this article didn't say what they were purported to say by way of being cited to support a statement. This article has 575 citations. I don't think anyone is going to check them all. I'll check as many as I can, when I have time, but who is going to help me? Based on prior experience, I will say probably no one. So if this article ever does attain FA status, it is likely that it will do so without ever having had all its cites checked. That is one reason why I am not so impressed by featured articles. I don't believe any reviewer ever checks every single one of hundreds of citations. Carlstak (talk) 01:15, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

"I am not so impressed by featured articles" I tend to avoid them. With the excuse that only high-quality sources are allowed, much material is removed from previous versions of the articles. They read like censored or watered down texts. Dimadick (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm not a fan of them, and I don't think they necessarily represent the "best articles" on WP. Too many of them oversimplify complex subjects to the detriment of informed readers, and they encourage editors to adopt an impressionistic style of writing that deprives the reader of needed context, all in an effort to conform to draconian word-count limits. Carlstak (talk) 04:38, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate the ping, but I'm not entirely sure what the actual question was? If it's on the state of source-text integrity in this specific article, I am entirely certain that it is imperfect; if you scroll up this page, you'll find a few instances I found. On this article, however, we have the aid of an editor who is willing to check every single source, so I'm not worrying too much about that at this point. On your more general point: I tend to believe that an article which has some sources checked is better than an article that has no sources checked. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 06:57, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, "we have the aid of an editor who is willing to check every single source" is good to hear. My question was "who is going to help me?" fact-check the article and verify sources. I would think that with a budget of about $190 million in 2024–2025 that the Wikimedia Foundation could afford to hire a fact-checking and source verification team for featured article candidates. Regarding the quality of some FA reviews I have doubts. I know of at least one reviewer who writes his comments in pidgin English. Carlstak (talk) 15:50, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Carlstak Things have been moved and removed and rearranged so much in this article that I, like AirshipJungleman29, am sure citations did not always stay correctly attached; I'm sure there are errors, so I am overwhelmingly grateful to anyone who helps find them. I noted in your last set of edits that you did find one. That enabled me to identify that it had the wrong page # - it wasn't 26 it was 2 - and replace it. If you look at my edits, you will see that I have been working my way through one at a time in a systematic source check for some time now. I personally want to have confidence that all citations are correct. If you find any facts that are incorrect - or even unsourced - please do point that out. That will definitely improve the article. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I have temporarily suspended source verification in order to gather and write more on the East. You will love its detail (all of which I think is important). AirshipJungleman29 will hate it, pull out his hair, and write derogatory things about my work while beautifully editing it down to a concise focus on its main points. Give me a few days (maybe a week), and I will get back to checking sources. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:37, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

No worries, Jenhawk777. I will respect your wishes. They say Eliot's The Waste Land was a sprawling mess until Ezra Pound performed major surgery on it and turned it into a masterpiece. I say, nah. When you have two extremely neurotic personalities working on a piece of literature they don't produce greatness, they produce a monument to neurosis. And we all know what happened to Pound. No allusions to present company intended. (dodges thrown cellphone;-) Carlstak (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

My wishes are that you will check all the sources you feel like and finish before I come back! IDK about Eliot and Pound - we are all a little neurotic... Just like all editors make mistakes and there are no perfect articles despite what FA may claim. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Ah, okay. The thing is, I hesitate to invest time and energy in editing the article if things are going to be continually "moved and removed and rearranged". This has been going on for quite a while. About neuroses, I am one of the most neurotic messes you'll ever find. I flatter myself to think that I channel that nervous energy into my work, rather than inflicting it on WP, but I might be wrong about that.;-) I have a recurrent dream, a nightmare really, in which I have an important edit to make and keep hitting "publish" on the editing page, and nothing happens, over and over and over, like Sisyphus rolling the boulder to the top of the hill for all eternity. Carlstak (talk) 19:15, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

This section is titled as if the article is rife with factual errors. You found one with a wrong page number that was probably a typo. That's OK, still an error, I know, but now you're refusing to do anything to help fix what you have proclaimed is a big problem. This is worthy of Borsoka. I'm done here I think. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Please don't misunderstand me, Jenhawk777. I don't mind fact-checking and verifying sources. Please accept my apologies for not making that clear; I just don't want to join in moving text around and writing new content as you encouraged, when the article is still in the (necessarily) unstable stage. You and AirshipJungleman29 are doing most of the work on that score, and once things have settled down, I'd feel more comfortable helping out on that.

Looking over what I've written above, I think I've gone a bit over the top, and got carried away with the attempted humor. I would be gratified if both of you accept my apologies, and I will be happy to help with the sources. We've had a plumbing disaster going on at the house since last night, and I've been dashing out to the porch where this computer is to write in between episodes of getting soaked with sewer water, so perhaps my comments weren't as considered as they should have been. Sorry about all that. Your friend, Carlstak (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

This statement I have invariably found statements of fact that are not supported by the given source. Already, with just a few fact-checking queries, I have found that some of the sources given in this article didn't say what they were purported to say by way of being cited to support a statement was indeed "over the top" considering what was actually found, and I fail to see any humor in it. But I am capable of a little grace, so, apology accepted. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I think I got defensive when you asked me if I have "completely lost my mind" after I made a serious suggestion about using an outline in the text you moved to your talk page. I think that was a bit "over the top" too. Carlstak (talk) 22:22, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I apologize. It isn't the kind of comment that's taken seriously by most people in my experience, so it was a casual throwaway that I thought was in tenor with your previous comments on young whippersnappers. I meant no offense, but if I was insensitive, I am genuinely sorry. Perhaps we should learn from this that it's best to stick to business. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:37, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, I agree. I got carried away with the flippancy. I am in the process of reading the entire article, and I must say that I think it is very well written. It needs a little polishing, and I'm working on that. Please feel free to revert any edits I make that you find egregious or unacceptable. Kudos to you and AirshipJungleman29 for all the hard work you've done, and to all the other editors who've contributed. I do think the article will be improved if it is expanded per Srnec's suggestions, with 2,000 or so words of possible additions as AirshipJungleman29 says.

I'm feeling stressed by all the horrific damage being done to my country, the US, by the Trump/Musk administration. It's a waking nightmare for me, and I find some solace here. I've been sounding the alarm that Musk may come after WP. I hope the WMF has lots of redundancy built into its infrastructure, and I would suggest that they move their servers to a more stable country. Carlstak (talk) 05:04, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I am not a Trump fan either, but this country has survived bad leadership before. It's only four years. We the people do the actual carrying of the country, not him, and we won't stop doing that. We'll survive him. It is always good advice to try not to stress over what you can't control. Deep breaths. Stay calm. No doubt the universe is unfolding as it should. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:55, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't think you realize the extent of what they're doing, and I have a very good reason to be stressed–it looks like I may be losing my Medicaid, and deep breaths and staying calm ain't gonna save it. I'll be out in the streets against these fascists—that's how we make the universe unfold as it should, not by being passive. Carlstak (talk) 06:27, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Question about the The Cambridge History of Christianity on the CambridgeCore website

What do editors think of linking in citations to the freely accessible complete nine volumes of The Cambridge History of Christianity on archive.org rather than the paywalled CambridgeCore website? Carlstak (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Complete access is freely available through the library. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:06, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I believe Carlstak was more referring to non-editor readers who don't have access to WP:TWL. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:50, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct, the general public has no access. Carlstak (talk) 20:43, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I didn't know the general public could access the archive. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Public-domain publications on archive.org are accessible to anyone with an internet connection, and many copyrighted works can be "checked out" if you create an account and log in. The loan is for an hour, renewed automatically with continued use in a session. The Cambridge History of Christianity is public domain, open access with all nine volumes downloadable separately as pdfs. Carlstak (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Carlstak Will you do this? Or tell me how? Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:58, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I would be happy to help, but I think on second thought that the files were uploaded against the Internet Archive's policy and that the work remains under copyright. I should have corrected this, but I'm freaked out by all the mushy stuff you said to AirshipJungleman29 and now I'm afraid to look at this page.;-) Carlstak (talk) 19:10, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

PS: Will it remain safe for work? Asking for a friend. Carlstak (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I couldn't help it. I mean look at it - he was actually nice to me... I know it was only one comment, but it approached actual empathy. I was overcome. Forgive me. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:14, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Church vs church

I see sometimes the word is put with a capital "Church", and sometimes "church." This doesn't seem to have consistency regardless of whether it is used as a proper noun or not. Which format is correct? Shouldn't it be "church" as the general name, and "Church" for the specific name of a Church or denomination?

Thanks!

XZealous (talk) 05:49, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes of course! Please fix that! Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:59, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I think I fixed it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:25, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Done enough?

AirshipJungleman29, Carlstak, Srnec, Seltaeb Eht , Remsense , Dimadick, XZealous and Gråbergs Gråa Sång and anyone else who has ever expressed interest in this article: I have now added a good bit of material on both the East and Latin America. There is always more that can be said, of course, but I am hoping this is more than sufficient for a broad overview. However, if you don't agree and think I have missed something, or if you think I have said something incorrect, please, please do say so. Anything. Now's the time. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:11, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Please make a comment of some kind.Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:56, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Can you link the specific sections? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:00, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

For what? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:49, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Where you added a good bit of material on both the East and Latin America. I haven't looked at the article in awhile Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:27, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång I think I have added something in every section. Some places it's just a sentence, some places a paragraph, but it fills nearly a third of the article now... which I'm hoping is the right balance. Sources on the East are limited and reflect a long-standing western bias, so I did what I could. On colonialism, it was truly difficult to find religious and not political material. My choices might seem a little odd, but I was also limited by looking for Latin America. I will probably keep reading in that area and continue to adjust. If you haven't looked at it in awhile - maybe you shouldn't - maybe you should wait and review it when I renominate. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:39, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I think it's fine. Something else to work on: the numerous emerging movements in "Modern period (1650–1945)" could use more explanation of their motives and aims. Quakers, Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptists, Restorationists, Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement, Adventism, and the Jehovah's Witnesses spring out of nowhere and you don't really get an impression of who they were and what they stood for. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:41, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Agree with this. Carlstak (talk) 14:56, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Could I just remove them instead? Explaining them seems like falling through the looking glass with no end in sight. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:48, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I tried just removing them altogether. They are in my sandbox in case you decide you don't like my fear-driven approach. Please like it... Less is more, right? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:00, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

No. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:57, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

~~ AirshipJungleman29 You hate me don't you? Just say it. You want me to suffer for everything I've put you through!

Aaarrghh! Fine. Just sourcing all of these will be a nightmare. Nevermind! That's okay! I can do it. I know how to do martyrdom. It's one of my many gifts.

This is gonna take awhile. (That's pretty good on long-suffering, right?)

I shall return when I have completed this onerous task. (That one lacks subtlety.) Ah well. I'll be back. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:49, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I didn't cut 3,000 words from this article so you could say "less is more" to me ;) ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:35, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

AirshipJungleman29 my dear my darling, "Less is more" is a phrase from architecture supporting minimalism. Minimalism cuts back on clutter and focuses on what's important. That's you - you practice 'less is more' in prose. It's a good thing.

I have now spent several hours researching and have decided that the claim these revivals "produced" these denominations is not correct. It is what the source said, but I think the source is stretching the facts. American evangelicalism, as such, didn't really start till the twentieth century. John Wesley didn't have his personal conversion experience till almost five years after leaving America. Mormonism had its own unique beginnings. Perhaps, the revivals made followers receptive to "new ideas", but that's not the same thing is it? I think maybe taking them out was right after all. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:35, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I trust you'll find a better way of putting them back in. I know it's difficult for you, who tends more towards the ancient, but the modern spectrum needs to be covered in detail. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Sigh. Fine. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:56, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

AirshipJungleman29 I have now done what was requested. My inability to resist your sweetness has us up to over 8800 words, but perhaps you can edit that down. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Better, but more is still needed. Presbyterians and Baptists appear fully-formed to dissent over American movements, and Quakers appear to dissent over slavery, without being mentioned or explained before. We have "American evangelicals preached a pietistic Calvinism" which is extremely unclear as Calvinism is mentioned nowhere else in the article, and what "American evangelicals" refers to is not clear either. Anglicanism, comprising 5% of Christians today, is mentioned just twice, one of which is to discuss the background of John Wesley; same goes for Lutheranism. So currently some of the biggest denominations of Christianity are pretty much ignored. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Aargh! That requires going back to the Reformation section where I originally mentioned what denominations formed - some of which has already been removed by you. I guess I can see your point here, and I suppose I agree as a general principle, but are you sure you really want me to not only put it back but expand it? Before I spend a lot of time on this, I want to know if it will get scrapped again. This is not 'less is more', this is 'more is more'. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:41, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 @Jenhawk777 One thing that we need to keep in mind is article size. The article is already about 8900 words long in readable prose. With that size we could be splitting it. Per WP:TOOBIG if it grows too much more we should split it. So we have three options:

1. Continue to add to it.
2. Continue to expand the topic, but split the article.
3. Expand some sections while downsizing others.

I have not yet read the article myself to know which option would be best. Also we don't have to if we decide that the article should not be split. We are close to the recommend size to split though. Sheriff U3 22:05, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't want to be sucked into what increasingly seems like a Sisyphean endeavor, but I would contend that WP:TOOBIG gives some latitude up to >9k words, with the potential acceptance of articles even beyond that. This is a monumental subject. It's gotta be a big article. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:30, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

We are very aware Sheriff U3; a short while ago this article was over 12,000 words (and Jen was complaining that it couldn't possibly be any shorter as everything was essential). As Pbritti notes, articles on large overview topics sometimes necessitate the exemption mentioned at WP:TOOBIG—and the "History of Christianity" is indubitably a large overview topic. My view is that around 10,000 words should be the target. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, ten thousand words is not too many for one of the most important articles on WP. Carlstak (talk) 23:56, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I am not saying we have to split it or that we should. What I am saying is that this is something we have to consider in these decisions. I also understand that some of you know this or are watching it, I just decided it was worth bringing up. Also I am well aware of the exception and do think this article qualifies for it, as like you guys have stated 'it is a over view article'. @AirshipJungleman29 I understand your point about the article having been near 12,000 words but I am concerned about now not the past. Sheriff U3 00:16, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Sheriff U3 Thank you so much for showing up and demonstrating an interest here. Splitting has been considered and discussed before - twice actually. It never gets consensus. One reason is, there is no good place to split. Between East and West? I advocated that in the last peer review and was voted down because, as others argued, it would leave WP with no overview-parent article on an important topic extensively covered on other encyclopedias. Split out each age? All those articles already exist, and the same argument of no parent article applies.

History of C needs to exist as a single article. It has to be both comprehensive and concise, which means 2000 years of global history will end up on the long side - though not the longest thanx to AirshipJungleman29. I know you mean well, but this article will never get consensus support for a split; there just isn't a good way to do so. But your help with other things would be most welcome if you are interested. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:04, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Jenhawk777 Thanks for the briefing on the article history. I see what you guys mean. Well I will see what I can do for the article. If there is anything that needs to be done right away let me know. I don't have much experience with writing articles, as I have stuck mostly to assessing and fixing minor spelling/grammar issues. Sheriff U3 04:59, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Sheriff U3 There has been a lot of moving and removing in this article and in the reshuffle, there are places where citations have gotten displaced from their original content. Places where there are three and four citations are suspect. I can use all the help I can get checking citations. It's an onerous task, but it absolutely has to be done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:19, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Jenhawk777 Ok leave it to me then, I will look through them. Sheriff U3 23:58, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

You say it so nonchalantly, Sheriff U3. The article has 634 refs—it's a mammoth task to check every citation. You'll need to coordinate with Jenhawk777 to avoid duplicating your efforts. Carlstak (talk) 02:00, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Carlstak You are right, it is a large task and will be very difficult as a lot of them are books, and it will take quite awhile. But I am willing to do it, just don't give me deadline as I don't think that we can do it very fast for that many refs. Jenhawk777 I will be starting at the beginning of the article and going through refs as they come up. Let me know if you add any new sections to the article. Sheriff U3 04:00, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

SheriffU3 Single citations have been checked. The possible problems are where there are 3 and 4 - some are multiples because sentences got combined or eliminated and the citations were left behind in the big cutback, so they may have supported something that is now gone - or vice versa which will require adjusting content accordingly. Do one section at a time, tell us which section you are working in, and just check those multiple citations rather than all of them. Sorry. I should have said that, I just didn't know you would actually help! Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:39, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Ok we I am working on Early Christianity currently. Will let you guys know when I finish that one. Jenhawk777 I can understand why you would think that I would not do it, but I try to keep my word, so if I am not going to do I will say so here. I see what you mean by citations getting misplaced, I found one that was talking about "the board that was on the cross" in section on whether or not He even existed or if He was Jew! Will be continuing to work on them. I am find the Internet Archive very helpful with finding the books. Sheriff U3 21:38, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

In Early Christianity I have checked all refs for duplicates, there are non currently. I will start working on checking them to see if they are on topic. Will be doing that later as my broswer is acting up currently. Sheriff U3 06:44, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Jenhawk777 I have checked refs for multiples up to: Renaissance and Reformation (c. 1300–1650). Sheriff U3 21:22, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

WOW!!! Thank you! Any problems? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:50, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Nope I found no duplicate refs in the sections before the linked section above. Sheriff U3 22:34, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Duplicates? I'm pretty confident there are no duplicates, but perhaps I don't know exactly what you mean. Have you checked for accuracy? Content? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:18, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I did that at first then decided to work in stages. I was planning on first checking for duplicates, then I will start on accuracy and content. This way I get a feel for how many refs we are dealing with and what the article is talking about. But if you think there are almost no duplicates then I will move on to step two. One thing that I have noticed it that it seems that a lot of the refs or from about a dozen books/authors, just different pages in those books. Sheriff U3 09:59, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Cambridge History is referenced 40 times, but they are different authors. There are others referenced several times, but with the number of citations in total at over 600, I think it's okay. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I just noticed it, I do not think it is an issue either. I should let you guys know that I am not dedicated to working on just one page. I prefer to move from article to article once I have completed a task. In this case the task I have is going through the refs on this page. So once that is done I will be moving on to other areas. Just though I should give you a heads-up about my editing habits. Sheriff U3 22:52, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Nobody here just works on one page - except me maybe, and that's temporary - only till I get this one up to FA. Don't worry about it. No one expects anything. You're a volunteer. Anything you do is appreciated, and when you hit your limit we all understand. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:10, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

What? This is an outrage! Who do you think you are, Sheriff U3, a free person or something? You can't just go gallivanting around WP from article to article like some wanton gigolo working for free. You are an indentured servant working for Jenhawk777, and you can leave when she says so.

Seriously, though, do you realize what you've signed up for? At a very conservative estimate of 5 minutes per 600 cites, it will take about 50 hours to fact check every one, because many of them don't have direct links to the source, and there will be paywalls on many of them that will have to be accessed through Wikipedia library, assuming you have full access. Do you? A more realistic estimate would probably be about 100 hours. Are you ready for that? Carlstak (talk) 01:23, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't plan on spending near that much time, just working on it as time allows and in-between my other duties on WP. Sheriff U3 04:05, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

A lot of the sources are scholarly articles that appear in academic journals. You didn't answer my question about your access, so I assume you don't have full access to needed sources to fact-check them. It sounds like you'll only be checking some of the sources. Carlstak (talk) 12:25, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Some sources checked is better than no sources checked. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:09, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Very true. The status seems rather vague at this point. Looking for some clarity about how much is actually going to be done, where it's going to be done in the article, and how will the checklist be communicated so that others who might want to jump in don't have to be reduplicate others' work. Carlstak (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Carlstak My assess currently is what ever I find on the internet, I don't have any accounts with libraries other then Internet Archive and my church. I do not have assess to Wikipedia's library. I am working on all refs before Renaissance and Reformation (c. 1300–1650) Will let everyone know when I finish that section. I will check all the refs I can. Any refs I can't check I will mention on here.

I suggest that we either create another talk page discussion about what we are doing. Or that one of us uses their user space to record what has been done. Sheriff U3 23:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, there is a statement in the article that says "Jesus' existence and his crucifixion are well attested" so is that ref you refer to as "talking about "the board that was on the cross" in section on whether or not He even existed or if He was Jew!" for that sentence? Is there a conclusion in that discussion that he did exist? If so, since we summarize not paraphrase, it would be a correct reference. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I see what you are saying, will look at the source to see if they reach that conclusion. I just looked at the page(s) that was on the ref. Thanks for pointing that out I did not think of it from that angle. Sheriff U3 19:48, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I was complaining? When did I stop? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:06, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

AirshipJungleman29 I will work on the requested material, but give me a week. I have a super busy week in RL this week, so won't have a lot of time for it till this time next week. I will do it. I'll ping you when I think it's done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:42, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

AirshipJungleman29 I have now added some material I think is pertinent, but it's in the Reformation era not the modern era, since that's where they are first referred to, and when and where they began. That leaves those references in the modern era w/o a detailed explanation at that particular place, but I can't see a solution to that. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:07, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Don't have much time rn, but at first glance there is a weirdly long quote in "Reformation" that needs sorting out; it appears to be cited to two different authors, gets rather confusing, and could do with being paraphrased. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:30, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry. Fixed it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:15, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

That paragraph still needs work. The previous paragraph ends with "three primary religious traditions emerged alongside Roman Catholicism: the Lutheran, the Reformed, and the Anglican traditions." yet this paragraph gives no indication of which is which. The first sentence about Luther's writings should be half as long. Calvinism is nowhere linked. The sentence "Presbyterianism is a form of church government that gives the laity half the power in church government, while Calvinism is its theology." is just plain confusing, and "Anglicanism was first created as the Church of England by Henry Tudor preserving catholic doctrine, establishing royal supremacy, and rejecting papal authority." isn't much better. "At the same time, the Radical Reformation began in Germany and Switzerland." ... is there anything to say about it other than that it began somewhere? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:13, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

AirshipJungleman29 Is it better? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:21, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

More detail is also still needed on modern Christianity. There is only one mention of the Second Vatican Council—probably the most important event of the largest Christian denomination in the last century—and it focuses on Protestant-Catholic ecumenism, of all things. In fact, the last time Catholicism is discussed in any sort of detail is in "Nineteenth and twentieth centuries", with the short line "The Roman Catholic Church became increasingly centralized, conservative, and focused on loyalty to the Pope", which is not great as it only takes us up until "the early twentieth century". I think quite a lot of problems stem from the far-too-heavy reliance on McLeod's "Introduction" to the final Cambridge History volume. This is an introduction, not a summary, but I think you have misinterpreted it as the latter, Jen. Quite a lot of work needed here. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:37, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Yikes! I also see some maintenance tags. Will get to work. Thank you. Ping you when it's done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:21, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Oi. When I said the lead is too verbose and needs to better adhere to MOS:INTRO and MOS:LEADREL, I didn't mean make it longer, ignore MOS:INTRO, and devote the same amount of detail to pagan Roman cults as the damn Reformation. Tempted to revert to the previous version. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:29, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I know! I know! I am apparently a word addict - I can't control my enthusiasm! I get carried away wanting every interesting story and every little obscure detail (that no one else knows) to be in there! It's so fun! I don't know what to do with myself. Mea culpa. You do the lead. I'll work on the modern era stuff. That I can do. I have RL stuff this afternoon. I'll be back tonight. I'm sorry! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:01, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I slashed it mercilessly. Is it any better? I can't tell. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:32, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

AirshipJungleman29 I have edited the lead. I moved what was previously the last sentence in the lead to be the last sentence of the first paragraph for notability. Only two sentences actually summarize the First Century section now. Is it any better?

I have edited the paragraph describing the three denominations based on the sentence in the previous paragraph on the church's place in society and its authority. Do you like it any better? Or am I missing your point there as well, since I also do not understand what you mean by "This is an introduction, not a summary, but I think you have misinterpreted it as the latter, Jen." All of the articles in this entire 9 volume set can be considered incomplete introductions to their respective topics. I don't understand the problem. Please explain.

I am beginning work on the modern era today. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

I found an additional source for the one tag in the Africa section, but its numbers are not more current, so I just added a disclaimer and the dates, so it's clear numbers are for the 90s.

I removed charismatic Christianity; your comment was on point. And I opted not to add more on the Second Vatican Council. There is only one slight reference to the Fourth Lateran council, with no discussion at all of other councils after the sixth, so it didn't seem in keeping with the rest of the article. I can change that if you feel strongly about it.

I object to the removal of two images: the map of early churches is discussed in the accompanying section, and it's one of my favorites! I put it in. Plus the image of the inside of the dome of the Hagia Sophia, which was, and even after all this time, remains, one of the world's greatest architectural marvels, should be displayed imo. I like it. I think they serve the exact function of a good image.

As always, thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Tags are addressed.

I actually think I am back to "Done enough" again. We are up to (9308 words), which is not bad considering. I have added 2 or 3 small things, and not others. I included Maimonides' great work specifically because it is Jewish, though there is an argument to be made for not including it, specifically because it is Jewish. Choosing what to include will never produce universal agreement. If you have any strong opinion about any of it, feel free to act accordingly. Am I done - with content anyway? Close to done? Can I see done from where I am? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

The lead needs work, I'll rewrite it shortly. Images which a) are hard to understand for general readers or those with accessibility issues, or b) include information completely irrelevant to the article, are lower priority and should be replaced wherever possible. Do you really need my help to understand "This is an introduction, not a summary, but I think you have misinterpreted it as the latter? Do you want to go back and read the title of the chapter in question? Sometimes I despair, I really do. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:28, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

AirshipJungleman29 I'm sorry, I guess I'm dense, but I genuinely don't understand. Yes, McLeod's chapter is the introduction to volume 9, but it does summarize in the way that any good introduction does. He begins on page 1, "These figures neatly summarize two of the central themes of this volume..." On page 2 he says "Christianity has historically been..." and gives a very nice summary which continues up to page 5. He continues to summarize what is in parts one and two of this volume thereafter, so yes it is an introduction, but it is also a concise summary, so I am missing what you are trying to say. Please don't despair of me. I am genuinely trying to cooperate. I just don't get it. Why is this a problem?

I appreciate the work on the lead. I found three errors though. Should I just fix them or bring them here? Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

AirshipJungleman29 . I am wary of causing more despair, but I am concerned enough about some things in the altered lead to risk it. Please persevere!

Use of the term "proselytizers" carries a POV and it's unnecessary. It should be omitted. When you refer to "THE apostles" it's an unestablished claim, however, "apostles" without a specific article is a general term for missionary, so with a small "a" that's okay, but the religion wasn't just in the Roman Empire even in the First century, so that claim is an error. The second and third sentences are better off as one: "Christianity was initially a grassroots movement spread by apostles, in cities, that was thereafter transformed into an organized religion with a formalized religious text."

At the bottom of the second paragraph you use "Byzantine Empire" before such a thing actually exists. The Eastern Roman Empire remained the Roman Empire, describing itself as such, until its end, and even historians don't refer to 'Byzantine Empire' as existing before Islam and eighth century wars in Eastern Europe.

The third paragraph is a bit ponderous and awkward to me. "In the Middle Ages, the tradition of Christian monasticism was prevalent: especially in Europe, monks preserved culture and provided social services." Shouldn't that be specified as western, and just be "In the Middle Ages, western monks preserved culture and provided social services."?

The sentence "No reconciliation was achieved before the Empire fell in 1453" is an error - at least according to our own article Council of Florence and to everything I can find on it. It was achieved for a year.

The sentence "Various European crises in the 14th and 15th centuries led to intense criticism of the Church, which split for decades." refers to different things as if they were the same, and that's an error.

The sentence "Intense disagreements between and within the branches precipitated the European wars of religion." can't be considered correct if those wars are about state-making more than religion, which we include as the current view.

The next two sentences are really problematic: what do you mean by "influenced"? And "grappled" seems POV and imprecise - and inaccurate and inconsistent - with what we say in the text.

"Cycles of religious revivals created dozens of denominations" but we don't list dozens.

This sentence "In the 20th century, Christianity declined in the West but grew vastly in the Global South." seems like an entirely insufficient summary of an entire century.

But hey, what do I know? Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:41, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

I've reverted to the earlier version, as my changes were clearly upsetting enough for you to get sarcastic ;)

• Having written Byzantine Empire#History, I can point you to the first paragraph of the section.
• I was under the impression that the monastic tradition was influential everywhere, but I see you have excised all mention of non-Western monasticism, so yes it shouldn't be in the lead.
• If you've read Council of Florence and come to the conclusion that "reconciliation was achieved", I think you may need glasses: "Upon their return, the Eastern bishops found their attempts toward agreement with the West broadly rejected by the monks, the populace, and by civil authorities ... The union signed at Florence, down to the present, has not been implemented by the Orthodox Churches ... The struggle for East–West union at Ferrara and Florence, while promising, never bore fruit. While progress toward union in the East continued to be made in the following decades, all hopes for a proximate reconciliation were dashed with the fall of Constantinople in 1453."
• Influence: "to affect or alter by indirect or intangible means". I imagine it's the same meaning as your version: "Parts of Christianity influenced". Mind elucidating how "grappled" is POV, imprecise, inaccurate, and inconsistent?
• We do, in fact, list dozens of denominations. You can go and count.
• The concluding sentence is the previous three sentences summarised. Less words doesn't mean that less is said. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:12, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

You're right that there is, currently, no universal agreement on when Byzantium became Byzantium, but there is convention, and most place the emergence of Byzantium after the impact of Islam. On page 39 of A Short History of the Middle Ages, Rosenwein says, "In the seventh century, the Eastern Roman Empire was so transformed that by convention historians call it something new, "the Byzantine Empire"," but I am willing to concede this point. The body will need to be adjusted accordingly. I'll do it.

I know better than to reference Wikipedia, but did I listen to myself? Of course not. In the section titled, "Council transferred to Florence and the near East–West union", that same article has this: Facing the imminent threat, the Union was officially proclaimed by Isidore of Kiev in Hagia Sophia on 12 December 1452. The Emperor, bishops, and people of Constantinople accepted this act as a temporary provision until the removal of the Ottoman threat. Yet, it was too late: on 29 May 1453 Constantinople fell. The union signed at Florence, down to the present, has not been implemented by the Orthodox Churches. It was proclaimed and signed but not implemented, so was it a temporary agreement or wasn't it?

I can live with influenced even if it isn't explained, but where is grappled in the body? It says advocated.

I count nine denominations that came out of those revivals.

It wasn't necessary to revert yourself. We can work these out. We have always found ways to work through any and all disagreements. You are a very reasonable person, so I don't feel like I can't express my concerns to you when I have them. It's safe to question you. Neither reverts nor despair are necessary. Sing along, "we can work it out, we can work it ou-out." [5] Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:08, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

AirshipJungleman29 In the spirit of cooperation, I reverted your revert and made the changes I thought were called for, which is what I should have done in the first place rather than than coming here. It is now a product of us both just like the rest of the article. So hopefully, we have worked that out (didn't you like the song?).

You have offered no further explanation for why McLeod's introduction is a problem. I often use introductions that summarize content, and there is more than one intro referenced in this article. If the intro refers to actual chapters, I cross reference, so why not use it? I'm sorry for being dense, but I honestly don't understand. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Reference checking

Carlstak and Sheriff U3 Not all 600 references need to be rechecked! Most are recent and accurate. I think it's only the combos - where there are four references in a row - that need checking. Some of those may be leftovers from original sentences which are now gone - while the citations remain. Just note which ones you have done here. If you do one or two, that will still be a help. Don't try to eat the whole elephant by yourself. Do what you can, and I will be grateful for any and all that you do. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:02, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

You know what? Nevermind. I know which ones have been done recently and which of the older ones might need rechecking, so I will do it. Don't worry about it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:05, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Map

AirshipJungleman29 What exactly do you have against the map that I keep putting back after you take it out? Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:09, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

MOS:COLOR: "Avoid using color as the sole means of conveying information. Always provide an alternative method, such as an accessible symbol matched to a legend, or footnote labels. Otherwise, blind users or readers accessing Wikipedia through a printout or device without a color screen will not receive that information." To be fair, it's possible that the colours are distinct enough that a colour-blind person is able to distinguish them, but that should be looked into. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:23, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Provision for the visually impaired is why there are - or were - alt descriptions of every image. The image is not the sole means of conveying that info either, since it is broadly referred to in the text. The image is valuable - it communicates the growth that took place in those first three centuries more powerfully than words. I don't agree this is a valid objection. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:40, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Alright, you can add it back in. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:47, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

See? Didn't I say you are always reasonable and fair - that we can always work things out? And I'm not just saying that because this time it went my way either! Thank you for this one though!

Now, about those monks - the comment you deleted - if I agree to add back in your statement "In the Middle Ages, the tradition of Christian monasticism was prevalent: especially in Europe, monks... will you agree to adding back the beginning of modern hospitals? Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:04, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for deleting your comment, I didn't mean to. Monasticism definitely needs to be mentioned, considering it has its own section (MOS:LEADREL). By comparison, the Basileias are discussed in one sentence, and the somewhat extraordinary claim that they "became the model of public hospitals into the modern day" is only cited to Crislip 2005, a source which as far as I can see never explicitly makes that claim. Putting that aside, as reviews of the book ([6] [7] [8]) make clear, his argument (that Basil had the first hospital) is not without flaws: he uses "highly idealized" sources uncritically, "summarily dismisses"/"seems to overlook" evidence that doesn't fit his argument, and doesn't even satisfactorily define what a "hospital" is in the first place. I'm not convinced he should be used in the body, never mind the lead. Comparing this one-historian argument to the doctrine underpinning 99.9% of Christianity's history is ... ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:29, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

No problem. I am giving this response due consideration, especially the criticism of Crislip. I agree that critics didn't like what is clearly a Christian bias in Crislip's book. I chose to use him anyway (per Wiki's instructions on using a biased source) because his claims about the history of Basil's hospital are pretty much universally supported by medical historians - even if literary critics justifiably hated him.

• For example, our article on the History of hospitals says: Public hospitals, per se, did not exist until the Christian period. It is cited to (Smith, Virginia (2008). Clean: A History of Personal Hygiene and Purity. Oxford University Press. p. 142. ISBN 978-0199532087.) and stands as an accepted claim.
• The next sentence from our article has Towards the end of the 4th century, the "second medical revolution" took place with the founding of the first Christian hospital in the eastern Byzantine Empire by Basil of Caesarea. It is cited to (Jonson, Albert (2000). A Short History of Medical Ethics. Oxford University Press. p. 13. ISBN 019536984X.) That too is accepted by historians.
• However, the claim of being the "first" hospital of any kind is definitely iffy, so I didn't say that. The origins of the public hospital are evidenced in the early Christian age... (emphasis mine) is in (Riva, Michele Augusto, and Giancarlo Cesana. "The charity and the care: the origin and the evolution of hospitals." European Journal of Internal Medicine 24.1 (2013): 1-4.).
• This statement: It is to the Christians that one must turn for the origin of the modern hospital is found in (Retief, Francois P., and Louise Cilliers. "The evolution of hospitals from antiquity to the Renaissance." Acta theologica26.2 (2006): 213-232.)
• In the abstract of (Parthiban, Kayal. The First Hospital: How Christian Charity Revolutionized Healthcare. Diss. 2021.) he says The so-called Basileia is regarded as the first hospital in history and provided the template for later hospitals around the globe and throughout history. but again, I don't use that, I just stick with the more supported claim. Still, it does seem significant enough - and supported enough - to include. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:40, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
  • None of those quotes (apart from the last—not an HQRS per WP:SCHOLARSHIP) verify "became the model of public hospitals into the modern day". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

    What?!? "The origin", twice, "the template" - jeez, what exactly do you need? These are secondary sources! And, sorry, I overlooked your other objections about what Crislip actually says. That can be found on pages 8 - 10 and page 16 of his book, I think. I won't put any of this in without your support, of course, but it does seem like an oversight on our part. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:55, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

    "Origin": the beginning or cause of something; "Model": something that a copy can be based on because it is an extremely good example of its type. They are not even close to synonyms. "Template" would be, but as above, PhD dissertations are not very good RS unless they have been cited in academic literature. The pages of Crislip you mentioned also don't verify the claim: the closest it comes is "the template for the late antique hospital, which emerged in the 370s.", which is also rather different from "the model into the modern day". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

    Since prototype and archetype are synonyms for either term, they seem interchangable to me, however, I acknowledge I may be guilty of summarizing what I read. I don't care enough about this to continue to research it, so I agree to let it go. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

    I mean, prototype means something along the lines of origin, and archetype means something along the lines of model, but they are very much not interchangeable with each other. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:48, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

    Okay Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:43, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Final - final, final - review

AirshipJungleman29 Concerns over comprehensiveness compelled me to add some content. We discuss theology in three other sections but not in Late Antiquity where most of it first forms, so, now of course I'm concerned because it's back up over 9000 words. Would you mind terribly taking one last look before we nominate - again? Please? With sugar on top? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:22, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I believe I noted a while ago that some form of theology should be included, so yes, go for it. 9,000 words is nothing compared to what was there before. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:19, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Already done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:54, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Also look at improving the image selection and placement. Perhaps Johnbod might have suggestions? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 07:51, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

They seem to have gone through them yesterday. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:07, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Johnbod is "he", and he is mean to certain bots (so am I;-). Carlstak (talk) 00:32, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Okay, but I'm not a bot, so ... ? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:18, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Nothing in particular, it wasn't addressed to you, but I should have made that clear. I'd just seen something he said about a bot, and it made me laugh, so I dropped that in, a total non sequitur. Sorry for the lack of clarity. Carlstak (talk) 01:56, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Some images could be improved

• File:Agape feast 06.jpg looks blurry on my screen.
• File:Book of Hours (Use of Metz) Fol. 27r, Decorated Initials.tif: this manuscript is from the 15th century but in the Early Middle Ages (c. 600–1000) section. This needs to be either moved or replaced with an image from the period, per MOS:SECTIONLOC.

Soidling (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Soidling. Images have been reviewed by Nikomaria and passed, but you are certainly welcome to do so as well. I think the original is blurry because it's old. SectionLoc doesn't say the image has to be from the period, just relevant to it. It's an illuminated manuscript, which is what the text is about, but if you can find a better one, with a US license, please feel free to do as you please. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

A question

Is it just me, or is the meaning of "Competing theological doctrines led to divisions, the response of the Nicene Creed of 325" not clear? Carlstak (talk) 02:02, 21 April 2025 (UTC) or

Fix it. This sentence has been changed three times now. I've had my fill. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:34, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Oops! I think that's been done! Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that fixed it. Are you going to drink champagne and dance a jig when the article gets its gold star? ;-) Carlstak (talk) 12:12, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Well I would but they archived it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:59, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Ah, so sorry. What a heartbreaker for you. You should get a real-life monument for your dedication. Not a fan of the review process (One editor described it as a "torture chamber") but I was ready to drink a toast in honor of your efforts. Carlstak (talk) 03:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

On second thought, I'm having a glass of wine now: Here's to you, Jenhawk777, for your ceaseless efforts to improve (and you have) a very important article, a fraught task by any measure given the nature of its subject. The article itself is a monument to your hard work, the fruit of which will be seen by hundreds of thousands of people. Salutaria! (Latin for "Cheers"). All the best, Carlstak (talk) 03:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I'll join you in that glass of wine. Thank you. Gog the Mild has offered help. He has been working on Punic Wars for 6 years now. My effort seems insignificant by comparison. A toast - to those too stubborn to admit defeat. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:27, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

That's great, Jenhawk777. Six years? I turned from a youthful, vibrant world explorer into a decrepit old man yelling at clouds in less time than that.;-) I took the liberty of linking "Punic Wars", can't believe I didn't have it on my watchlist (I'm a Carthage enthusiast). Carlstak (talk) 13:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Errors according to AI

	Text generated by a large language model (LLM) or similar tool has been collapsed per relevant Wikipedia guidelines. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I asked ChatGPT and Google Gemini to review the article text. There are many issues with using AI, and the services often fail to grasp the broader context, but at a glance, these quoted passages seemed noteworthy. "The history of Christianity began with the life of Jesus..." Simplification. Christianity as a distinct movement developed after Jesus’ death, through the interpretations and teachings of his followers, especially Paul. Jesus himself did not found a religion called "Christianity." Thi I agree, however, other editors didn't agree with me when I tried to leave Jesus out. There was no consensus in support of your position - which was also mine - and I see now that there will never be consensus for that. In this wall of text, there are multiple claims that "simplification" equals error, and that is an error in itself. As a broad overview article, aimed at sophomores, that leaves out supporting details, it must include simplifications. They don't qualify as factual error. It is a simplification to claim Christianity began with Jesus, however, it is not an error as such since without Jesus there is no Christianity. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC) "Christianity... reached critical mass by the third century when it grew to over a million adherents." The estimate of over a million adherents by the 3rd century is disputed and uncertain. Correction: While Christianity had grown significantly, demographic estimates vary greatly, and the figure may be speculative. Thi All numbers concerning this era are speculative. This Fousek, Jan; Kaše, Vojtěch; Mertel, Adam; Výtvarová, Eva; Chalupa, Aleš (2018). "Spatial constraints on the diffusion of religious innovations: The case of early Christianity in the Roman Empire". PLOS ONE. 13 (12): e0208744. Bibcode:2018PLoSO..1308744F. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0208744. PMC 6306252. PMID 30586375. is the best most recent information from sociology and that's what it says. References Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC) "The support of the Roman emperor Constantine... was important in transforming it into an organized religion with a formalized religious text." Misleading implication. Correction: Constantine supported Christianity and helped legalize it (Edict of Milan, 313), but the formation of the New Testament canon was a gradual and complex process that was not completed in his time. The canon was not formalized until the late 4th century. Thi How does its end make the statement of its beginning an error? However, I did originally have those as separate ideas and another editor combined them. I disliked that sentence too, but I am not the boss of everything. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC) "The Nicene Creed of 325 addressed divisions." Oversimplification. Correction: The Nicene Creed addressed the Arian controversy, particularly the nature of Christ. It did not fully resolve divisions, and disputes continued (e.g., Arianism persisted for centuries). Thi That's in the body, so again, not really an error as a summary statement in the lead.Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC) "The subsequent 5th-century Nestorian schism produced the Church of the East and Oriental Orthodoxy." Inaccurate conflation. The Nestorian schism (Council of Ephesus, 431) is associated with the Church of the East. Oriental Orthodoxy split after the Council of Chalcedon (451), mainly over the issue of Christ’s two natures (Miaphysitism vs. Dyophysitism). These are two different schisms. Thi Again, in the body. Apparently you have a real dislike of the kind of summary necessary for the lead, but that doesn't make it wrong. Both those schisms were in fact over Nestorius' and Christ's nature.Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC) "Competeing [sic] theological doctrines led to divisions, which were addressed by the Nicene Creed of 325. The subsequent 5th-century Nestorian schism produced the Church of the East and Oriental Orthodoxy." While the Nicene Creed (325 AD) addressed theological disputes, particularly Arianism, it didn't resolve all divisions definitively or prevent future ones. It was a crucial step in establishing Trinitarian orthodoxy, but theological debates continued and led to further schisms. The Nestorian schism (stemming from the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD) primarily led to the separation of the Church of the East. The Oriental Orthodox Churches separated later, following the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD, over Christological differences (Monophysitism vs. Dyophysitism). Grouping them together as being produced by the "5th-century Nestorian schism" is an oversimplification and conflates two distinct schisms with different theological roots and historical timelines. Thi Again, all of this detail is in the body. It's hard to take these comments seriously at this point, since it has become clear you have not read through the entire article, but are instead firing out the window as you drive by the lead. In order to keep the lead to the appropriate number of paragraphs, how would you summarize all of this? Perhaps you have a better approach. I would be glad. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC) "Christianization continued in Europe and Asia..." Imprecise phrasing. While missionary activity reached parts of Asia (e.g., Persia, India), Christianization was much more extensive in Europe than Asia during the Middle Ages. Thi SO? Being more extensive doesn't indicate the claim is wrong. Of course it's imprecise. Precision is in the body. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC) "The church fought heresy and established courts of inquisition." Anachronism. The formal Inquisition was not established until the 12th–13th centuries (e.g., the Papal Inquisition in 1230s). Gregorian Reform (11th century) predates the Inquisition. Thi Those centuries are the High Middle Ages. In what way is that anachronistic? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC) "Artistic and intellectual advances among western monks laid the foundations for the Renaissance and the Scientific Revolution." While Western monks certainly played a vital role in preserving classical knowledge and fostering intellectual life during the Middle Ages, attributing the foundations for the Renaissance and Scientific Revolution solely to them is an oversimplification. The Renaissance drew on broader societal, economic, and intellectual developments, including the rediscovery of Greek and Roman texts (often via Islamic scholarship), the rise of urban centers, new economic systems, and a shift in intellectual focus. The Scientific Revolution had complex roots, including medieval scholasticism, but also new methodologies and observations that went beyond the monastic tradition. Monks were important contributors, but not the sole foundation. Thi 'Solely' is not in the sentence. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC) "In the 14th century, the Western Schism and several European crises led to the 16th-century Reformation when Protestantism split-off from the Catholic church." This is generally accurate, but it could be more precise. The Western Schism (1378-1417) was a crisis of papal authority and church unity within the Catholic Church, not a direct precursor to Protestantism in the same theological vein as the Reformation. While it certainly weakened the papacy and contributed to calls for reform, it wasn't a direct "cause" in the way theological disagreements and figures like Martin Luther were for the Reformation. The phrase "led to" might suggest a more direct causal link than was truly the case. It was more of a contributing factor to the climate that enabled the Reformation. Thi In the body. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC) "Some Protestants created biblical criticism while others responded to rationalism with Pietism and religious revivals that created new denominations." While elements of this are true, attributing the creation of "biblical criticism" solely to Protestants in this context is an oversimplification. Early forms of critical approaches to biblical texts predate the Reformation, and Catholic scholars also engaged in forms of biblical scholarship. Thi That's sourced, but if you have a source that says otherwise, bring it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC) "Protestants advocated for religious tolerance..." Generalization. While some Protestant groups (like Anabaptists or certain Enlightenment-influenced thinkers) promoted religious tolerance, many Protestant movements were also intolerant and engaged in persecution (e.g., Calvin’s Geneva, Lutheran intolerance of Anabaptists). Thi Of course it's a generalization. It's the lead. Some groups were no doubt intolerant, but that by itself doesn't prove they didn't advocate for tolerance for themselves. Again, do you have a decent source that says Protestants were against religious tolerance? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC) "Christianity constituted an ‘intense community’..." (Rodney Stark) Contested claim. Stark’s sociological interpretation is one theory. While it’s influential, other scholars disagree with his growth models and the social dynamics he emphasizes. Thi Yes, in the body in the paragraph that includes that claim, it is presented as contested. But I don't include any of his growth models or his theories of social dynamics, so that's just a straw man. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC) "The Trinity... defines the Holy Spirit, Father, and Son as one God in three persons." Theological development oversimplified. While Trinitarian ideas were present early on, the fully developed doctrine of the Trinity (with the technical terminology of one essence, three persons) was not finalized until the 4th century, especially at the Council of Constantinople (381). Thi That's what it says. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC) "Women comprised significant numbers of Christianity's earliest members" and "could attain greater freedom..." Generally accurate but debated in detail. The role of women was significant in early Christianity, but the extent of empowerment and leadership remains debated among historians. Over time, their roles became increasingly restricted by ecclesiastical structures. Thi but not an error. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC) "Christianity became favored by emperors and Judaism came to be seen as a heresy" Judaism was not officially labeled a "heresy" in the way that internal Christian deviations were. The Christian concept of heresy was applied to deviations within Christianity, not to Judaism. Correction: Judaism came to be marginalized and legally restricted in Christian imperial policy, but it was generally not defined as a heresy in theological terms. Thi 'To be seen as' is another way - a shorter way - of saying this, so not an error. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC) "Aside from the Visigothic Kingdom, Jews and Christians peacefully coexisted, for the most part, into the High Middle Ages" Oversimplification. Jewish-Christian relations varied greatly by region and time. While some periods were relatively peaceful (e.g., under Islamic rule in Spain or early Carolingian times), others saw persecution well before the High Middle Ages. Correction: A more cautious phrasing would be: "In many regions, Jews and Christians coexisted with periods of peace punctuated by episodes of tension or persecution." Thi Aside from the fact that your sentence leaves out the Visigoths who did persecute Jews, that it doesn't explain what periods or when or how long they lasted, or what is meant by "tension", that modification isn't completely bad. It needs more precision and a source, but change it if you like. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC) "In the fourth century the percentage of Christians was as high in the Sasanian Empire as in the Roman Empire" Likely incorrect. Christianity remained a minority religion in the Sasanian Empire. While it had a strong presence, especially in Mesopotamia, it did not reach the same proportions as in the Roman world. Correction: "Christianity had a notable presence in the Sasanian Empire, particularly in Mesopotamia, though it remained a minority religion." Thi Not. Christianity was in Iraq in the first century, and was not persecuted until the fourth century, so it prospered and grew and had multiple bishoprics by the time of persecution.Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC) "Christian institutions in Asia or East Africa never developed the kind of influence that the European churches and Byzantium held." Eurocentric oversimplification. The Church of the East and the Ethiopian Church were deeply influential in their own regions and for centuries had broad missionary and theological activity extending into India and China. Correction: "Christian institutions in Asia and East Africa developed along independent trajectories with regional influence, though they were less integrated into the political structures of empire compared to their European and Byzantine counterparts." Thi So your sentence they were less integrated into the political structures of empire compared to their European and Byzantine counterparts indicates it's not really an error at all. Statements of their influence are in other places in the body. Another indicator these are just drive-bys. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC) "Traditionally, scholars have seen the writings of Christians accusing other Christians of violent acts as evidence of widespread Christian violence toward pagans..." Slight mischaracterization. Early scholarship did often take patristic rhetoric at face value, but more recent scholarship has reevaluated the archaeological evidence to suggest a more limited and localized pattern of violence. Suggestion: Clarify the historiographical development. Thi Still working on this section. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC) "Only four [temple destructions] have been confirmed by archaeological evidence." This figure is accurate per some sources (e.g. R. MacMullen, J. Hahn), but the definition of "confirmed" is debated, and not all scholars agree on the narrow count. Suggestion: Add a qualifier like "according to available archaeological evidence, only a few can be definitively confirmed." Thi working. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC) "Christian scriptures were formalized as the New Testament...by the fourth century." While much of the New Testament canon was widely accepted by the fourth century, the canon was not definitively fixed until later councils (e.g., Synod of Hippo 393, Council of Carthage 397). Correction: "The Christian biblical canon began to stabilize by the fourth century, though complete agreement on the contents of the New Testament developed gradually." Thi How is that different? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC) "This led to the first separation between East and West." (re: Nestorius and the Council of Ephesus) Misleading. This was a major schism, but not the first East-West split (which generally refers to the later East-West Schism of 1054). Also, the Nestorian schism primarily involved the Persian Church, not Constantinople or Rome. Correction: "This resulted in one of the earliest major schisms between Christian communities in the Roman and Persian Empires." Thi It wasn't with the Persian empire! And this division was the first split in Christianity - what split was earlier? The popular understanding of East-West split is completely beside the point! Is this accurate or isn't it? It is. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC) "Until 751, the Pope remained a subject of the Byzantine emperor." Technically correct, but oversimplified. In practice, papal autonomy grew gradually from the late 6th century onward, especially under Gregory I. After the weakening of Byzantine influence in Italy (e.g., the Lombard threat), the Pope began to act more independently. Suggestion: A more accurate formulation would be: "Though formally under Byzantine rule until 751, papal authority in Rome increasingly operated with autonomy, especially after the decline of imperial control in Italy." Thi OMG, a wordy restatement that adds nothing that isn't already there. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC) "The Council of Chalcedon...influential...most of Christianity accepted the Chalcedonian Definition." Needs nuance. While the Western Church and much of the Eastern Church accepted Chalcedon, several large Christian communities rejected it, including the Coptic, Armenian, and Ethiopian Churches, who formed the Oriental Orthodox tradition. Correction: "While widely accepted in the Roman and Byzantine churches, the Chalcedonian Definition was rejected by several major Eastern churches, which became known as the Oriental Orthodox." Thi OMG! That's what it says! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC) The text continues to be largely accurate and well-written. Here are some points that could be seen as minor inaccuracies, slight oversimplifications, or areas where more precise phrasing might be beneficial: "In 313, the emperor Constantine, a self-declared Christian, issued the Edict of Milan expressing tolerance for all religions." Refinement: While widely attributed to Constantine, the Edict of Milan was actually an agreement between Constantine and Licinius, and it was issued in 313. More importantly, it wasn't strictly an edict in the formal sense, but rather a letter to provincial governors. Its primary effect was to grant religious freedom to all, ending the persecution of Christians and restoring confiscated church property. Constantine's "self-declared Christian" status is also debated by some historians, who suggest his conversion may have been more gradual or politically motivated, though he certainly favored Christianity after 313. The text's phrasing is common and generally accepted, but this is a point of academic discussion. Thi And it's unnecessary detail for this article. This isn't a history of Constantine or a history of the Edict.Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC) "Before the fourth century, Judaism had been an approved religion, while Christianity was persecuted as an illegal superstition; during the fourth century, Christianity became favored by emperors and Judaism came to be seen as a heresy." Refinement: While Christianity was indeed persecuted and Judaism was generally tolerated (as a long-standing, established religion with special status), calling Judaism a "heresy" during the fourth century in the same way Christian doctrines were deemed heresies might be a slight overstatement or misapplication of the term. Judaism was often viewed with suspicion and its followers faced increasing legal restrictions and social pressures as Christianity gained dominance, but "heresy" primarily applied to deviations within Christianity. It was more often seen as a separate, older, and now superseded religion, rather than a theological error from within the Christian fold. The term "heresy" implies a deviation from an accepted orthodoxy, and for Jews, their faith was not a deviation from Christianity. Thi Seen as - 'seen as' - not defined as - which is a fair, and short, summary of the change in attitude. Look, you took a whole paragraph to replace what the article uses two words to describe. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC) "Aside from the Visigothic Kingdom, Jews and Christians peacefully coexisted, for the most part, into the High Middle Ages." This is a significant oversimplification. While there were periods and places of relative peaceful coexistence, the relationship between Jews and Christians throughout Late Antiquity and the early Middle Ages was complex and often marked by increasing legal discrimination, social pressure, and occasional violence, even outside the Visigothic Kingdom. Imperial laws increasingly restricted Jewish life, and forced conversions, though less common than later, were not unheard of. The idea of "peaceful coexistence for the most part" might downplay the significant challenges and forms of oppression faced by Jewish communities. Thi increasing legal discrimination, social pressure, and occasional violence didn't really occur much before the 1200s. That's the High Middle Ages. Again, bring an actual source that says otherwise. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC) "In 408, Augustine defended the government's violent response asserting that coercion could not produce genuine conversion, but it could soften resistance and make conversion possible. According to Peter Brown, Augustine thus 'provided the theological foundation for the justification of medieval persecution'." This is generally accurate in terms of Augustine's influence, particularly on the Donatist controversy. However, it's worth noting that Augustine's views on coercion evolved, and his famous phrase "compel them to come in" (from Luke 14:23) was used to justify the use of force to bring schismatics back to the Church, but he generally argued against outright killing or extreme violence. While he laid a foundation for later medieval persecution, it's important to understand the context of his arguments against the Donatists, whom he saw as endangering souls by their schism. The text is accurate in stating Brown's interpretation of Augustine's legacy in this regard. Thi So not an error? Why is it here on the wall then? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC) "Controversies over how Jesus' human and divine natures coexisted peaked when Nestorius declared Mary as the mother of Jesus' humanity, not his divinity, thereby giving Jesus two distinct natures." While Nestorius did emphasize the distinction between Jesus' two natures and preferred the term Christotokos (Christ-bearer) over Theotokos (God-bearer) for Mary, it's a simplification to say he "declared Mary as the mother of Jesus' humanity, not his divinity, thereby giving Jesus two distinct natures." Nestorius believed in the full divinity and full humanity of Christ, but he was concerned about blurring the distinction between them, fearing that Theotokos implied that the divine nature itself was born. His theological opponents accused him of separating Christ into two persons. The condemnation of Nestorius was largely due to concerns that his Christology led to a division of Christ into two separate "persons" rather than a single person with two natures. His position was more nuanced than "giving Jesus two distinct natures" in a way that created two separate entities. Thi Short summaries; short summaries of complex ideas require simplification. Do that in less than a paragraph.Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC) "Two groups, one mostly Persian and the other Syrian, separated from Catholicism; Persians became the Church of the East (also known as the Assyrian, Nestorian, or Persian Church), while the majority of Christians in Syria and Mesopotamia became the Syrian Orthodox Church (Jacobite)." This requires clarification regarding the Council of Ephesus (431) and the subsequent Council of Chalcedon (451). The Church of the East (often referred to as Nestorian for historical reasons, though they reject the label) did indeed separate after the Council of Ephesus, as they did not accept the council's condemnation of Nestorius. They were largely located in the Persian Empire, outside the Roman sphere. The Syrian Orthodox Church (Jacobite), along with other Oriental Orthodox Churches (Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopian, Eritrean, Malankara), separated after the Council of Chalcedon (451). Their primary theological disagreement was with Chalcedon's affirmation of Christ as "one person in two natures," which they saw as leaning too close to Nestorianism. They affirmed a "Miaphysite" Christology (one united nature of the incarnate Word), distinct from both Chalcedonian "two natures" and perceived Nestorian "two persons." The text incorrectly lumps the separation of the Syrian Orthodox (Jacobite) Church under the Nestorian schism caused by Ephesus (431). These were two distinct schisms with different theological points of contention and different timelines. Thi They are presented that way. Think Sophomores. Think Overview. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC) "The church of this age was only indirectly influenced by the Bible." Overgeneralization and misleading. While vernacular biblical knowledge was limited, especially among laity, the clergy were thoroughly trained in the Bible, and biblical texts were central to monastic and ecclesiastical life. Calling the influence "only indirect" is a mischaracterization. Thi biblical texts were central to monastic and ecclesiastical life Were they? Weren't they more likely to have their daily reading from the church Fathers and other commentaries? I think the observation is not just about monks though. Perhaps it should be restated to more completely represent the source. I'll do that. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC) "Relics and holy men became increasingly important in this age of uncertainty." Oversimplification. While true to a degree, relics and saints had already held an important place in Late Antiquity. Their cultic significance increased but was not entirely a new development of the Early Middle Ages. Thi Please. Where does it say it was an entirely new development? It says "increasingly important" indicating it already had some importance. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC) "Medical practice was highly important, and medieval monasteries were best known for their public hospitals, hospices, and contributions to medicine." Exaggeration. While monasteries preserved some classical medical knowledge and provided basic care, they were not primarily known for medicine. Their medical role was limited and not systematic. This reflects more modern romanticism than historical reality. Thi Not. This is sourced to multiple sources. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC) "In 635, the Church of the East brought Christianity to the Chinese Emperor Taizong." Misleading phrasing. Christianity (Nestorianism) was introduced to China by missionaries of the Church of the East during the Tang dynasty, and the Nestorian Stele (781) records this history. Emperor Taizong allowed the presence of Christians, but there is no evidence that he personally converted or that the faith gained mass acceptance under his rule. Thi Where does it say he converted? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC) "After 700, when much of Christianity was declining..." Inaccurate. Christianity was not "declining" in the 8th century. While it faced setbacks in parts of Asia and North Africa due to Islamic expansion, it was simultaneously expanding in Europe, especially in the Germanic, Anglo-Saxon, and Slavic regions. Thi Not. It was in fact declining in those areas conquered by Islam. The fact it was growing elsewhere does not contradict that it was declining in others. That was an important point for at least one editor of the After WWII era. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC) "In 800, Clovis’ descendant Charlemagne became its recipient when Pope Leo III crowned him emperor." Confused lineage. Charlemagne was not a descendant of Clovis but of the Carolingian line that had supplanted the Merovingians (Clovis’s dynasty). His family served as mayors of the palace before becoming kings. (Clovis I died in 511 CE. Charlemagne was a descendant of the Frankish Merovingian dynasty, of which Clovis was a significant early king, but Charlemagne himself was a Carolingian, a different dynasty that eventually supplanted the Merovingians. While there's a continuity in the Frankish kingdom, to say Charlemagne was "Clovis' descendant" might imply a direct, unbroken Merovingian lineage for Charlemagne, which isn't accurate. He was a successor in ruling the Franks, but not a direct dynastic descendant in the immediate sense of the term.) Thi Wrong again. Charlemagne was in fact a descendent of Clovis. Their lineage is well-established through genealogical research. There are no other implications. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC) "The Papacy became free from Byzantine control, and the former lands of the Exarchate became States of the church." While Charlemagne's crowning in 800 (and the Donation of Pepin in 756) certainly cemented the papacy's independence from Byzantium in practical terms and laid the groundwork for the Papal States, the statement "The Papacy became free from Byzantine control" is slightly too definitive for this single event. The process was gradual, starting much earlier with the Lombards' pressure on Italy and the Byzantine Empire's declining ability to protect Rome. The crowning of Charlemagne was a symbolic culmination, not the sole moment of liberation. The "States of the Church" (Papal States) had begun to form through donations and papal administration of Roman territory before 800, though Charlemagne's reign further solidified and expanded them. Thi That the process was gradual does not say it didn't happen. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC) "The rosary was created after veneration of Mary became central in this period." Chronological inaccuracy. The structured Dominican rosary dates to the 13th century, but earlier forms of Marian devotion using prayer beads existed. Marian veneration developed gradually from Late Antiquity onward, not suddenly in the High Middle Ages. Thi Wrong again. The 12th and 13th centuries saw the rise of the "cult of the Virgin," which had not existed in that particular form previously. It was driven by both theology and art and was probably a response to both crusading and the "suffering" Christ. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC) "The cult of chivalry declined during the 1400s." Oversimplification. The ideals of chivalry persisted into the early modern period, though their political and military relevance waned. The "decline" is not a sharp cutoff in the 1400s but a long, uneven process. Thi Where does it claim a sharp cutoff? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC) Minor Issues and Nuances: "Monasteries served as orphanages and inns…" → This is broadly true, but not uniformly. The function varied regionally and temporally. "Canon law developed oaths of loyalty…" → Canon law codified some practices, but it did not develop feudal oaths independently. "The invention of indulgence was a result of the Crusades." → Indulgences existed earlier but were systematized and expanded in the context of the Crusades. "Until the eighth century, most of Western Europe remained largely impoverished, politically fragmented, and dependent on the church." This is generally true for much of the early medieval period. However, the rise of the Carolingian Empire under Pepin the Short and especially Charlemagne in the late 8th and early 9th centuries introduced a period of greater political centralization, stability, and cultural revival (the Carolingian Renaissance) in much of Western Europe, which challenged the idea of constant impoverishment and fragmentation. While the church remained vital, the degree of dependency shifted with stronger secular rulers. The statement is more accurate for the period before Charlemagne's consolidation of power. "The Church of the East, which had separated after Chalcedon, survived against the odds with help from Byzantium." This is a factual error. As noted in the previous analysis, the Church of the East separated after the Council of Ephesus (431), not Chalcedon (451). They did not accept the condemnation of Nestorius at Ephesus. The Oriental Orthodox Churches (like the Syrian Orthodox/Jacobite) separated after Chalcedon. Furthermore, the Church of the East, being largely within the Persian Empire, generally had a relationship of tension or independence from Byzantium, not "help from Byzantium." They were often viewed with suspicion by the Byzantines due to their theological differences and their location in the rival Sasanian (and later Islamic) Empire. "At the height of its expansion in the thirteenth century, the Church of the East stretched from Syria to eastern China and from Siberia to southern India and southern Asia." This is largely accurate in terms of geographical reach, reflecting the impressive missionary efforts along the Silk Road. However, "Siberia" might be an overstatement for consistent presence or significant congregations. While there may have been isolated trading posts or small communities, widespread presence across Siberia is unlikely. "Southern India and southern Asia" is correct. "Their second separation took place in 1054 when the church within the Byzantine Empire formed Byzantine Eastern Orthodoxy, which thereafter remained in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, not the Pope." This sentence connects the 1054 East-West Schism (between Rome and Constantinople) to the Church of the East's "second separation," which is confusing and incorrect. The 1054 schism was between the Catholic Church (led by the Pope in Rome) and the Orthodox Church (led by the Patriarch of Constantinople and other Eastern Patriarchs). The Church of the East had already separated centuries earlier. The phrase "Their second separation" implies a continued direct relationship between the Church of the East and Western Catholicism that was then severed again, which isn't the case. The 1054 event refers to the Great Schism between the Western (Catholic) and Eastern (Orthodox) branches of Christianity. "The Christian wars of reconquest, which lasted over 200 years, had begun in Italy in 915 and in Spain in 1009 to retake territory lost to Muslims, causing fleeing Muslims in Sicily and Spain to leave behind their libraries." While the Reconquista in Spain indeed began in the 11th century (1009 is a reasonable start date for more concerted efforts), framing the "Christian wars of reconquest" as starting in "Italy in 915" in the same breath as the Spanish Reconquista is a bit misleading. While there were efforts to push back Saracen raids in Southern Italy and Sicily, calling them a "reconquest" of the same scale or with the same continuous aim as in Spain, beginning in 915, isn't standard terminology. The Norman conquest of Sicily (11th century) was a major event in removing Muslim rule there, but it was distinct from the Iberian Reconquista. The core of the Reconquista refers to the Iberian Peninsula. "Monks revived the scientific study of natural phenomena, which led to the Scientific Revolution in the West." Similar to the earlier point about the Renaissance, attributing the direct lead to the Scientific Revolution solely to monks "reviving the scientific study of natural phenomena" is an oversimplification. While medieval monastic scholarship (and particularly scholasticism in the universities, which emerged from cathedral schools, not exclusively monasteries) laid important groundwork for rational inquiry and the transmission of knowledge, the Scientific Revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries involved a much broader range of factors, including new empirical methods, technological innovations, the printing press, and shifts in worldview that extended far beyond monastic institutions. Monks played a part, but they didn't "lead to" the Scientific Revolution in a linear, exclusive fashion. "In 1382, Wycliffe created the first English translation of the Bible." Wycliffe did not personally translate the entire Bible; the translation was produced by his followers, likely under his direction. Moreover, this translation was from the Latin Vulgate, not the original Hebrew or Greek. "Between 1525 and 1534, William Tyndale used the Vulgate and Greek texts from Erasmus to create the Tyndale Bible." Tyndale specifically rejected the Latin Vulgate and translated directly from Hebrew (Old Testament books he completed) and Erasmus's Greek New Testament. He intended to bypass the Latin entirely. "A reunion agreement between the Orthodox and Catholic churches in 1452 was negated by the Fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Empire in 1453..." True that the Council of Florence (1439–1445) produced a formal (but unpopular) union, finalized in 1452. However, this was rejected by most Orthodox clergy and laity even before 1453. So while the fall "sealed" the matter politically, the theological opposition was already intense. "This led to the state confiscating churches and turning them into mosques." The Ottoman state did convert major churches (e.g., Hagia Sophia), but this was not a universal or automatic policy. Many churches continued to operate under the millet system. The statement overgeneralizes Ottoman policy. "Protestant pressure produced the Lukaris Confession embracing Calvinism." While Cyril Lucaris was influenced by Reformed thought, his Confession (1629) was condemned by the Orthodox Church and never became official doctrine. It is more accurate to say he attempted to introduce Calvinist elements into Orthodoxy but failed. "Jeremias II (1536–1595)... founded the Orthodox Patriarchate of Russia..." Jeremias II recognized the existing Moscow patriarchate in 1589, raising it to canonical legitimacy, but he did not found it per se. The Russian Church had declared its independence earlier. "The sixteenth-century success of Christianity in Japan was followed by severe repression, such as the crucifixion of the 26 Martyrs of Japan." This is accurate, but incomplete. The martyrdom occurred in 1597, and broader persecution (including mass executions) intensified after 1614, with a full ban and underground survival (Kakure Kirishitan) afterward. The statement could better indicate the scope and chronology. "The Catholic church became one of the largest holders of black slaves." This is highly misleading. While individual church institutions, especially in Latin America, owned slaves (e.g., Jesuit missions, some monasteries), the claim that the Church as a whole was one of the largest slaveholders lacks strong quantitative evidence and should be significantly nuanced. It's better to state: "Some Catholic orders and institutions owned enslaved people, especially in colonial Latin America and Africa." "Former slaves returned to West Africa 'with Bible in hand', founding Freetown..." Freetown (Sierra Leone) was founded in 1787 by the British as a settlement for freed Black people from Britain and Nova Scotia. Many were Christian or became so later, but this happened over time. The idea that returnees founded it with evangelistic purpose simplifies a complex history involving British colonial authorities and philanthropy. "Jesuits... working exclusively in the native language to form an 'agrarian collective'..." While broadly true, "agrarian collective" is anachronistic and possibly misleading—it evokes 20th-century communist models. Jesuit missions were theocratic and communal, but under firm ecclesiastical control, not collective farms in the modern sense. "To combat fears that Jewish converts were conspiring with Muslims to sabotage the new state..." The primary concern of the Spanish Inquisition was religious orthodoxy, especially of conversos (converted Jews suspected of secretly practicing Judaism). While the Reconquista context involved Islam, the conspiracy fear cited here is exaggerated and lacks direct primary-source support. "Edicts issued at the Diet of Worms in 1521 condemned Luther." Yes, the Edict of Worms declared Luther an outlaw. But it’s important to note it was issued after the Diet, by Emperor Charles V—not by the Diet itself. "Henry preserved Catholic doctrine and the church's established role in society." True of early Henrician Reformation, but under Edward VI, Anglicanism adopted many Protestant doctrines. So Anglicanism’s identity evolved, and the statement should reflect that Henry's role was foundational, not doctrinally definitive for Anglicanism as a whole. "The Jesuits... adopted military-style discipline and strict loyalty to the Pope." Accurate in general terms, though "military-style discipline" is metaphorical. The Jesuits had a centralized, hierarchical structure, but did not operate like an army. "In 1309, Pope Clement V fled Rome's factional politics by moving to Avignon in southern France. By leaving Rome and the "seat of Peter" behind, this Avignon Papacy, consisting of seven successive popes, unintentionally diminished papal prestige and power." While Clement V's move to Avignon was indeed driven by factional politics in Rome and his desire to be closer to the French king, the phrase "fled Rome's factional politics" simplifies a complex situation. Clement V was French, and the political climate in Italy was unstable. The move was initially seen by many as temporary. The unintentional diminishing of papal prestige and power is a widely accepted consequence. "In the 16th century, baptized Kongolese Christians were taken by Portuguese slavers to the Caribbean and Brazil where there are clear traces that they evangelized among their fellow sufferers. Thereafter, former slaves returned to West Africa "with Bible in hand", founding Freetown, which played a central role in the Christianization of West Africa." This sequence of events needs a crucial correction. While there were indeed early Christian communities in Kongo and some Kongolese Christians may have been enslaved and taken to the Americas, the founding of Freetown in Sierra Leone (late 18th century) and the return of "former slaves with Bible in hand" is primarily associated with freed slaves from the Americas (especially Nova Scotian Settlers and Maroons from Jamaica), often with British abolitionist support, not primarily former Kongolese slaves specifically returning from the Caribbean and Brazil. The Sierra Leone Company was instrumental. While there might have been some individuals with Kongolese heritage among them, the primary narrative of Freetown's founding as a Christian center involves the transatlantic slave trade's later abolitionist efforts and the resettlement of freed slaves. This is a significant chronological and demographic inaccuracy. "Women in the Middle Ages were considered incapable of moral judgment and authority." This is an overgeneralization and requires significant nuance. While medieval society was patriarchal and limited women's public roles, to say they were "considered incapable of moral judgment and authority" is too strong. Women did exercise moral authority within their families, in monastic life (as abbesses, as the text itself later notes), and through various spiritual roles. The text immediately contradicts this by citing Hildegard of Bingen, Elisabeth of Schönau, and Marie d'Oignies as "distinguished leaders of nunneries, exercising the same powers and privileges as their male counterparts." The initial statement should be rephrased to acknowledge the societal constraints while not negating the agency and authority women did possess in specific contexts. Perhaps: "Women in the Middle Ages faced significant societal constraints regarding public authority and formal moral judgment within male-dominated institutions." "For Protestants, authority was in the priesthood of believers and Scripture." While "priesthood of all believers" and sola scriptura (scripture alone) are key tenets of Protestantism, stating "authority was in the priesthood of believers and Scripture" without further clarification might slightly understate the role of ordained ministry and confessional documents in various Protestant traditions. However, compared to the Catholic emphasis on hierarchical authority and tradition, it accurately captures a fundamental difference. "Quarreling royal houses, already involved in dynastic disagreements, became polarized into the two religious camps. In 1562, France became the centre of a series of wars, of which the largest and most destructive was the Thirty Years' War (1618–1648)." The statement that France became the "centre" of the Thirty Years' War is misleading. The Thirty Years' War began in the Holy Roman Empire (Bohemia), and while France became a major player (initially supporting Protestant powers to undermine Habsburg dominance), it was not its "centre" in terms of its origin or the primary theater of early conflict. France was involved in its own Wars of Religion (which started in 1562, as correctly noted), but these were distinct from the Thirty Years' War, even if they contributed to the broader European religious tensions. The Thirty Years' War drew in many European powers, with the Holy Roman Empire and central Europe being the main battleground. "Abuses from absolutist Catholic kings gave rise to a virulent critique of Christianity that first emerged among the more extreme Protestant reformers in the 1680s..." Factual Error / Misleading Chronology: The critique of Christianity—especially its institutions and doctrines—did not begin with Protestant reformers in the 1680s. Anti-clerical and critical sentiments go back to Erasmus, Luther, and early Reformation figures in the early 1500s. Enlightenment critiques, especially secular and atheist, became prominent in the mid- to late 1700s, not the 1680s. While Protestant reformers certainly contributed to critiques of absolutism and religious intolerance, and the 1680s (e.g., Glorious Revolution, revocation of the Edict of Nantes) were crucial, it's an oversimplification to say the virulent critique of Christianity first emerged among extreme Protestant reformers as an aspect of the Enlightenment. Criticisms of Christian institutions and doctrines predate the 1680s (e.g., certain Renaissance thinkers, early rationalists). The Enlightenment's critique of Christianity often came from deist or atheist perspectives, not necessarily "extreme Protestant reformers." While Protestants pioneered some elements that contributed to Enlightenment thought (like religious tolerance), the virulent critique of Christianity itself was often from figures who were moving away from traditional Christian belief, not just reforming it. "For 200 years, Protestants had been arguing for religious toleration..." Overgeneralization: While some Protestants (like certain Anabaptist groups or Baptists) argued for religious toleration, others (notably Calvinists and Lutheran states) enforced strict religious conformity and persecuted dissenters. The statement simplifies a complex and conflicting record. "Pioneered by Protestants, Biblical criticism advocated historicism and rationalism..." Inaccurate Attribution: While Protestants did contribute, especially in German universities (e.g., J.G. Eichhorn, Schleiermacher), biblical criticism also had secular and Catholic contributors. The French Enlightenment, especially figures like Voltaire, played a major role in the rationalist critique of scripture. "Pietism...spread to the Thirteen Colonies where it contributed to the First Great Awakening..." Largely accurate, though a nuanced clarification: Pietism influenced the First Great Awakening (esp. through figures like Zinzendorf and Moravians), but it was one of several movements, including Puritan revivalism and Presbyterian evangelicalism. "Presbyterians and Baptists contributed to revival... which formed political parties..." Factual Inaccuracy / Overstatement: While religious revivals shaped political discourse, it's inaccurate to claim they formed political parties. They influenced ideologies, regional alignments, and attitudes toward authority, but direct party formation from revivalism is not supported by mainstream historiography. "Thomas Jefferson adapted his earlier Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom into the First Amendment..." Misleading Attribution: Jefferson authored the Virginia Statute (1786), but the First Amendment (1789) was primarily authored by James Madison. Jefferson’s influence was ideological, but he was not involved in its drafting. "During the French Revolution, Jefferson co-authored the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen recognizing freedom of religion." Factual Error: Thomas Jefferson was NOT a co-author of the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. He was in Paris as the U.S. Minister to France at the time and was consulted by Lafayette (who was a principal author) and others, and he offered advice and suggestions. However, he did not "co-author" it in the way one would understand direct authorship. This is a clear factual inaccuracy. The Declaration was largely a product of French Enlightenment thinkers and revolutionaries. "It did not prevent radical revolutionaries from violently seeking the Dechristianization of France during the French Revolution leading the Eastern Orthodox Church to reject Enlightenment ideas as too dangerous to embrace." The connection between the Dechristianization of France and the Eastern Orthodox Church's rejection of Enlightenment ideas is a logical and plausible interpretation, but it's presented as a direct cause-and-effect that might be too strong without more specific historical evidence for this direct linkage across such a vast geographical and cultural divide. The Eastern Orthodox Church's caution toward Enlightenment ideas (especially radical ones) stemmed from its own theological traditions and its relationship with state power, not solely from observing events in revolutionary France, though those events certainly provided a stark example of anti-religious zeal. "The rise of Protestantism contributed to... modern capitalism in Northern Europe..." Contested Claim: This is based on Max Weber’s thesis from The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, but this claim is highly debated. Many scholars argue that capitalist practices predated Protestantism (e.g., in Catholic Italian city-states), and that economic factors were more influential than religious ones. "Radical revolutionaries... led the Eastern Orthodox Church to reject Enlightenment ideas..." Factual Inaccuracy: The Eastern Orthodox Church's opposition to Enlightenment ideas was already present due to its traditionalist theology, not solely a response to the French Revolution. The Greek Orthodox world, for example, had complex engagements with Enlightenment thought, particularly in the Balkans. "Mormons... sought to create a religious utopia." Essentially accurate, though simplified. The early Latter-day Saints indeed aimed at a theocratic communal society, especially in Nauvoo and later Utah. However, the term "utopia" is loaded—it would be better to say they sought a restored Zion-like society. "Restorationists... emphasized biblical authority and baptism..." Partial representation: While this is broadly accurate, different groups (e.g., Jehovah's Witnesses, Adventists) had distinct doctrines (e.g., end times, dietary laws, Sabbath observance) that went far beyond baptism and biblical authority. "The 300-year-old trans-Atlantic slave trade, in which some Christians had participated, had always garnered moral objections, and by the eighteenth century, individual Quakers, Methodists, Presbyterians, and Baptists began a written campaign against it." The claim that the transatlantic slave trade "had always garnered moral objections" is problematic. While scattered individual voices of dissent existed earlier, widespread, organized, and influential moral objection to the slave trade was not consistent throughout its 300-year history. Many Christian institutions and individuals participated in or condoned slavery for centuries, often rationalizing it with biblical interpretations. The significant, organized, and effective abolitionist movement (starting in the late 18th century) was a relatively later development, not a continuous historical feature. This needs to be rephrased to reflect the historical reality that objections became widespread and organized much later in the trade's history. "This ideological opposition eventually ended the trans-Atlantic slave trade..." Oversimplification / Causal Overreach: The end of the slave trade involved complex economic, political, and military factors, including British naval enforcement, economic shifts, slave revolts, and international diplomacy—not only ideological opposition. "Protestant missionaries... resulted in the spread of literacy and indigenization." Partial Truth / Colonial Context Ignored: While missionary work often spread literacy, it also involved cultural imperialism, suppression of local religions, and collaboration with colonial powers. The positive framing omits this critical context. "Protestant fundamentalism in America appeared to be dying by 1930." Oversimplification: Fundamentalism retreated from public view (especially after the Scopes Trial in 1925), but it remained strong in Bible colleges, rural churches, and radio ministries. The movement transformed, but did not die. "Pope Pius XI declared the irreconcilability... with totalitarian fascist states..." True, but requires context: Pius XI did denounce fascism in Mit brennender Sorge (1937), but earlier concordats, such as with Mussolini (Lateran Treaty, 1929) and Hitler (Reichskonkordat, 1933), complicate this narrative. The Vatican cooperated with fascist regimes under certain conditions. "Before 1945, about a third of the people in the world were Christians..." Overgeneralization. Estimates from historical demography (e.g., World Christian Encyclopedia) suggest Christianity accounted for roughly 30% of the global population around 1900, but data from the pre-1945 period is sparse and uneven, and this proportion fluctuated depending on region and source. Claiming a stable one-third figure before 1945 lacks precision. "About 80% of [Christians] lived in Europe, Russia, and the Americas." Likely accurate for around 1900, but too vague for the entire pre-1945 period. Clarification: By 1900, Christianity was heavily concentrated in Europe and the Americas (especially due to colonization and missionary activity), but stating "80%" without specifying the date or source is imprecise. "Christianity in Southeast and East Asia, especially Korea, grew faster after colonialism." Oversimplified. Christianity grew in Korea both during Japanese colonial rule (1905–1945) and especially after the Korean War (1950s–1970s). In China, Christianity was also expanding rapidly post-1979, but growth was suppressed or underground during much of the colonial and revolutionary periods. "The Council on Foreign Relations reports that the number of Chinese Protestants has grown by an average of 10% annually since 1979..." Outdated and uncertain statistic. While a 10% growth rate was commonly cited in the early 2000s, recent crackdowns on Christianity in China (especially under Xi Jinping) have complicated this picture. It is no longer accurate to suggest uninterrupted rapid growth since 1979. "Highly authoritarian and totalitarian governments have brought about crises and decline in 186 countries." Major factual inaccuracy. There are not 186 authoritarian or totalitarian governments in the world. As of 2024, the world has around 195 recognized sovereign states, and most are not authoritarian. This figure is likely a misrepresentation of data from Pew or Freedom House regarding religious restrictions or freedom ratings, but it should not be stated as a count of authoritarian regimes. "Anti-Christian persecution has become a consistent human rights concern." Largely accurate, though general. No correction necessary, but specifying examples (e.g., Nigeria, China, North Korea) would improve clarity. "Less than 40% of Orthodox Christians favor reconciliation with the Roman Catholic Church." Needs source clarification. Some surveys (e.g. Pew 2017) indicate that attitudes toward Catholic-Orthodox reconciliation vary significantly by country. The claim may reflect Russian Orthodox sentiment more than a pan-Orthodox view. "The Holocaust forced many to realize that supersessionism ... can lead to hatred, ethnocentrism, and racism." Interpretative but broadly supported by post-Holocaust theological discourse. No correction required, though "supersessionism was never an official doctrine" is debatable—it was widespread in premodern theology. "Liberation theology was combined with the social gospel..." Oversimplification. Liberation theology in Latin America developed largely independently of the earlier American social gospel movement. While there are thematic overlaps (e.g. concern for the poor), the two arose in different contexts with different theological frameworks. "The feminist movement of the mid-twentieth century began with an anti-Christian ethos..." Overgeneralization and misleading. While some mid-20th-century feminist thinkers were critical of Christianity (e.g., Simone de Beauvoir), many feminists were also Christian and developed Christian feminist thought from the beginning. Labeling the movement as having an "anti-Christian ethos" is reductive and inaccurate. "Modern motivation toward missions has declined in some denominations." Vague. This is true for mainline Protestant denominations in the West, but evangelical, Pentecostal, and global South churches have significantly increased mission activity in recent decades. Needs contextual nuance. "In 2020, 57 countries had "very high" levels of government restrictions on religion, banning or giving preferential treatment to particular groups, prohibiting conversions, and limiting preaching. As of 2022, highly authoritarian and totalitarian governments have brought about crises and decline in 186 countries." These are statistics that come from reports by organizations like Pew Research Center or Open Doors, which track religious restrictions and persecution. The numbers are often based on specific methodologies for defining "very high" restrictions or "crises and decline." Assuming these numbers are quoted from reliable sources as indicated in the text (which references Pew), there's no immediate factual error, but readers should be aware such statistics are derived from specific criteria. / End of quotes from ChatGPT and Gemini.

Thi (talk) 13:24, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Thi I tried, I really tried to be responsive, but I'm not doing any more of this. It isn't what it claims to be. It isn't about errors. The entire wall of text contains virtually no factual errors. Instead, it is one claim after another of things you have read into the text that isn't actually in the article at all. This is just one example: "Christianity constituted an ‘intense community’..." (Rodney Stark) Contested claim. Stark’s sociological interpretation is one theory. While it’s influential, other scholars disagree with his growth models and the social dynamics he emphasizes.

... "Yes, in the body in the paragraph that includes that claim, it is presented as contested. But I don't include any of his growth models or his theories of social dynamics..." You object to things I don't say and overlook what is said.

This is just a list of repeated problems with simplification, which is necessary and required for an article of this type; you don't quibble with those facts, yet you still list them as errors.

You make several errors.

And no sources for any of it.

All told, this is a complete waste of space and time. I'm annoyed with myself for responding. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

AI is on the whole worthless regarding opinions on content in WP articles. It sucks at understanding WP-PAG, is extensively trained on WP itself and whatever social media it gets its hands on. It's common that AI makes up both WP-PAG and the sources it refers to.

More thoughts on this at WP:LLM. Some recent press at Wikipedia Pauses AI-Generated Summaries After Editor Backlash and Trump officials downplay fake citations in high-profile report on children’s health.

@Jenhawk777, if it were me, I'd ignore any AI-generated "help" on this as a waste of editors time. There is way too much chaff, but often very plausibly written. And very easy to make. That said, there is probably some wheat in there too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:44, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not following my own advice, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:19, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

@Tpbradbury, you might be interested in this. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:27, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales@Newslinger, I know you've shown interest in AI-use on WP, perhaps you'll find this thread interesting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:36, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

There simply isn't a reasonable way to introduce 97 proposals to an article in one comment in a talk page discussion. (I may have miscounted, but it's approximately that many.) Especially on a complex topic like the history of Christianity, carrying out 97 simultaneous debates in the same discussion section and having them make sense is simply not practical in Wikipedia's talk page system.

Thi, I've collapsed your LLM-generated comment per WP:AITALK. I recommend sifting through the LLM-generated suggestions and re-proposing the most compelling ones in separate sections with your own policy-based commentary (written in your own words), one at a time and not all at once. Editors are human and can only process so much information at once. — Newslinger talk 16:37, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Newslinger There weren't any compelling ones - imo.

There were multiple complaints about "oversimplification". Wikipedia takes complex topics and simplifies them to the level of the average sophomore. Simplification and oversimplification are not the same thing, but perhaps they look the same to Thi. This article simplifies. None of these were factual errors, you understand, they were, in his words, about 'nuance'.

There were multiple instances where he read something into the text that wasn't there.

There were instances when he overlooked what was in the text and commented as if it wasn't.

One genuine problem has been fixed by Gråbergs Gråa Sång, so it's good.

His issue with the "perspective" on slavery was previously dealt with through an RFC that did not support him. I modified that paragraph according to his comments anyway - long before the FAC. He's still complaining. I have no idea what could be left to do there. I think it's done.

That wall of text was not one factual error after another as it claimed. It was mostly crap. No response required. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:15, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

@Thi, I assume you read this WP:TEXTWALL you just posted here. What are your thoughts on its quality? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:48, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

The article text clearly contains some factual errors and inaccuracies – despite the good work of the editors. For example, already in the introduction, the phrase “Protestants advocated for religious tolerance, separation of church and state” is oddly non-neutral. The history of Christianity has also included opposition to these social questions. The text seems to still contain some America-centered emphasis (Jefferson) and a particular perspective on some issues such as the slave trade. I have previously pointed out problems in the introduction. Those particular passages have now been removed, but at first, there was no willingness to make such corrections. Therefore, it is unlikely that the article text can be corrected without providing background information on the talk page. What actions will be taken depends on the editors. If the goal is featured article status, it cannot be supported without correcting the inaccuracies. --Thi (talk) 14:43, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi Thi You say there are factual errors, but I can't use AI as a source, since AI uses what's on the internet - including us - as part of its source, and we aren't allowed to use WP as a source.

You use as an example of error Protestants advocated for religious tolerance, separation of church and state” is oddly non-neutral. The history of Christianity has also included opposition to these social questions. This sentence in the lead refers to the Reformation. That should no doubt be clearer, still, even if you are correct and Christianity did also oppose these ideas, which I question, that doesn't prove the original statement is in error. Both things can be true. It just indicates the other should be added.

But I am left wondering when and how Christianity opposed these principles. I'm aware that their political interpretation and application is debated in modern day America, but that's not the same as opposing them. But if you have a quality source that says what you have claimed here, it can and should be added in its appropriate time period and in the lead.

If you have followed this article at all, you will know that I argued against adding in Jefferson, but the other editor was insistent and did it themselves without my agreement. I merely opted not to edit war over it. It's even more out of place in the mention of the French Enlightenment imo. They didn't care what I thought.

As a broad overview article, many supporting details must be left out in order to include as many main points as possible, and if any of those main points have been omitted, then, of course, they should be added. What would one of those main points about the slave trade be? The previous modifications you asked for on that topic were in fact made.

The claim there is a "particular perspective on some issues such as the slave trade", might be fair since there are only four sentences and they do reflect its end as one of the few historical incidences of ideology triumphing over economics. But again, if you have a source that says something else - a source not AI - bring it and add it in. I have no problem with sourced additions that focus on main points. I have, will, and do, always, support those no matter who makes them.

I will attempt to respond to your above text, but as it is all completely unsourced, no changes can yet be made. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Thi There is no need to be as adversarial as the wall of text implies. Why not work with me instead? This article is a huge undertaking, and I can use all the help you can give. Wikipedia always works best when editors with different views collaborate. We can produce a higher quality article through consensus than either of us could alone. I will no doubt argue some points until convinced, but I promise, I will - eventually - welcome any and all well-sourced input. Just make one or two suggestions at a time, not a wall of them, and have some good sources that are not AI. Don't just go away. You have shown you care about this article. I love that. Come on back and let's talk. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:35, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Miscellaneous thoughts

@Jenhawk777, I tried to adjust the lead's final line, but I'm still not sure its optimal. I think in general, the "After World War II" section is hard to parse. I'm getting that the "Worldwide"tries to have a geographical divide combined with a chronological approach (implied by the last paragraph being on the 21st century?). But the locations are occasionally mixed in with eachother. I think you might consider sticking to bigger observations with less specific data (maybe including the data in citation quotes?).

Another thought: I'm not sure "postcolonial theology emerged globally from multiple sources" is enough. The point was that it originated from non-white sources; yes "multiple" still, but in this sense more specific. Aza24 (talk) 22:25, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Another: first para... preacher in Galilee and the Roman province of Judea ... religious, social, and political climate in both regions was extremely diverse ... descended from Israel's ancient king, David, who would save Israel.

But Galilee was in Judea, right? The "and" makes them sound like separate regions, seemingly confirmed by the "both regions". Perhaps only Judea is needed. Does "both regions" even intend to refer to these? It's too far from the opening for this to be obvious. The double Israel seems redudant as well. What about:

"preacher in the Roman province of Judea ... religious, social, and political climate in Israel was extremely diverse ... descended from the ancient king, David, who would save the region."

Similarly, this line is highly redundant with the double religious and political labels: The religious, social, and political climate in both regions was extremely diverse and characterized by turmoil with numerous religious and political movements

ps. are these comments helpful? Happy to leave more, otherwise kick me out if you need editing space! – Aza24 (talk) 22:37, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Aza24 (talk) First, your comments are always helpful. Please know that. I like the adjustment to that last sentence in the lead. Consider this as a consensus for that one.

The numbers in that WWII section are proving problematic for a couple of editors who only want percentages. Sources don't always provide percentages however, and I think it would be OR to figure it out myself. How would you fix that?

Does your source say "non-white sources" for post-colonial theology? I don't think mine does. It's an important point, so if you have a source for it, please do add that.

OMG! Thank you! If only you had showed up at the FAC! Borsoka required including both Galilee and Judea as a change during the last FAC. It said Judea, but that wasn't enough in his opinion. The "descendent" sentence is another FAC addition, and I agree it's redundant. Perhaps if you make the change, it will stick. He required multiple similar changes during the FAC review. When I didn't do one, he immediately opposed. Afterwards, I figured out that I had misinterpreted what he meant. He misused a phrase, but he didn't care. It was on me to figure it out. Anything like this that you find objectionable, please feel free to fix it. I have complete trust in the quality of your work.

Another editor objected to mentioning Jesus at all since Jesus remained Jewish his entire life, but there is no consensus for leaving Him out entirely. Christianity is hard to explain w/o Jesus.

Other editors objected to the absence of more about Jesus, wanting his birth stories and all of it. There's no consensus for that either, however, so I have avoided that obstacle.

A "background" section has been discussed, but I am against it because of limited space, and while it might be nice, it's unnecessary, but your views on that would also be valuable. I could be wrong!!

Everyone has an idea of something missing that should be added, but I have used several histories plus I have checked timelines to identify the most significant events and main points. I am quite sure I have included all significant topics. The amount of detail on each one varies depending upon importance.

Not kicking you anywhere! Thanking you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:50, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Neutrality

To everyone who has ever been interested in this article, I am soliciting comments on the neutrality of the "Religious violence" section in Late Antiquity. All comments and suggestions will be appreciated. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:12, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

I have a better idea Jenhawk777; please justify the neutrality of the "Religious violence" section in Late Antiquity, and I'll see if I can poke holes in the argument. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:01, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello my friend AirshipJungleman29 Thank you for showing up and participating. I am trying to be careful, so I appreciate your input. This new section presents the past view and current views. It summarizes the trends of modern scholarship with the major trend presented first. The problems of the second trend, as mentioned in the source, are included. It recognizes violence of different forms such as laws and the legal violence toward the Donatists. It follows multiple sources. It presents the majority view. It summarizes the current state of scholarship on this topic from more than one article that does exactly that. If you are going to poke any holes, they better be well sourced. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:46, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

I just have one source, actually—the most important when discussing the neutrality of a Wikipedia article: WP:NPOV. This section is the only one in the article that discusses competing historiographical viewpoints in any significant manner. That implies that the scholarship dispute over religious violence in the Late Antique Roman Empire is by far the most important for scholars of the history of Christianity. Is that the case? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:44, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

It was the most important for reviewers at the FAC. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:20, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, I think the answer to your question may very well be yes. It is important in a significantly different way from all other topics - there was an accepted view for about 200 years - and then scholarship did a 180. Historiography of the Christianization of the Roman Empire has that discussion. I know of no other topic or time period that has had the kind of change that Late Antiquity has had. It's kind of like Einstein and Newton or the advent of quantum physics - and yet not like that either - because, in this case, it isn't really possible to reconcile new and old. People have trouble letting go of prized old theories, and that is part of what sank the FAC. Gog recommended that I do an RFC about it before coming back to FAC, but I want to be sure this is covered sufficiently and fairly and in a neutral manner. So, is it or isn't it? Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:35, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

We're getting there, Jen, be patient. There's one thing that has to be established before discussions on neutrality can take place, and that is intelligibility—you have to understand the material before you can judge it. As it stands the section is not really clear. It took me around five readings to decipher that "the first type" does not refer to the traditional viewpoint; that "others" refer to a separate part of "a new generation", etc. I can only imagine that a secondary school student who is expected to read this article will just give up. I don't know what the fifth paragraph (beginning "New public identities ... ") is on about in the slightest. Trim down the verbosity and focus on the details. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:49, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

~~ AirshipJungleman29 I am never impatient. See if that works. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:32, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

So, does your lack of response mean you don't like the change? Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

No, it means I haven't found the time to get back to it. Once again, patience! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:28, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

The next question is one of WP:UNDUE weight. Why are the two examples of temple destruction, Mamre and the Serapeum, needed? Does the preceding sentence "For example, temple destruction is attested in 43 cases in the written sources, but only four are supported by archaeological evidence." not sum up the situation well enough? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:44, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I apologize for being impatient - 2 days seems like a long time on WP - but perhaps that's relative to it being you who is usually so prompt. Three examples do not seem like undue weight to me since it is something that has proven to be controversial. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

AirshipJungleman29 I think I will be forced to get that RFC over this one, so the three examples may be needed. You might as well look at Colonialism too. I am endeavoring to address every criticism, even later off-the-cuff comments, from those FAC reviewers who opposed. None of this says anything different than has already been said, since it was and is representative of current scholarship, but hopefully it says it in a different enough manner it will be acceptable - at least to the majority - forming a consensus. I will also add some in the WWII section. Sigh. I'm sorry. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:51, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

The issue is that the examples don't actually add anything. There is one temple that wasn't really destroyed and one that was. So what? "For example, temple destruction is attested in 43 cases in the written sources, but only four are supported by archaeological evidence." tells you that already. I don't see where the controversy can lie. Either you disagree with the highlighted statement or you don't. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:31, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Well obviously I agree with it. I don't see where there can be controversy either, but another editor does. They opposed the FAC based on this, and in discussion on their talk page, they continue to disagree no matter how many sources I bring them. Multiple examples can be seen as redundant, but is that opposition not sufficient reason for leaving them? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

AirshipJungleman29 Okay, I am doing what you ask, because it's you. I am trusting you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, if you really think that the person who says "of course we can find sources for a particular perspective, especially on a gigantic topic where just about every available view has been put into print at some point" will be convinced by more sources, you can provide them? I doubt it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:42, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

No, you're right. I know it. There is no convincing them. I don't think they ever actually read anything I posted. So I have to focus on consensus, and intelligibility like you said, and hope to the WP gods that this is sufficient. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:35, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

So what's your conclusion on neutrality? Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:40, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

That I'm in no place to draw a conclusion just yet, other than "hope to the WP gods" never being a viable strategy when you haven't tried the strongest one. But anyway. Next question: what's up with the page number citations for Mayer? What does p. 10 refer to? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:53, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Botheration! I was looking at the PDF not the book. The quote is there in her chapter. Fixed it. What's my strongest strategy? Besides having you of course... Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Basing every argument/inclusion/exclusion primarily on WP:PAGs, of course. This presumes that you know them inside out (hence my recommendation you take other articles through FAC first...) and that the prose itself has zero inaccuracies, but it allows you to defend the article you have written from the start, rather than making innumerable concessions you don't particularly agree with. Anyway, back to the section. I know concision is your least favourite topic, so I'll just ask you to run through the WP:REDEX exercises (especially the latter ones) before I get my hatchet out again. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:04, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Hah! It didn't occur to me to defend it - I thought arguing was a losing tactic - I thought I was just supposed to cooperate in whatever they asked, as far as possible, w/o OR, or going against sources. I accept the need to do other FACS. I will eventually, but GOG also recommended reviews, which I am doing. Combined, this will take months, which I accept, but in the meantime, I am trying to be sure this one is as perfect as I can make it. I can do the exercises. I wouldn't look for big changes in my writing. Some of what you previously axed out had to be put back for other editors during review, so it's hard for me to get past the idea that some of that "extra" content matters. I promise I will try. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:05, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

This is not a question of “extra content”, rather just words which don’t add anything new and are just there for the sake of existing. Have a look at the first paragraph of the section, and see if you can spot any redundancies. Gog’s advice is correct, but there is nothing better than having success under your belt rather than seeking endlessly to prove yourself. I have many times responded to requests to include/exclude specific information with a simple "no" or "why?" ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:29, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the religious violence section? I suppose the second sentence could stop after tradition, but I like the specificity. The second half of that sentence could read "others focus on what writings were intended to produce" without completely losing the comparison which is implied. Fine. See. I don't say no. That may be my problem... I want to say yes. I want to be the yes person. Sigh. Time for me to go to sleep now. Tomorrow. Thank you for your help, as always. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:54, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

AirshipJungleman29 Done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:59, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I saw. Very busy weekend ahead; don't expect much from me. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:30, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Me too. I just got home from being gone for the weekend. We timed that well didn't we? Mind-meld... Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:09, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

"Like the mass, there are certain elements of Star Trek that are immutable, unchangeable. The mass has its Kyrie, its Sanctus, Agnus Dei, Dies Irae, and so on... Star Trek has its Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Klingons, Romulans, etc., and the rest of the universe Roddenberry bequeathed us. The words of the mass are carved in stone, as are fundamental elements—the Enterprise, Spock, the transporter beam, and so forth—in Star Trek." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:44, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

~~ AirshipJungleman29 I put some that I thought was necessary for accurate understanding back in. I also added that "clarification" you tagged, though I'm not sure it does that in reality. It's the explanation there is. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

"Wendy Mayer writes that "Emerging from the results of these kinds of studies is a Late Antiquity in which religious violence was more local and sporadic than the narrated violence suggests, in addition to being misattributed or over-reported.""

"Although there were violent incidents, they were few, local, limited, occasional and at ordinary levels."

Words for the sake of words. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:09, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

No, they aren't. What is the purpose of having this section? It is to communicate where current scholarship is on this topic, but it is also to communicate how and why scholarship has changed. The quote contains the main point of the whole section.

I think that last sentence is yours. I only added the 'ordinary levels' part to convey that violence in this era was not different from other eras. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:08, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Your original last sentences were "There were violent incidents. However, their number was not high, and most were local and limited.". I (after shortening it, obviously) combined it with the quote. You may read the quote as "the main point of the whole section"; others may read it as a simple attribution of a point of view from one author. This is why I bring it up in a section on "Neutrality". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:14, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Okay so it's 'ours'. I'll think about the rest and get back to you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:27, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Others might read it as a single attribution, and that might actually be fine because it's a comment that summarizes what's happened in the entire field. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:11, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

... according to one person, yes. Anyway, moving on. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 07:44, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Fine. I took out the quote. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm not pouting. Really. I'm not. I cooperated, so I am breaking my arm patting myself on the back. Is it okay now? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:11, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, pats on the back deserved. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:40, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:32, 10 July 2025 (UTC)