# Talk:History of Christianity

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)

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)

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:
Continue to add to it.
Continue to expand the topic, but split the article.
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." [1] 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)

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)

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 ([2] [3] [4]) 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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)