# Talk:Pelagianism

Last sentence of the first paragraph in the history section:
"Augustine also taught that a person's salvation comes solely through an irresistible free gift, the efficacious grace of God, but that this was a gift that one had a free choice to accept or refuse."
If the grace of God is irresistible, how do we have a free choice to accept or refuse it? 8 May 2013  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.26.208.18 (talk) 02:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC) 

Perhaps Augustine's statement is unclear, but this is not for Wikipedians to ask or judge, only whether Augustine's teachings have been clearly represented here. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 04:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I checked on the date for the Council of Ephesus, and according to Justo Gonzalez's A History of Christian Thought, Vol. I, the council took place in 431, not 432.  I'm going to change it, but please let me know if my source is inaccurate.
Could you kindly make reference to the original works of the early Christian fathers, rather than to the modern compendium Dictionary of Early Christian thought? That would be most helpful.128.143.131.152 (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC) 

Mans freewill is only within the boundaries of his soul state.  John 6:44 says"noone can come to me(Jesus)unless the Father who sent me draws him". If we are unredeemed then we can only choose sin, but through salvation we now have a new choice; a choice to live as Jesus has.  Freewill can be a tricky subject based on terminology.  We should be careful of the verbage we use brethren.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.215.11.14 (talk) 04:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC) 

Augustine of Hippo, who taught that a person's salvation ultimately comes through the grace of God but that a person must also perform freely chosen good works. Augustine also believed in a form of predestination, but not to the point that it violated or negated man's free will
I think this choice of words tends to misrepresent St. Augustine's position on the state of man's will.  In A Treatise Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, Book IV he wrote this:

free will is assuredly inherent in the nature of man, but that now, however, it is so enslaved that it does not avail to the doing of righteousness, unless when it shall have been made free by grace
I'm amending the article appropriately.
Travis Carden 05:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

In the article it says;

Augustine also believed in predestination.
What purpose does this statement have to the preceding one or the article? I also wonder what the reference is? 
--Wer2chosen 21:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I find the wording in the sentence very unobjective: 
"According to Pelagian doctrine, since humanity is no longer in need of any of God's graces beyond the creation of will,[1] Jesus' sacrifice is devoid of its redemptive quality." 
This wording clearly betrays a non-Pelagian bias, which is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. A more neutral wording would be: 
"According to Pelagian doctrine, because humanity does not require God's grace for salvation (beyond the creation of will),[1] Jesus' execution is therefore devoid of the redemptive quality ascribed to it by orthodox Catholic theology." 24.116.151.23 16:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC) Aelswyth

I feel that the quotes by early church fathers and by Pelagius need to be formatted so as to be more clear.  It may also be worthwhile to omit those quotes that are deemed less important by theologists, so as not to inundate readers with too many details.  I have not flagged the article for cleanup or length -- Just a suggestion.  Ysageev (talk) 05:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree.  I am trying to clean this up.  What a mess.  Latinist (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Likewise, the paragraph on Pelagius' beliefs begins "In Contrast" but follows a bunch of quotes against original sin.  The impression given is that church fathers generally agreed with Pelagius.--Semiautomata (talk) 16:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

In the comparison section, only primary sources are cited and a synthesized conclusion is implicit. This is in violation of WP:OR. --Flex (talk/contribs) 13:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It is. Someone knowledgeable about the topic has considerable work to do in improving the article. -Phoenixrod (talk) 06:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

In the article, I read

St. Jerome suggests he was of Scottish descent but in such terms as to leave it uncertain as to whether Pelagius was from Scotland or Ireland.
Now, I can believe that this sentence is perfectly correct, but (given some of what I've found in Wikipedia, and being unfamiliar with the relevant passage in Jerome) I can also believe that Jerome merely suggested that Peligius were Scottish or Irish, with later readers misinterpretting Jerome simply to say that Peligius were Scottish.
Speaking of the relevant passage, it would be good to have it and the rest of Jerome's response cited in the article. —SlamDiego←T 14:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The Jerome reference is because he stated that Pelagius was "stuffed with Scottish porridge".  While the  most trustworthy witnesses, such as Augustine, Orosius, Prosper, and Marius  Mercator, are quite explicit in assigning Britain as his native country, as is  apparent from his cognomen of Brito or Britannicus, Jerome (Praef. in Jerem.,  lib. I and III) ridicules him as a "Scot" (loc. cit., "habet enim progeniem  Scoticae gentis de Britannorum vicinia"), who being "stuffed with Scottish  porridge" (Scotorum pultibus proegravatus) suffers from a weak memory. Rightly  arguing that the "Scots" of those days were really the Irish, H. Zimmer  ("Pelagius in Ireland", p.20, Berlin, 1901) has advanced weighty reasons for the  hypothesis that the true home of Pelagius must be sought in Ireland, and that he  journeyed through the southwest of Britain to Rome. --Bardcom (talk) 18:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Unless I am misinterpretting things, then, Jerome suggested that Peligius was Irish, using a term whose meaning has since shifted, which shift has caused some later readers to mistakenly infer that Jerome were suggesting that Peligius were a Scot. —SlamDiego←T 03:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
It's a bit more difficult than that because back then, your "tribe" was more important than geographic location of birth.  So he could have been considered "Irish", but born in Scotland, or vice versa....  --HighKing (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe 'scotti' in Jerome's text will be referring to people who lived in Ireland; this people did later move across to Scotland but in the late 3rd/4th centuries are restricted to Ireland. See for example this footnote [no. 22] correcting a similar problem with Bede's work (picked at random from a selection) 
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=egy-k7LV-e4C&pg=PA365&lpg=PA365&dq=scotti+pelagius&source=web&ots=C6mMWJ8V8t&sig=4ybgET1FOhZO8BTdeD3nE_bYxZ0&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result . fluoronaut (talk) 07:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The article should maybe discuss philosophical relations between pelagianism and some rather common manifestations of atheism. The idea that there is no Adam, that man is totally free, that human nature is uncorrupt, that humanity is the sole bearer of its destiny, etc, these are all ideas which are somewhat held by contemporary atheists, at least to a certain point of comparison. ADM (talk) 06:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Your points are better suited to the misotheism article as they are points mostly made by Nietzsche. The miso article primarily because Nietzsche was deterministic in his eternal reoccuring rather then Metaphysically libertarian.
LoveMonkey (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the meaning of the two following sentences. Aren't the contradictionary?
"According to Pelagian doctrine, because men are sinners by choice, they are therefore criminals who need the atonement of Jesus Christ. Sinners are not victims, they are criminals who need pardon."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vigfus46 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC) 

The section added which list the views of Church Fathers which are said to attack original sin in most cases do not.  There appears to be a misunderstanding in that section of the word "nature."  Furthermore, no explanation is given for these quotes, nor is it explained how they contradict the doctrine of original sin.  It seems to be better suited for Wikiquote.  Would there a problem deleting it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.209.54.48 (talk) 23:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC) 

which section is this referring to? Retonom (talk) 08:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

This article, especially the introductory paragraph, is deeply anachronistic.  It reads more like a segue in an Arminian/Calvinism debate than like an actual discussion of the Pelagian heresy on its own terms.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.211.131.228 (talk) 20:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC) 

The material below was submitted by an anon editor and moved here for comment.  WBardwin (talk) 09:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

...although it is worth noting that in some of his letter fragments, he himself dissents from a number of the views traditionally associated with his name.

The Dominican priest Matthew Foc was condemned by Otto Ratzinger, now Benedict XVI as a Pelagianist.John D. Croft (talk) 10:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

"Augustine ... an irresistible free gift, the efficacious grace of God, but that this was a gift that one had a free choice to accept or refuse."
This sounds like something irresistible can be refused. Am I missing some nuance? If so, could this be rewritten for laymen or another article created to handle it? If there is a (seeming) contradiction in Augustine's writings, could both sides be cited from his writings?
99.91.13.183 (talk) 17:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I for one think that every article needs a "in popular culture" section, and I find that this article is rather lacking of such a section. For starters, there's St. Toirdealbhach in T. H. White's The Once and Future King. If somebody were to make a section detailing some of the more famous adherents, it would be much appreciated. 2602:304:CD9D:9980:6C94:AB43:7B7:23E7 (talk) 19:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Pelagius was identified as an Irishman . . .
Terms indicating 'nationality' are misleading and unhelpful and suggest that it is known which part of Britain he came from, but this is not known(Pamour (talk) 09:31, 23 June 2018 (UTC)).

These sentences: "Jerome was also an ascetic and critical of earthly wealth, so it is not entirely clear why he opposed Pelagianism. Historian Wolf Liebeschuetz suggested that his motive was envy of Pelagius' success.[22]" seems quite out of place. Maybe he just opposed Pelagianism because he thought Pelagius was wrong...? There are plenty of reasons to be ascetic; one doesn't have to be a Pelagian to be ascetic. I recommend deletion of these two sentences. Catholic things (talk) 18:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

The information is correctly sourced and accurately reports what the source says. (Also, as stated elsewhere in the article Pelagianism was similar to Jerome's teachings in some respects, and Jerome did not criticize it from the same direction as Augustine.) buidhe 00:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Buidhe, I changed seven instances of WP:WTW and you said a claim has been proven false. Which ones? There are seven you just took on there. Prove all of them false? I don't think so. Jerome was an ascetic? Elizium23 (talk) 00:30, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Article refers to both Gerald Bonner and Ali Bonner as Bonner.  Needs tidying, preferably by someone who knows which is which.  If still an issue at my next visit, I will do this myself, guided by the male and female pronouns in the article. Geofpick (talk) 12:52, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I have clarified all instances that appear in the running text of the article. The citations are unambiguous because they link to the publications based on year of publication. (t · c) buidhe 12:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pelagianism/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Aircorn (talk · contribs) 02:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi Buidhe. Willing to review this. Don't know much about the subject so expect a few questions. AIRcorn (talk) 02:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I look forward to them :) (t · c) buidhe 06:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


### Comments
During the fourth and fifth centuries, the church was experiencing rapid change due to the Constantinian shift to Christianity. Shouldn't it be Church. and maybe a link to Christian Church.
Harrison doesn't capitalize it. "Christian Church" is a specifically Protestant term, and therefore should probably be avoided.
As Christians were no longer persecuted, they faced a new problem: how to avoid backsliding and nominal adherence to the state religion while retaining the sense of urgency originally caused by persecution. This reads oddly to me. I am not sure problem is the right descriptor as retaining a sense of urgency and persecution seem worlds apart.
According to Harrison, it is true that persecution led to "urgency": In the early centuries, Christians to a large extent had their identity defined for them: they were a persecuted group, at odds with the society, culture and religions of their day, forced either to deny their faith or to defend it to the point of death. Selfdenial, denial of the world, an ideology of martyrdom, a sense of fighting for one’s faith against the powers that be, were characteristic features of Christian life for all the faithful who belonged to the pre-Constantinian church... Most importantly, how were they to retain the knife-edge sense of urgency, rigour and absolute self-denial which had so far defined the Christian life? How were they to avoid easy compromise, unchallenged backsliding, nominal adherence to a favoured (and therefore favourable) cult, unthinking observance of what had become the traditional religion of the state. For many, asceticism - a life of strict self-denial and unfaltering observance of all the commandments to the letter - was the answer.
Syrian tradition, including the second-century figures Theophilus and Irenaeus, included views asserting that physical death is natural rather than the result of the fall of man. How does this fit? New paragraph and some context maybe?
Done
and even the early Augustine. Isn't this a person. Should be wikilinked too.
Done
Caelestius or Caelestinus?
The former—sp fixed
were condemned outside of Northern Africa. Is this saying they were accepted in North Africa
The opposite; the source says But in fact all of the condemnations of Pelagianism outside North Africa had to do with positions characteristic of Caelestius and only secondarily with Pelagius. I rewrote to clarify
Jerome also disputed that  free will was as strong as Pelagius said First mention of free will so we don't know what Pelagius said. I get the impression it is important and should be introduced earlier.
I have rephrased to : "Jerome also disagreed with Pelagius' strong view of free will". Pelagius' views on free will is covered in more detail later.
key turning point in the controversy again this is the first mention of controversy, except for the heading. Maybe needs an earlier intro. Also not clear how this was a key turning point
Sources are unequivocal that all the events covered in this section are part of the Pelagian controversy. I thought that with accusations of heresy flying and rhetorical attacks, it was obvious that there was a controversy without needing to spell it out.
especially other monks. I don't think we mentioned that he was a monk? He is introduced as a layman
Many sources refer to him as a monk even though he was not a member of any monastic order; according to one source, all monks at the time were laymen[1] I've changed to "ascetic" to be more consistent.
Many of them later had to seek shelter with the Greek bishops Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius, leading to accusations that Pelagian errors lay beneath the Nestorian controversy over Christology. This seems a bit coatracky. Is there more to this? Theres nothing in the linked article.
Teselle describes this as part of the tail end of the Pelagian controversy: He and several other bishops, condemned because of their refusal to subscribe to the Tractoria, took refuge with Theodore of Mopsuestia, then with Nestorius—compromising these bishops in the eyes of the West during the controversy with Cyril after 418 over the person of Christ. Augustine had already written to Cyril to ensure that Pelagius’s errors not lie hidden among the Greeks.18 The doctrines of Caelestius were condemned along with those of Nestorius at the Council of Ephesus in 431, and a letter was sent to the West confirming the condemnation of Pelagius, Caelestius, Julian, and others. Julian was expelled from Cilicia, Constantinople, and Rome.
but this has been criticized by others such as Liebeschuetz. Is there a better way to say this. Criticized could mean a few things. Did he disagree with it or just criticse aspects.
Bonner isn't more specific about Liebeschuetz, but he seems to suggest the former. I changed the wording in the article to "this idea has not gained general acceptance" as that is more important that one person's opinion of it. It has been suggested by J. N. L. Myres, John Morris, and others that the alleged Pelagian denial of grace represented, in fifth-century Britain, an attack on political gratia (corrupt patronage and favour), thus understanding Pelagianism as a reforming movement in a society seeking to shake off Roman imperial decadence and to revive the traditional Roman virtues. The topic is too large to be fully discussed here. It may, however, be said that it has been powerfully criticized by J. H. W. G. Liebeschuetz (1963; 1967) and has failed to convince scholars who have studied Pelagianism as a theological system.


#### break
which struck him as Manichean Previously it says he opposed Manichean. Unless you are meaning that believing humans are evil is Manichean in which case it is not very clear.
Yes, he opposed the position that struck him as manichean. Rewrote to clarify.
...because it would be unjust for any person to be blamed for another's actions. This has already been said above
Rewrote
(in Augustine's opinion) A few of these. I am not sure they are all necessary as they are usually prefaced as being someones opinion.
Removed
Ali Bonner is mentioned a few times, but I don't think we know who she is and what her credentials are
She is mostly known for her book, The Myth of Pelagianism. However, I also found that she is a lecturer in Celtic History of the Medieval Period and fellow of Queens' College, Cambridge[2] added that to the first mention of her.
There is a  mix of old and new scholars in the "Pelagianism and Augustinianism" section and it is not always clear which is which. e.g  Peter Brown and John Cassian.
I link each person on first mention, if notable.
I guess I more found it a little disconcerting when reading as it was not immediately obvious whether it was a modern or ancient take on the issue. I do realise the names are wikilinked and spent a bit of time using these wikilinks while reading the article. AIRcorn (talk) 07:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
and it could be argued that the rabbis shared a Weltanschauung with Pelagius Is there any reason not to use worldview. There are quite a few difficult words in this, maybe it is better to limit them when possible for easier reading.
Changed
(The "semi-Pelagians" all accepted the condemnation of Pelagius, believed grace was necessary for salvation, and were followers of Augustine.) WHy is this in brackets in its own sentence
Removed
argued for prevenient grace that individuals had a choice to accept or reject. Is the grammar here correct?
Yes, but I rewrote slightly to be easier to read.
Is there a reason not to spell out  J. P. Migne or A. Souter?
Expanded
represents the consensual Pauline interpretation that is found in the Greek exegetical tradition I have no idea what this means
Paraphrased to reduce jargon
and therefore unequal wealth is undeserved. Isn't this a Pelagianism idea?
No, according to Nelson, a Pelagian would believe that human suffering is caused by our own sin and therefore not unjust. Added sentence to clarify this position.


#### Lead and general comments
heterodox is mentioned in the lead, but not in the body
Right, I wanted some sort of shorthand for the fact that there are no Pelagian churches / Pelagianism is not accepted by Christians to day. The problem with "heresy" is, heretical according to whom? It is deemed heretical according to the Catholic Church, but it's not clear if other churches would consider it a heresy.
Pelagian controversy redirects here. Are their plans to make it into its own article?
It is independently notable (entire books have been written on it), so it could certainly become its own article. I see no reason not to link it, because that way if/when the article is created, the incoming links will be in place.
I like the lead, it is very easy to follow. I did struggle a bit with the second half of this article though. Particularly the later responses. I don't know why exactly, but it felt like I had a good grasp on things leading into this section and then I found myself floundering a bit. I don't think it is a GA issue, maybe more an aspect of myself not being familiar with the subject matter. It could probably be a bit more written for the layperson and maybe more focused (a lot of different names of scholars and adherents are used), but I thin you should compromise to much of the info in there.
Thanks for the feedback, I'll go back again and see what I can do.
References all look good and are excellently formatted. I do wonder why we have so much further reading though?
I just added all relevant readings that I could find so that they would be useful in expanding the article. If it's too much, the list could be moved to talk.
No images. I noticed a few of Pelagius and Augustine at their respective articles. They seem the most logical ones to have.
For both Pelagius and Augustine, the images available were created 1000 years after their deaths and therefore are unlikely to resemble what either of them actually looked like. Furthermore, as this is an article about an idea, I don't know how physical appearance helps the reader understand.
The "Om the Christian life" is good, but I was wondering if there was a better way to relate it to the text (I know you have a note, but it would be better if it was more obvious as it doesn't mention Pelagianism.
Clarified in-text
A lot of notes. This is fine, but it does make me wonder if some would be better in text
Seem to have lost earwig from the tools. Did it manually at it linked reddit of all places. From a few checks I did while reading I am confident there is no copyvios here.
Overall a very good article. Not a lot wrong. AIRcorn (talk) 08:20, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


### Conclusion
I probably should have stated at the start that I treat these more as suggestions then requirements. Obviously some things need to be done to reach GA standard, but while I am reading it I like to make other comments as well. Thus unambiguously meets the GA criteria so I have no issues in passing it. I hope my comments have provided some useful feedback. Regards AIRcorn (talk) 07:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, they definitely have. (t · c) buidhe 08:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

All the bits about supposed political influence and relevance of Pelagianism vs Augustinianism - quite substantial chunks of text - are from one source, Nelson 2019, which seems to be engaged in some tortured intellectual construct to the effect of 'if you don't believe in original sin and believe in free will, you should believe that Jeff Bezos deserves his billions and poor people deserve to starve' - a weird exploitation of theology to produce a sophisticated form of classical liberal / right-libertarian propaganda. I don't even see any confirmation in the article that the Pelagians themselves claimed that suffering in the world is generally the result of sin, not to mention that self-identified orthodox Christians have long been perfectly happy to make such claims. At least reviews of / responses to Nelson should be included. 62.73.69.121 (talk) 12:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm referring to this text:

Early Christianity was theologically diverse. While Western Christianity taught that death was the result of the fall of man, a Syrian tradition, including the second-century figures Theophilus and Irenaeus, asserted that mortality preceded the fall. Around 400, the doctrine of original sin was just emerging in Western Christianity, deriving from the teaching of Cyprian that infants should be baptized for the sin of Adam. Other Christians followed Origen in the belief that infants are born in sin due to their failings in a previous life. Rufinus the Syrian, who came to Rome in 399 as a delegate for Jerome, followed the Syrian tradition, declaring that man had been created mortal and that each human is only punished for his own sin.[3]

Show me where Irenaeus asserted, that mortality preceded the fall. I can't find anything about it. Then it goes on to say that Origen believed in a previous life, but on Wikipedia it says this:

Origen may or may not have believed in the Platonic teaching of metempsychosis ("the transmigration of souls"; i.e. reincarnation).[160] He explicitly rejects "the false doctrine of the transmigration of souls into bodies",

I doubt that anything in this passage is accurate. Rufinus the Syrian may not even have existed. And the book ascribed to him survives in ONE manuscript altogether. There is more confusion about Rufinus than anything else:

There are a total of seven references to persons named Rufinus from around 400 and scholars are unsure how many individuals lie behind them. There are three other Rufinuses who are often identified with the Mercator's Syrian Rufinus. If "Syrian" was being used in its broad sense (i.e., of Syria Palaestina), then Mercator's Rufinus may be identical to the Rufinus who was a monk in Bethlehem and went on a mission to the West for Jerome in early 399.

To me the whole paragraph should either be deleted or it should backup its claims with credible sources.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Retonom (talk • contribs) 08:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC) 

The paragraph is sourced to Eugene TeSelle's book chapter. It's always possible that he's wrong or that I misinterpreted what he wrote, but we're going to need a better source than Wikipedia to change the article. (t · c) buidhe 16:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@Buidhe: last sentence should probably mention what those "other opinions" actually are or what they're about. "Modern scholarship" makes me think it's going to talk about some new view in religious studies that earlier scholars misunderstood the Pelagians, but the contrast with earlier writers calling them "heretics" makes it sound like the new view is "actually, we probably shouldn't have burnt these guys at the stake". – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Also a bit weasel-wordy ("some scholars"). – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 18:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Closed Limelike Curves I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to, but if you read recent scholarship you would find a mixture of both 1) Pelagius' actual beliefs weren't as different from his contemporaries as previously believed and 2) those beliefs he did hold shouldn't be considered heretical from the perspective of orthodox Christianity.
I don't think it benefits the reader to be too specific when both 1) and 2) are very common in the reliable sources on the topic, that are cited in the article. MOS:WEASEL specifically contains an exception for use "in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph when the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution" (t · c) buidhe 18:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
The rules for weaselry are a bit laxer in leads, but it still feels off to be so nonspecific that "theologians" and "religious studies professors" are grouped together in the same bucket. Could we break the sentence down so it discusses 1/2 separately? – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 18:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that there is a hard and fast distinction between "theologians" and "religious studies professors", especially since most of the former who publish sources that would meet Wikipedia's RS standards have some kind of academic appointment. Furthermore, of the two writers quoted in the final section of the article that supports the statement in the lead, Ferguson was a historian/classicist and  Thomas Scheck is a Professor of Theology. (t · c) buidhe 20:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, I think this section of the lead is absolutely ripe for improvement but if I was going to do it I would start with doing more reading to expand and rewrite that final section in the article rather than what I did originally by getting lazy and copy pasting a quote farm. Then it would be more clear what the best lead wording would be. (t · c) buidhe 20:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)