Talk:History of Christianity

↓ Jump to bottom of page ↓

Reference checking

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

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

Jesus was a Rabbi not a preacher ~2025-44016-18 (talk) 23:33, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Errors according to AI

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I asked ChatGPT and Google Gemini to review the article text. There are many issues with using AI, and the services often fail to grasp the broader context, but at a glance, these quoted passages seemed noteworthy.

"The history of Christianity began with the life of Jesus..."

Simplification. Christianity as a distinct movement developed after Jesus’ death, through the interpretations and teachings of his followers, especially Paul. Jesus himself did not found a religion called "Christianity."

Thi I agree, however, other editors didn't agree with me when I tried to leave Jesus out. There was no consensus in support of your position - which was also mine - and I see now that there will never be consensus for that.

In this wall of text, there are multiple claims that "simplification" equals error, and that is an error in itself. As a broad overview article, aimed at sophomores, that leaves out supporting details, it must include simplifications. They don't qualify as factual error. It is a simplification to claim Christianity began with Jesus, however, it is not an error as such since without Jesus there is no Christianity. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

"Christianity... reached critical mass by the third century when it grew to over a million adherents."

The estimate of over a million adherents by the 3rd century is disputed and uncertain. Correction: While Christianity had grown significantly, demographic estimates vary greatly, and the figure may be speculative.

Thi All numbers concerning this era are speculative. This Fousek, Jan; Kaše, Vojtěch; Mertel, Adam; Výtvarová, Eva; Chalupa, Aleš (2018). "Spatial constraints on the diffusion of religious innovations: The case of early Christianity in the Roman Empire". PLOS ONE. 13 (12): e0208744. Bibcode:2018PLoSO..1308744F. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0208744. PMC 6306252. PMID 30586375.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: article number as page number (link) is the best most recent information from sociology and that's what it says.

References

Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

"The support of the Roman emperor Constantine... was important in transforming it into an organized religion with a formalized religious text."

Misleading implication. Correction: Constantine supported Christianity and helped legalize it (Edict of Milan, 313), but the formation of the New Testament canon was a gradual and complex process that was not completed in his time. The canon was not formalized until the late 4th century.

Thi How does its end make the statement of its beginning an error? However, I did originally have those as separate ideas and another editor combined them. I disliked that sentence too, but I am not the boss of everything. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

"The Nicene Creed of 325 addressed divisions."

Oversimplification. Correction: The Nicene Creed addressed the Arian controversy, particularly the nature of Christ. It did not fully resolve divisions, and disputes continued (e.g., Arianism persisted for centuries).

Thi That's in the body, so again, not really an error as a summary statement in the lead.Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

"The subsequent 5th-century Nestorian schism produced the Church of the East and Oriental Orthodoxy."

Inaccurate conflation. The Nestorian schism (Council of Ephesus, 431) is associated with the Church of the East. Oriental Orthodoxy split after the Council of Chalcedon (451), mainly over the issue of Christ’s two natures (Miaphysitism vs. Dyophysitism). These are two different schisms.

Thi Again, in the body. Apparently you have a real dislike of the kind of summary necessary for the lead, but that doesn't make it wrong. Both those schisms were in fact over Nestorius' and Christ's nature.Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

"Competeing [sic] theological doctrines led to divisions, which were addressed by the Nicene Creed of 325. The subsequent 5th-century Nestorian schism produced the Church of the East and Oriental Orthodoxy."

While the Nicene Creed (325 AD) addressed theological disputes, particularly Arianism, it didn't resolve all divisions definitively or prevent future ones. It was a crucial step in establishing Trinitarian orthodoxy, but theological debates continued and led to further schisms.

The Nestorian schism (stemming from the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD) primarily led to the separation of the Church of the East. The Oriental Orthodox Churches separated later, following the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD, over Christological differences (Monophysitism vs. Dyophysitism). Grouping them together as being produced by the "5th-century Nestorian schism" is an oversimplification and conflates two distinct schisms with different theological roots and historical timelines.

Thi Again, all of this detail is in the body. It's hard to take these comments seriously at this point, since it has become clear you have not read through the entire article, but are instead firing out the window as you drive by the lead. In order to keep the lead to the appropriate number of paragraphs, how would you summarize all of this? Perhaps you have a better approach. I would be glad. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

"Christianization continued in Europe and Asia..."

Imprecise phrasing. While missionary activity reached parts of Asia (e.g., Persia, India), Christianization was much more extensive in Europe than Asia during the Middle Ages.

Thi SO? Being more extensive doesn't indicate the claim is wrong. Of course it's imprecise. Precision is in the body. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

"The church fought heresy and established courts of inquisition."

Anachronism. The formal Inquisition was not established until the 12th–13th centuries (e.g., the Papal Inquisition in 1230s). Gregorian Reform (11th century) predates the Inquisition.

Thi Those centuries are the High Middle Ages. In what way is that anachronistic? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

"Artistic and intellectual advances among western monks laid the foundations for the Renaissance and the Scientific Revolution."

While Western monks certainly played a vital role in preserving classical knowledge and fostering intellectual life during the Middle Ages, attributing the foundations for the Renaissance and Scientific Revolution solely to them is an oversimplification. The Renaissance drew on broader societal, economic, and intellectual developments, including the rediscovery of Greek and Roman texts (often via Islamic scholarship), the rise of urban centers, new economic systems, and a shift in intellectual focus. The Scientific Revolution had complex roots, including medieval scholasticism, but also new methodologies and observations that went beyond the monastic tradition. Monks were important contributors, but not the sole foundation.

Thi 'Solely' is not in the sentence. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

"In the 14th century, the Western Schism and several European crises led to the 16th-century Reformation when Protestantism split-off from the Catholic church."

This is generally accurate, but it could be more precise. The Western Schism (1378-1417) was a crisis of papal authority and church unity within the Catholic Church, not a direct precursor to Protestantism in the same theological vein as the Reformation. While it certainly weakened the papacy and contributed to calls for reform, it wasn't a direct "cause" in the way theological disagreements and figures like Martin Luther were for the Reformation. The phrase "led to" might suggest a more direct causal link than was truly the case. It was more of a contributing factor to the climate that enabled the Reformation.

Thi In the body. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

"Some Protestants created biblical criticism while others responded to rationalism with Pietism and religious revivals that created new denominations."

While elements of this are true, attributing the creation of "biblical criticism" solely to Protestants in this context is an oversimplification. Early forms of critical approaches to biblical texts predate the Reformation, and Catholic scholars also engaged in forms of biblical scholarship.

Thi That's sourced, but if you have a source that says otherwise, bring it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

"Protestants advocated for religious tolerance..."

Generalization. While some Protestant groups (like Anabaptists or certain Enlightenment-influenced thinkers) promoted religious tolerance, many Protestant movements were also intolerant and engaged in persecution (e.g., Calvin’s Geneva, Lutheran intolerance of Anabaptists).

Thi Of course it's a generalization. It's the lead. Some groups were no doubt intolerant, but that by itself doesn't prove they didn't advocate for tolerance for themselves. Again, do you have a decent source that says Protestants were against religious tolerance? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

"Christianity constituted an ‘intense community’..." (Rodney Stark)

Contested claim. Stark’s sociological interpretation is one theory. While it’s influential, other scholars disagree with his growth models and the social dynamics he emphasizes.

Thi Yes, in the body in the paragraph that includes that claim, it is presented as contested. But I don't include any of his growth models or his theories of social dynamics, so that's just a straw man. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

"The Trinity... defines the Holy Spirit, Father, and Son as one God in three persons."

Theological development oversimplified. While Trinitarian ideas were present early on, the fully developed doctrine of the Trinity (with the technical terminology of one essence, three persons) was not finalized until the 4th century, especially at the Council of Constantinople (381).

Thi That's what it says. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

"Women comprised significant numbers of Christianity's earliest members" and "could attain greater freedom..."

Generally accurate but debated in detail. The role of women was significant in early Christianity, but the extent of empowerment and leadership remains debated among historians. Over time, their roles became increasingly restricted by ecclesiastical structures.

Thi but not an error. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

"Christianity became favored by emperors and Judaism came to be seen as a heresy"

Judaism was not officially labeled a "heresy" in the way that internal Christian deviations were. The Christian concept of heresy was applied to deviations within Christianity, not to Judaism. Correction: Judaism came to be marginalized and legally restricted in Christian imperial policy, but it was generally not defined as a heresy in theological terms.

Thi 'To be seen as' is another way - a shorter way - of saying this, so not an error. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

"Aside from the Visigothic Kingdom, Jews and Christians peacefully coexisted, for the most part, into the High Middle Ages"

Oversimplification. Jewish-Christian relations varied greatly by region and time. While some periods were relatively peaceful (e.g., under Islamic rule in Spain or early Carolingian times), others saw persecution well before the High Middle Ages. Correction: A more cautious phrasing would be: "In many regions, Jews and Christians coexisted with periods of peace punctuated by episodes of tension or persecution."

Thi Aside from the fact that your sentence leaves out the Visigoths who did persecute Jews, that it doesn't explain what periods or when or how long they lasted, or what is meant by "tension", that modification isn't completely bad. It needs more precision and a source, but change it if you like. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

"In the fourth century the percentage of Christians was as high in the Sasanian Empire as in the Roman Empire"

Likely incorrect. Christianity remained a minority religion in the Sasanian Empire. While it had a strong presence, especially in Mesopotamia, it did not reach the same proportions as in the Roman world. Correction: "Christianity had a notable presence in the Sasanian Empire, particularly in Mesopotamia, though it remained a minority religion."

Thi Not. Christianity was in Iraq in the first century, and was not persecuted until the fourth century, so it prospered and grew and had multiple bishoprics by the time of persecution.Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

"Christian institutions in Asia or East Africa never developed the kind of influence that the European churches and Byzantium held."

Eurocentric oversimplification. The Church of the East and the Ethiopian Church were deeply influential in their own regions and for centuries had broad missionary and theological activity extending into India and China. Correction: "Christian institutions in Asia and East Africa developed along independent trajectories with regional influence, though they were less integrated into the political structures of empire compared to their European and Byzantine counterparts."

Thi So your sentence they were less integrated into the political structures of empire compared to their European and Byzantine counterparts indicates it's not really an error at all. Statements of their influence are in other places in the body. Another indicator these are just drive-bys. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

"Traditionally, scholars have seen the writings of Christians accusing other Christians of violent acts as evidence of widespread Christian violence toward pagans..."

Slight mischaracterization. Early scholarship did often take patristic rhetoric at face value, but more recent scholarship has reevaluated the archaeological evidence to suggest a more limited and localized pattern of violence. Suggestion: Clarify the historiographical development.

Thi Still working on this section. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

"Only four [temple destructions] have been confirmed by archaeological evidence."

This figure is accurate per some sources (e.g. R. MacMullen, J. Hahn), but the definition of "confirmed" is debated, and not all scholars agree on the narrow count. Suggestion: Add a qualifier like "according to available archaeological evidence, only a few can be definitively confirmed."

Thi working. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

"Christian scriptures were formalized as the New Testament...by the fourth century."

While much of the New Testament canon was widely accepted by the fourth century, the canon was not definitively fixed until later councils (e.g., Synod of Hippo 393, Council of Carthage 397). Correction: "The Christian biblical canon began to stabilize by the fourth century, though complete agreement on the contents of the New Testament developed gradually."

Thi How is that different? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

"This led to the first separation between East and West." (re: Nestorius and the Council of Ephesus)

Misleading. This was a major schism, but not the first East-West split (which generally refers to the later East-West Schism of 1054). Also, the Nestorian schism primarily involved the Persian Church, not Constantinople or Rome. Correction: "This resulted in one of the earliest major schisms between Christian communities in the Roman and Persian Empires."

Thi It wasn't with the Persian empire! And this division was the first split in Christianity - what split was earlier? The popular understanding of East-West split is completely beside the point! Is this accurate or isn't it? It is. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

"Until 751, the Pope remained a subject of the Byzantine emperor."

Technically correct, but oversimplified. In practice, papal autonomy grew gradually from the late 6th century onward, especially under Gregory I. After the weakening of Byzantine influence in Italy (e.g., the Lombard threat), the Pope began to act more independently. Suggestion: A more accurate formulation would be: "Though formally under Byzantine rule until 751, papal authority in Rome increasingly operated with autonomy, especially after the decline of imperial control in Italy."

Thi OMG, a wordy restatement that adds nothing that isn't already there. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

"The Council of Chalcedon...influential...most of Christianity accepted the Chalcedonian Definition."

Needs nuance. While the Western Church and much of the Eastern Church accepted Chalcedon, several large Christian communities rejected it, including the Coptic, Armenian, and Ethiopian Churches, who formed the Oriental Orthodox tradition. Correction: "While widely accepted in the Roman and Byzantine churches, the Chalcedonian Definition was rejected by several major Eastern churches, which became known as the Oriental Orthodox."

Thi OMG! That's what it says! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

The text continues to be largely accurate and well-written. Here are some points that could be seen as minor inaccuracies, slight oversimplifications, or areas where more precise phrasing might be beneficial:

"In 313, the emperor Constantine, a self-declared Christian, issued the Edict of Milan expressing tolerance for all religions."

Refinement: While widely attributed to Constantine, the Edict of Milan was actually an agreement between Constantine and Licinius, and it was issued in 313. More importantly, it wasn't strictly an edict in the formal sense, but rather a letter to provincial governors. Its primary effect was to grant religious freedom to all, ending the persecution of Christians and restoring confiscated church property. Constantine's "self-declared Christian" status is also debated by some historians, who suggest his conversion may have been more gradual or politically motivated, though he certainly favored Christianity after 313. The text's phrasing is common and generally accepted, but this is a point of academic discussion.

Thi And it's unnecessary detail for this article. This isn't a history of Constantine or a history of the Edict.Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

"Before the fourth century, Judaism had been an approved religion, while Christianity was persecuted as an illegal superstition; during the fourth century, Christianity became favored by emperors and Judaism came to be seen as a heresy."

Refinement: While Christianity was indeed persecuted and Judaism was generally tolerated (as a long-standing, established religion with special status), calling Judaism a "heresy" during the fourth century in the same way Christian doctrines were deemed heresies might be a slight overstatement or misapplication of the term. Judaism was often viewed with suspicion and its followers faced increasing legal restrictions and social pressures as Christianity gained dominance, but "heresy" primarily applied to deviations within Christianity. It was more often seen as a separate, older, and now superseded religion, rather than a theological error from within the Christian fold. The term "heresy" implies a deviation from an accepted orthodoxy, and for Jews, their faith was not a deviation from Christianity.

Thi Seen as - 'seen as' - not defined as - which is a fair, and short, summary of the change in attitude. Look, you took a whole paragraph to replace what the article uses two words to describe. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

"Aside from the Visigothic Kingdom, Jews and Christians peacefully coexisted, for the most part, into the High Middle Ages."

This is a significant oversimplification. While there were periods and places of relative peaceful coexistence, the relationship between Jews and Christians throughout Late Antiquity and the early Middle Ages was complex and often marked by increasing legal discrimination, social pressure, and occasional violence, even outside the Visigothic Kingdom. Imperial laws increasingly restricted Jewish life, and forced conversions, though less common than later, were not unheard of. The idea of "peaceful coexistence for the most part" might downplay the significant challenges and forms of oppression faced by Jewish communities.

Thi increasing legal discrimination, social pressure, and occasional violence didn't really occur much before the 1200s. That's the High Middle Ages. Again, bring an actual source that says otherwise. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

"In 408, Augustine defended the government's violent response asserting that coercion could not produce genuine conversion, but it could soften resistance and make conversion possible. According to Peter Brown, Augustine thus 'provided the theological foundation for the justification of medieval persecution'."

This is generally accurate in terms of Augustine's influence, particularly on the Donatist controversy. However, it's worth noting that Augustine's views on coercion evolved, and his famous phrase "compel them to come in" (from Luke 14:23) was used to justify the use of force to bring schismatics back to the Church, but he generally argued against outright killing or extreme violence. While he laid a foundation for later medieval persecution, it's important to understand the context of his arguments against the Donatists, whom he saw as endangering souls by their schism. The text is accurate in stating Brown's interpretation of Augustine's legacy in this regard.

Thi So not an error? Why is it here on the wall then? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

"Controversies over how Jesus' human and divine natures coexisted peaked when Nestorius declared Mary as the mother of Jesus' humanity, not his divinity, thereby giving Jesus two distinct natures."

While Nestorius did emphasize the distinction between Jesus' two natures and preferred the term Christotokos (Christ-bearer) over Theotokos (God-bearer) for Mary, it's a simplification to say he "declared Mary as the mother of Jesus' humanity, not his divinity, thereby giving Jesus two distinct natures." Nestorius believed in the full divinity and full humanity of Christ, but he was concerned about blurring the distinction between them, fearing that Theotokos implied that the divine nature itself was born. His theological opponents accused him of separating Christ into two persons. The condemnation of Nestorius was largely due to concerns that his Christology led to a division of Christ into two separate "persons" rather than a single person with two natures. His position was more nuanced than "giving Jesus two distinct natures" in a way that created two separate entities.

Thi Short summaries; short summaries of complex ideas require simplification. Do that in less than a paragraph.Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

"Two groups, one mostly Persian and the other Syrian, separated from Catholicism; Persians became the Church of the East (also known as the Assyrian, Nestorian, or Persian Church), while the majority of Christians in Syria and Mesopotamia became the Syrian Orthodox Church (Jacobite)."

This requires clarification regarding the Council of Ephesus (431) and the subsequent Council of Chalcedon (451). The Church of the East (often referred to as Nestorian for historical reasons, though they reject the label) did indeed separate after the Council of Ephesus, as they did not accept the council's condemnation of Nestorius. They were largely located in the Persian Empire, outside the Roman sphere. The Syrian Orthodox Church (Jacobite), along with other Oriental Orthodox Churches (Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopian, Eritrean, Malankara), separated after the Council of Chalcedon (451). Their primary theological disagreement was with Chalcedon's affirmation of Christ as "one person in two natures," which they saw as leaning too close to Nestorianism. They affirmed a "Miaphysite" Christology (one united nature of the incarnate Word), distinct from both Chalcedonian "two natures" and perceived Nestorian "two persons." The text incorrectly lumps the separation of the Syrian Orthodox (Jacobite) Church under the Nestorian schism caused by Ephesus (431). These were two distinct schisms with different theological points of contention and different timelines.

Thi They are presented that way. Think Sophomores. Think Overview. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

"The church of this age was only indirectly influenced by the Bible."

Overgeneralization and misleading. While vernacular biblical knowledge was limited, especially among laity, the clergy were thoroughly trained in the Bible, and biblical texts were central to monastic and ecclesiastical life. Calling the influence "only indirect" is a mischaracterization.

Thi biblical texts were central to monastic and ecclesiastical life Were they? Weren't they more likely to have their daily reading from the church Fathers and other commentaries? I think the observation is not just about monks though. Perhaps it should be restated to more completely represent the source. I'll do that. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

"Relics and holy men became increasingly important in this age of uncertainty."

Oversimplification. While true to a degree, relics and saints had already held an important place in Late Antiquity. Their cultic significance increased but was not entirely a new development of the Early Middle Ages.

Thi Please. Where does it say it was an entirely new development? It says "increasingly important" indicating it already had some importance. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

"Medical practice was highly important, and medieval monasteries were best known for their public hospitals, hospices, and contributions to medicine."

Exaggeration. While monasteries preserved some classical medical knowledge and provided basic care, they were not primarily known for medicine. Their medical role was limited and not systematic. This reflects more modern romanticism than historical reality.

Thi Not. This is sourced to multiple sources. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

"In 635, the Church of the East brought Christianity to the Chinese Emperor Taizong."

Misleading phrasing. Christianity (Nestorianism) was introduced to China by missionaries of the Church of the East during the Tang dynasty, and the Nestorian Stele (781) records this history. Emperor Taizong allowed the presence of Christians, but there is no evidence that he personally converted or that the faith gained mass acceptance under his rule.

Thi Where does it say he converted? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

"After 700, when much of Christianity was declining..."

Inaccurate. Christianity was not "declining" in the 8th century. While it faced setbacks in parts of Asia and North Africa due to Islamic expansion, it was simultaneously expanding in Europe, especially in the Germanic, Anglo-Saxon, and Slavic regions.

Thi Not. It was in fact declining in those areas conquered by Islam. The fact it was growing elsewhere does not contradict that it was declining in others. That was an important point for at least one editor of the After WWII era. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

"In 800, Clovis’ descendant Charlemagne became its recipient when Pope Leo III crowned him emperor."

Confused lineage. Charlemagne was not a descendant of Clovis but of the Carolingian line that had supplanted the Merovingians (Clovis’s dynasty). His family served as mayors of the palace before becoming kings. (Clovis I died in 511 CE. Charlemagne was a descendant of the Frankish Merovingian dynasty, of which Clovis was a significant early king, but Charlemagne himself was a Carolingian, a different dynasty that eventually supplanted the Merovingians. While there's a continuity in the Frankish kingdom, to say Charlemagne was "Clovis' descendant" might imply a direct, unbroken Merovingian lineage for Charlemagne, which isn't accurate. He was a successor in ruling the Franks, but not a direct dynastic descendant in the immediate sense of the term.)

Thi Wrong again. Charlemagne was in fact a descendent of Clovis. Their lineage is well-established through genealogical research. There are no other implications. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

"The Papacy became free from Byzantine control, and the former lands of the Exarchate became States of the church."

While Charlemagne's crowning in 800 (and the Donation of Pepin in 756) certainly cemented the papacy's independence from Byzantium in practical terms and laid the groundwork for the Papal States, the statement "The Papacy became free from Byzantine control" is slightly too definitive for this single event. The process was gradual, starting much earlier with the Lombards' pressure on Italy and the Byzantine Empire's declining ability to protect Rome. The crowning of Charlemagne was a symbolic culmination, not the sole moment of liberation. The "States of the Church" (Papal States) had begun to form through donations and papal administration of Roman territory before 800, though Charlemagne's reign further solidified and expanded them.

Thi That the process was gradual does not say it didn't happen. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

"The rosary was created after veneration of Mary became central in this period."

Chronological inaccuracy. The structured Dominican rosary dates to the 13th century, but earlier forms of Marian devotion using prayer beads existed. Marian veneration developed gradually from Late Antiquity onward, not suddenly in the High Middle Ages.

Thi Wrong again. The 12th and 13th centuries saw the rise of the "cult of the Virgin," which had not existed in that particular form previously. It was driven by both theology and art and was probably a response to both crusading and the "suffering" Christ. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

"The cult of chivalry declined during the 1400s."

Oversimplification. The ideals of chivalry persisted into the early modern period, though their political and military relevance waned. The "decline" is not a sharp cutoff in the 1400s but a long, uneven process.

Thi Where does it claim a sharp cutoff? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Minor Issues and Nuances:

"Monasteries served as orphanages and inns…" → This is broadly true, but not uniformly. The function varied regionally and temporally.

"Canon law developed oaths of loyalty…" → Canon law codified some practices, but it did not develop feudal oaths independently.

"The invention of indulgence was a result of the Crusades." → Indulgences existed earlier but were systematized and expanded in the context of the Crusades.

"Until the eighth century, most of Western Europe remained largely impoverished, politically fragmented, and dependent on the church."

This is generally true for much of the early medieval period. However, the rise of the Carolingian Empire under Pepin the Short and especially Charlemagne in the late 8th and early 9th centuries introduced a period of greater political centralization, stability, and cultural revival (the Carolingian Renaissance) in much of Western Europe, which challenged the idea of constant impoverishment and fragmentation. While the church remained vital, the degree of dependency shifted with stronger secular rulers. The statement is more accurate for the period before Charlemagne's consolidation of power.

"The Church of the East, which had separated after Chalcedon, survived against the odds with help from Byzantium."

This is a factual error. As noted in the previous analysis, the Church of the East separated after the Council of Ephesus (431), not Chalcedon (451). They did not accept the condemnation of Nestorius at Ephesus. The Oriental Orthodox Churches (like the Syrian Orthodox/Jacobite) separated after Chalcedon. Furthermore, the Church of the East, being largely within the Persian Empire, generally had a relationship of tension or independence from Byzantium, not "help from Byzantium." They were often viewed with suspicion by the Byzantines due to their theological differences and their location in the rival Sasanian (and later Islamic) Empire.

"At the height of its expansion in the thirteenth century, the Church of the East stretched from Syria to eastern China and from Siberia to southern India and southern Asia."

This is largely accurate in terms of geographical reach, reflecting the impressive missionary efforts along the Silk Road. However, "Siberia" might be an overstatement for consistent presence or significant congregations. While there may have been isolated trading posts or small communities, widespread presence across Siberia is unlikely. "Southern India and southern Asia" is correct.

"Their second separation took place in 1054 when the church within the Byzantine Empire formed Byzantine Eastern Orthodoxy, which thereafter remained in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, not the Pope."

This sentence connects the 1054 East-West Schism (between Rome and Constantinople) to the Church of the East's "second separation," which is confusing and incorrect. The 1054 schism was between the Catholic Church (led by the Pope in Rome) and the Orthodox Church (led by the Patriarch of Constantinople and other Eastern Patriarchs). The Church of the East had already separated centuries earlier. The phrase "Their second separation" implies a continued direct relationship between the Church of the East and Western Catholicism that was then severed again, which isn't the case. The 1054 event refers to the Great Schism between the Western (Catholic) and Eastern (Orthodox) branches of Christianity.

"The Christian wars of reconquest, which lasted over 200 years, had begun in Italy in 915 and in Spain in 1009 to retake territory lost to Muslims, causing fleeing Muslims in Sicily and Spain to leave behind their libraries."

While the Reconquista in Spain indeed began in the 11th century (1009 is a reasonable start date for more concerted efforts), framing the "Christian wars of reconquest" as starting in "Italy in 915" in the same breath as the Spanish Reconquista is a bit misleading. While there were efforts to push back Saracen raids in Southern Italy and Sicily, calling them a "reconquest" of the same scale or with the same continuous aim as in Spain, beginning in 915, isn't standard terminology. The Norman conquest of Sicily (11th century) was a major event in removing Muslim rule there, but it was distinct from the Iberian Reconquista. The core of the Reconquista refers to the Iberian Peninsula.

"Monks revived the scientific study of natural phenomena, which led to the Scientific Revolution in the West."

Similar to the earlier point about the Renaissance, attributing the direct lead to the Scientific Revolution solely to monks "reviving the scientific study of natural phenomena" is an oversimplification. While medieval monastic scholarship (and particularly scholasticism in the universities, which emerged from cathedral schools, not exclusively monasteries) laid important groundwork for rational inquiry and the transmission of knowledge, the Scientific Revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries involved a much broader range of factors, including new empirical methods, technological innovations, the printing press, and shifts in worldview that extended far beyond monastic institutions. Monks played a part, but they didn't "lead to" the Scientific Revolution in a linear, exclusive fashion.

"In 1382, Wycliffe created the first English translation of the Bible."

Wycliffe did not personally translate the entire Bible; the translation was produced by his followers, likely under his direction. Moreover, this translation was from the Latin Vulgate, not the original Hebrew or Greek.

"Between 1525 and 1534, William Tyndale used the Vulgate and Greek texts from Erasmus to create the Tyndale Bible."

Tyndale specifically rejected the Latin Vulgate and translated directly from Hebrew (Old Testament books he completed) and Erasmus's Greek New Testament. He intended to bypass the Latin entirely.

"A reunion agreement between the Orthodox and Catholic churches in 1452 was negated by the Fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Empire in 1453..."

True that the Council of Florence (1439–1445) produced a formal (but unpopular) union, finalized in 1452. However, this was rejected by most Orthodox clergy and laity even before 1453. So while the fall "sealed" the matter politically, the theological opposition was already intense.

"This led to the state confiscating churches and turning them into mosques."

The Ottoman state did convert major churches (e.g., Hagia Sophia), but this was not a universal or automatic policy. Many churches continued to operate under the millet system. The statement overgeneralizes Ottoman policy.

"Protestant pressure produced the Lukaris Confession embracing Calvinism."

While Cyril Lucaris was influenced by Reformed thought, his Confession (1629) was condemned by the Orthodox Church and never became official doctrine. It is more accurate to say he attempted to introduce Calvinist elements into Orthodoxy but failed.

"Jeremias II (1536–1595)... founded the Orthodox Patriarchate of Russia..."

Jeremias II recognized the existing Moscow patriarchate in 1589, raising it to canonical legitimacy, but he did not found it per se. The Russian Church had declared its independence earlier.

"The sixteenth-century success of Christianity in Japan was followed by severe repression, such as the crucifixion of the 26 Martyrs of Japan."

This is accurate, but incomplete. The martyrdom occurred in 1597, and broader persecution (including mass executions) intensified after 1614, with a full ban and underground survival (Kakure Kirishitan) afterward. The statement could better indicate the scope and chronology.

"The Catholic church became one of the largest holders of black slaves."

This is highly misleading. While individual church institutions, especially in Latin America, owned slaves (e.g., Jesuit missions, some monasteries), the claim that the Church as a whole was one of the largest slaveholders lacks strong quantitative evidence and should be significantly nuanced. It's better to state: "Some Catholic orders and institutions owned enslaved people, especially in colonial Latin America and Africa."

"Former slaves returned to West Africa 'with Bible in hand', founding Freetown..."

Freetown (Sierra Leone) was founded in 1787 by the British as a settlement for freed Black people from Britain and Nova Scotia. Many were Christian or became so later, but this happened over time. The idea that returnees founded it with evangelistic purpose simplifies a complex history involving British colonial authorities and philanthropy.

"Jesuits... working exclusively in the native language to form an 'agrarian collective'..."

While broadly true, "agrarian collective" is anachronistic and possibly misleading—it evokes 20th-century communist models. Jesuit missions were theocratic and communal, but under firm ecclesiastical control, not collective farms in the modern sense.

"To combat fears that Jewish converts were conspiring with Muslims to sabotage the new state..."

The primary concern of the Spanish Inquisition was religious orthodoxy, especially of conversos (converted Jews suspected of secretly practicing Judaism). While the Reconquista context involved Islam, the conspiracy fear cited here is exaggerated and lacks direct primary-source support.

"Edicts issued at the Diet of Worms in 1521 condemned Luther."

Yes, the Edict of Worms declared Luther an outlaw. But it’s important to note it was issued after the Diet, by Emperor Charles V—not by the Diet itself.

"Henry preserved Catholic doctrine and the church's established role in society."

True of early Henrician Reformation, but under Edward VI, Anglicanism adopted many Protestant doctrines. So Anglicanism’s identity evolved, and the statement should reflect that Henry's role was foundational, not doctrinally definitive for Anglicanism as a whole.

"The Jesuits... adopted military-style discipline and strict loyalty to the Pope."

Accurate in general terms, though "military-style discipline" is metaphorical. The Jesuits had a centralized, hierarchical structure, but did not operate like an army.

"In 1309, Pope Clement V fled Rome's factional politics by moving to Avignon in southern France. By leaving Rome and the "seat of Peter" behind, this Avignon Papacy, consisting of seven successive popes, unintentionally diminished papal prestige and power."

While Clement V's move to Avignon was indeed driven by factional politics in Rome and his desire to be closer to the French king, the phrase "fled Rome's factional politics" simplifies a complex situation. Clement V was French, and the political climate in Italy was unstable. The move was initially seen by many as temporary. The unintentional diminishing of papal prestige and power is a widely accepted consequence.

"In the 16th century, baptized Kongolese Christians were taken by Portuguese slavers to the Caribbean and Brazil where there are clear traces that they evangelized among their fellow sufferers. Thereafter, former slaves returned to West Africa "with Bible in hand", founding Freetown, which played a central role in the Christianization of West Africa."

This sequence of events needs a crucial correction. While there were indeed early Christian communities in Kongo and some Kongolese Christians may have been enslaved and taken to the Americas, the founding of Freetown in Sierra Leone (late 18th century) and the return of "former slaves with Bible in hand" is primarily associated with freed slaves from the Americas (especially Nova Scotian Settlers and Maroons from Jamaica), often with British abolitionist support, not primarily former Kongolese slaves specifically returning from the Caribbean and Brazil. The Sierra Leone Company was instrumental. While there might have been some individuals with Kongolese heritage among them, the primary narrative of Freetown's founding as a Christian center involves the transatlantic slave trade's later abolitionist efforts and the resettlement of freed slaves. This is a significant chronological and demographic inaccuracy.

"Women in the Middle Ages were considered incapable of moral judgment and authority."

This is an overgeneralization and requires significant nuance. While medieval society was patriarchal and limited women's public roles, to say they were "considered incapable of moral judgment and authority" is too strong. Women did exercise moral authority within their families, in monastic life (as abbesses, as the text itself later notes), and through various spiritual roles. The text immediately contradicts this by citing Hildegard of Bingen, Elisabeth of Schönau, and Marie d'Oignies as "distinguished leaders of nunneries, exercising the same powers and privileges as their male counterparts." The initial statement should be rephrased to acknowledge the societal constraints while not negating the agency and authority women did possess in specific contexts. Perhaps: "Women in the Middle Ages faced significant societal constraints regarding public authority and formal moral judgment within male-dominated institutions."

"For Protestants, authority was in the priesthood of believers and Scripture."

While "priesthood of all believers" and sola scriptura (scripture alone) are key tenets of Protestantism, stating "authority was in the priesthood of believers and Scripture" without further clarification might slightly understate the role of ordained ministry and confessional documents in various Protestant traditions. However, compared to the Catholic emphasis on hierarchical authority and tradition, it accurately captures a fundamental difference.

"Quarreling royal houses, already involved in dynastic disagreements, became polarized into the two religious camps. In 1562, France became the centre of a series of wars, of which the largest and most destructive was the Thirty Years' War (1618–1648)."

The statement that France became the "centre" of the Thirty Years' War is misleading. The Thirty Years' War began in the Holy Roman Empire (Bohemia), and while France became a major player (initially supporting Protestant powers to undermine Habsburg dominance), it was not its "centre" in terms of its origin or the primary theater of early conflict. France was involved in its own Wars of Religion (which started in 1562, as correctly noted), but these were distinct from the Thirty Years' War, even if they contributed to the broader European religious tensions. The Thirty Years' War drew in many European powers, with the Holy Roman Empire and central Europe being the main battleground.

"Abuses from absolutist Catholic kings gave rise to a virulent critique of Christianity that first emerged among the more extreme Protestant reformers in the 1680s..."

Factual Error / Misleading Chronology: The critique of Christianity—especially its institutions and doctrines—did not begin with Protestant reformers in the 1680s. Anti-clerical and critical sentiments go back to Erasmus, Luther, and early Reformation figures in the early 1500s. Enlightenment critiques, especially secular and atheist, became prominent in the mid- to late 1700s, not the 1680s.

While Protestant reformers certainly contributed to critiques of absolutism and religious intolerance, and the 1680s (e.g., Glorious Revolution, revocation of the Edict of Nantes) were crucial, it's an oversimplification to say the virulent critique of Christianity first emerged among extreme Protestant reformers as an aspect of the Enlightenment. Criticisms of Christian institutions and doctrines predate the 1680s (e.g., certain Renaissance thinkers, early rationalists). The Enlightenment's critique of Christianity often came from deist or atheist perspectives, not necessarily "extreme Protestant reformers." While Protestants pioneered some elements that contributed to Enlightenment thought (like religious tolerance), the virulent critique of Christianity itself was often from figures who were moving away from traditional Christian belief, not just reforming it.

"For 200 years, Protestants had been arguing for religious toleration..."

Overgeneralization: While some Protestants (like certain Anabaptist groups or Baptists) argued for religious toleration, others (notably Calvinists and Lutheran states) enforced strict religious conformity and persecuted dissenters. The statement simplifies a complex and conflicting record.

"Pioneered by Protestants, Biblical criticism advocated historicism and rationalism..."

Inaccurate Attribution: While Protestants did contribute, especially in German universities (e.g., J.G. Eichhorn, Schleiermacher), biblical criticism also had secular and Catholic contributors. The French Enlightenment, especially figures like Voltaire, played a major role in the rationalist critique of scripture.

"Pietism...spread to the Thirteen Colonies where it contributed to the First Great Awakening..."

Largely accurate, though a nuanced clarification: Pietism influenced the First Great Awakening (esp. through figures like Zinzendorf and Moravians), but it was one of several movements, including Puritan revivalism and Presbyterian evangelicalism.

"Presbyterians and Baptists contributed to revival... which formed political parties..."

Factual Inaccuracy / Overstatement: While religious revivals shaped political discourse, it's inaccurate to claim they formed political parties. They influenced ideologies, regional alignments, and attitudes toward authority, but direct party formation from revivalism is not supported by mainstream historiography.

"Thomas Jefferson adapted his earlier Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom into the First Amendment..."

Misleading Attribution: Jefferson authored the Virginia Statute (1786), but the First Amendment (1789) was primarily authored by James Madison. Jefferson’s influence was ideological, but he was not involved in its drafting.

"During the French Revolution, Jefferson co-authored the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen recognizing freedom of religion."

Factual Error: Thomas Jefferson was NOT a co-author of the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. He was in Paris as the U.S. Minister to France at the time and was consulted by Lafayette (who was a principal author) and others, and he offered advice and suggestions. However, he did not "co-author" it in the way one would understand direct authorship. This is a clear factual inaccuracy. The Declaration was largely a product of French Enlightenment thinkers and revolutionaries.

"It did not prevent radical revolutionaries from violently seeking the Dechristianization of France during the French Revolution leading the Eastern Orthodox Church to reject Enlightenment ideas as too dangerous to embrace."

The connection between the Dechristianization of France and the Eastern Orthodox Church's rejection of Enlightenment ideas is a logical and plausible interpretation, but it's presented as a direct cause-and-effect that might be too strong without more specific historical evidence for this direct linkage across such a vast geographical and cultural divide. The Eastern Orthodox Church's caution toward Enlightenment ideas (especially radical ones) stemmed from its own theological traditions and its relationship with state power, not solely from observing events in revolutionary France, though those events certainly provided a stark example of anti-religious zeal.

"The rise of Protestantism contributed to... modern capitalism in Northern Europe..."

Contested Claim: This is based on Max Weber’s thesis from The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, but this claim is highly debated. Many scholars argue that capitalist practices predated Protestantism (e.g., in Catholic Italian city-states), and that economic factors were more influential than religious ones.

"Radical revolutionaries... led the Eastern Orthodox Church to reject Enlightenment ideas..."

Factual Inaccuracy: The Eastern Orthodox Church's opposition to Enlightenment ideas was already present due to its traditionalist theology, not solely a response to the French Revolution. The Greek Orthodox world, for example, had complex engagements with Enlightenment thought, particularly in the Balkans.

"Mormons... sought to create a religious utopia."

Essentially accurate, though simplified. The early Latter-day Saints indeed aimed at a theocratic communal society, especially in Nauvoo and later Utah. However, the term "utopia" is loaded—it would be better to say they sought a restored Zion-like society.

"Restorationists... emphasized biblical authority and baptism..."

Partial representation: While this is broadly accurate, different groups (e.g., Jehovah's Witnesses, Adventists) had distinct doctrines (e.g., end times, dietary laws, Sabbath observance) that went far beyond baptism and biblical authority.

"The 300-year-old trans-Atlantic slave trade, in which some Christians had participated, had always garnered moral objections, and by the eighteenth century, individual Quakers, Methodists, Presbyterians, and Baptists began a written campaign against it."

The claim that the transatlantic slave trade "had always garnered moral objections" is problematic. While scattered individual voices of dissent existed earlier, widespread, organized, and influential moral objection to the slave trade was not consistent throughout its 300-year history. Many Christian institutions and individuals participated in or condoned slavery for centuries, often rationalizing it with biblical interpretations. The significant, organized, and effective abolitionist movement (starting in the late 18th century) was a relatively later development, not a continuous historical feature. This needs to be rephrased to reflect the historical reality that objections became widespread and organized much later in the trade's history.

"This ideological opposition eventually ended the trans-Atlantic slave trade..."

Oversimplification / Causal Overreach: The end of the slave trade involved complex economic, political, and military factors, including British naval enforcement, economic shifts, slave revolts, and international diplomacy—not only ideological opposition.

"Protestant missionaries... resulted in the spread of literacy and indigenization."

Partial Truth / Colonial Context Ignored: While missionary work often spread literacy, it also involved cultural imperialism, suppression of local religions, and collaboration with colonial powers. The positive framing omits this critical context.

"Protestant fundamentalism in America appeared to be dying by 1930."

Oversimplification: Fundamentalism retreated from public view (especially after the Scopes Trial in 1925), but it remained strong in Bible colleges, rural churches, and radio ministries. The movement transformed, but did not die.

"Pope Pius XI declared the irreconcilability... with totalitarian fascist states..."

True, but requires context: Pius XI did denounce fascism in Mit brennender Sorge (1937), but earlier concordats, such as with Mussolini (Lateran Treaty, 1929) and Hitler (Reichskonkordat, 1933), complicate this narrative. The Vatican cooperated with fascist regimes under certain conditions.

"Before 1945, about a third of the people in the world were Christians..."

Overgeneralization. Estimates from historical demography (e.g., World Christian Encyclopedia) suggest Christianity accounted for roughly 30% of the global population around 1900, but data from the pre-1945 period is sparse and uneven, and this proportion fluctuated depending on region and source. Claiming a stable one-third figure before 1945 lacks precision.

"About 80% of [Christians] lived in Europe, Russia, and the Americas."

Likely accurate for around 1900, but too vague for the entire pre-1945 period. Clarification: By 1900, Christianity was heavily concentrated in Europe and the Americas (especially due to colonization and missionary activity), but stating "80%" without specifying the date or source is imprecise.

"Christianity in Southeast and East Asia, especially Korea, grew faster after colonialism."

Oversimplified. Christianity grew in Korea both during Japanese colonial rule (1905–1945) and especially after the Korean War (1950s–1970s). In China, Christianity was also expanding rapidly post-1979, but growth was suppressed or underground during much of the colonial and revolutionary periods.

"The Council on Foreign Relations reports that the number of Chinese Protestants has grown by an average of 10% annually since 1979..."

Outdated and uncertain statistic. While a 10% growth rate was commonly cited in the early 2000s, recent crackdowns on Christianity in China (especially under Xi Jinping) have complicated this picture. It is no longer accurate to suggest uninterrupted rapid growth since 1979.

"Highly authoritarian and totalitarian governments have brought about crises and decline in 186 countries."

Major factual inaccuracy. There are not 186 authoritarian or totalitarian governments in the world. As of 2024, the world has around 195 recognized sovereign states, and most are not authoritarian. This figure is likely a misrepresentation of data from Pew or Freedom House regarding religious restrictions or freedom ratings, but it should not be stated as a count of authoritarian regimes.

"Anti-Christian persecution has become a consistent human rights concern."

Largely accurate, though general. No correction necessary, but specifying examples (e.g., Nigeria, China, North Korea) would improve clarity.

"Less than 40% of Orthodox Christians favor reconciliation with the Roman Catholic Church."

Needs source clarification. Some surveys (e.g. Pew 2017) indicate that attitudes toward Catholic-Orthodox reconciliation vary significantly by country. The claim may reflect Russian Orthodox sentiment more than a pan-Orthodox view.

"The Holocaust forced many to realize that supersessionism ... can lead to hatred, ethnocentrism, and racism."

Interpretative but broadly supported by post-Holocaust theological discourse. No correction required, though "supersessionism was never an official doctrine" is debatable—it was widespread in premodern theology.

"Liberation theology was combined with the social gospel..."

Oversimplification. Liberation theology in Latin America developed largely independently of the earlier American social gospel movement. While there are thematic overlaps (e.g. concern for the poor), the two arose in different contexts with different theological frameworks.

"The feminist movement of the mid-twentieth century began with an anti-Christian ethos..."

Overgeneralization and misleading. While some mid-20th-century feminist thinkers were critical of Christianity (e.g., Simone de Beauvoir), many feminists were also Christian and developed Christian feminist thought from the beginning. Labeling the movement as having an "anti-Christian ethos" is reductive and inaccurate.

"Modern motivation toward missions has declined in some denominations."

Vague. This is true for mainline Protestant denominations in the West, but evangelical, Pentecostal, and global South churches have significantly increased mission activity in recent decades. Needs contextual nuance.

"In 2020, 57 countries had "very high" levels of government restrictions on religion, banning or giving preferential treatment to particular groups, prohibiting conversions, and limiting preaching. As of 2022, highly authoritarian and totalitarian governments have brought about crises and decline in 186 countries."

These are statistics that come from reports by organizations like Pew Research Center or Open Doors, which track religious restrictions and persecution. The numbers are often based on specific methodologies for defining "very high" restrictions or "crises and decline." Assuming these numbers are quoted from reliable sources as indicated in the text (which references Pew), there's no immediate factual error, but readers should be aware such statistics are derived from specific criteria. / End of quotes from ChatGPT and Gemini.

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

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

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

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

You make several errors.

And no sources for any of it.

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Newslinger There weren't any compelling ones - imo.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Miscellaneous thoughts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neutrality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggestions

Ref 175 (Bayliss 2004) is a WP:SFN that doesn't currently point to any citation. I'm fairly confident it refers to this paper here, although I'm open to hearing any other suggestions. I'm fairly confident that headings don't use ampersands, as this doesn't appear to be standard practice on WP. Also, a revision of the external links would be beneficial, as currently it looks a bit like a link farm. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 10:08, 28 December 2025 (UTC)