Talk:Christianity as the Roman state religion/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

New article

Folks,

Looking around at various Christianity-related articles I noticed a glaring ommission. Different articles refer to the Roman Church during the classic age and the Middle Ages and try to link to different articles that are only indirectly relevant. I have created this article to specifically discuss the Empire's official church and faith as it existed through the classical and middle ages.

Please feel free to help expand and develop this article. But please bear in mind that this is a historical article. As such it avoids going to far down the path of viewpoints of any particular Christian denomination that is related to this Church. Its focus is the Church as a department of the Roman state, rather than any particular religious definition of the Church (i.e. this has nothing to do with what is the "true" Church).

--Mcorazao (talk) 15:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Neither the Church nor the Imperial Court saw the Church as a department of the Roman "state". I'm not at all certain that terms like "state" and "department" really apply without serious qualification to the Roman Empire. I would support a good article on the relations between the Church and the Empire, but it should not be made to serve an anachronistic polemic about church-state relations. Rwflammang (talk) 16:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Was there a church that self-identified by that name?

I doubt very much that there was at any time a church that self-identified as the Roman Imperial Church. A basic flaw of the article is the absence (am I wrong?) of a source that says there was. If no such source can be cited, the whole article must be deleted as original research.

Ethiopia was never within the Roman Empire. But the church in Ethiopia and the church within the Roman Empire saw themselves as the same church. That in Ethiopia received its bishops from Alexandria from the time of Athanasius to the twentieth century.

A break between the church within the empire and that within the Persian or Parthian domains to the east arose only in the fifth century. Until then the church within the empire did not see itself as a distinct church.

Is it not much more reasonable to see church leaders within the empire as thinking of themselves as a part of the church in general, and not as "a department of the Roman state under the control of the Roman emperor". They were endeavouring to utilize the Roman Emperors (whether single or double, one for east and another for west) for their own (religious and other) ends, just as they were endeavouring to use the other rulers (Lombards, Franks, Visigoths, whatever they were) who were in power over much of the territory that this article may perhaps comprise within the term "Roman Imperial Church" at least until 1034. By then the Roman Emperor, with his seat at Constantinople, had no power over most of Europe; yet the church in his dominions and those to the west of it undoubtedly saw themselves as belonging to the same identical church.

At the same time the Roman Emperors in the areas they controlled and the other rulers in the areas ruled by them were trying to utilize the church, to the extent they could, for their own ends. Naturally so. Only in that sense were they trying to turn the church into "a department of their state", though often finding that the church was not at all as flexible as they would like. But none of them acted in the style of Henry VIII of England. None of them, it seems, even thought of establishing a separate "Roman Imperial Church" or "Frankish Imperial Church"/"Holy Roman Imperial Church" etc. distinct from "other Christian communions" (a phrase in the article).

I feel therefore that the article should either be radically revised or be deleted. The title is certainly misleading, giving the false idea of the existence of a church that saw itself as a separate Christian denomination. Even the rulers did not see the church in their dominions as a separate distinct Christian denomination.

That is my reaction. Perhaps not that of others. Esoglou (talk) 18:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback.

Some replies:

• There is no requirement that an article be titled by the name by which the topic self-identifies. I am not sure where you got that notion. Certainly, though, if you have a suggestion as to an alternative name for the article feel free to suggest it. For this particular entity there is no single name that is clearly the most appropriate but this seemed a good choice as far as distinguishing it from other related topics.
• I understand that the Church in Ethopia was in communion with and derived its authority from the Roman Church. What is your point? Are you saying that the Ethopian branch of the Church needs to be discussed more explicitly?
• I understand that the Persian Church broke off in the 5th century. That is why I listed it as a separate communion. Again, what is your point?
• "They were endeavouring to utilize the Roman Emperors ..." - This is beside the point. By the time Theodosius' reign was over the Nicene faith was the official state religion and there was a body of churches that had, in essence submitted to imperial authority in Church matters (and in turn the emperor had to some degree submitted to Church authority). Certainly it is true that the bishops were "using" the emperors and the actual degree to which bishops saw themselves as part of the state could be vague and varied at different times. But by the same token one can debate to what extent the Roman Empire was a "state" at different times and what territories were really part of the "state". These things are all fine and deserve discussion but, still, would you argue that the Roman Empire article should be deleted on that basis?
• "None of them, it seems, even thought of establishing a separate 'Roman Imperial Church' ..." - This is at best an oversimplification, and in reality not true. The Roman emperors most certainly wanted a Church that was under their control and wanted to use the Church's envangelistic efforts to assert control over other nations. Charlemagne had the same intention. The very reason they did not try to separate their churches from the churches of other nations was that they wanted to try to maintain influence.
• "... giving the false idea of the existence of a church that saw itself as a separate Christian denomination." - With respect, this is patently false. It is precisely the opposite of what the article says. The Roman Church always purported to be the universal Church and claimed that those who do not submit to its authority and beliefs were heretics or heathens. At most points in history the emperors and bishops never particularly acknowledged other communions as legitimate or distinct.

--Mcorazao (talk) 18:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I should make the general point that how any particular topic views itself is arguably the least relevant information to creating an article. Wikipedia actively discourages the use of primary sources (doesn't forbid it but discourages it). The reason for that is that a topic's views of itself are generally among the most biased. How uninvolved scholars view the topic is generally more important. --Mcorazao (talk) 20:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Pertinent Question

An editor said:

There is no requirement that an article be titled by the name by which the topic self-identifies. I am not sure where you got that notion.

The problem here is that if no contemporary saw the church as being established by the Empire, then you have to address the issue of whether such a church ever existed.

This whole article smacks of OR, and has a very serious ax to grind. It covers no ground not covered amply and reduntantly elsewhere. In my opinion, it is an article without a (legitimate) mission and should be deleted. Rwflammang (talk) 13:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I had a feeling that this article would ruffle feathers. Nevertheless I feel that it covers an important topic.

• "no contemporary saw the church as being established by the Empire" - Strictly speaking this is not relevant and I don't want to keep diving down this path. Wikipedia's standard is to base its articles on the published consensus of modern scholars. How things were viewed in the past is a separate matter.
• "whole article smacks of OR" - Pointless insult. I am guessing that you have not bothered to read up on the topic.
• "covers no ground not covered amply and reduntantly elsewhere" - First, this is not really true as pointed out above. Second, the reality is that many of the articles in Wikipedia that purport to be about the all of Christian history in fact cover mostly the Roman Church (and often the Western Church at that). Regardless there is no other article specifically focused on this topic (your argument is rather like saying that because the Theory of Relativity is part of Physics, there does not need to be an article on Relativity).

--Mcorazao (talk) 14:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I had a feeling that my comment would ruffle a few feathers. Rwflammang (talk) 23:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm also against deleting the article, it can be useful from a historic point of view, this article refers to the situation of Church in the Roman Empire. (And there are actually enough books which speak of the "Roman Imperial Church".) Cody7777777 (talk) 17:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.

BTW, I don't mean to imply that this article is complete. So far I have focused a lot on the development of orthodoxy in the Church and how the Church became distinguished from the rest of the Christian world, as well as the external forces that influenced it. There are other things that merit discussion as well. --Mcorazao (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I'll reiterate that I have no problem considering another name for the article, provided the name conforms to WP policy. --Mcorazao (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, you gave a sneer, and reiterated a few points you already made, but did not address the biggest issue I raised, which was did a Roman Imperial Church actually exist, and if it did, why hasn't anyone heard of it. Fortunately, Cody7777777 did address this issue, by supplying a link to a list of very recently published works. (A more general google search turns up scads of hits by advocacy groups looking for a scapegoat, a need which a fictional R.I.C. neatly meets.) But Cody makes an even better point, which is that an article on Christianity in the Roman Empire would be useful. I have no objection to such an article, but obviously it could be given a less misleading name. Rwflammang (talk) 00:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Rwflammang, that's a different topic and I think you know it. --Mcorazao (talk) 01:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I don't know what you really expect anyone to say about your existential questions. The article provides some references and Cody7777777 provided a way to find some others. --Mcorazao (talk) 03:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Misleading

The title of the article is misleading. It gives the impression that there was a "Roman Imperial Church" in the sense in which we speak of the "Church of England", the "Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church", the "Roman Catholic Church", etc., each of which sees itself as a church distinct from others. We don't have articles in Wikipedia on the "United States Roman Catholic Church", the "Irish Roman Catholic Church", the "Argentine Roman Catholic Church", etc., as if each of these saw itself as a church distinct from others. They see themselves instead as merely parts or, to speak more precisely, as presences of a single church. So in Wikipedia we have instead articles on "Roman Catholicism in Spain", etc.

In the same way, this article is not about a distinct "Roman Imperial Church". The church it is about saw itself as one church but with a variety of presences, not all within the Roman Empire. Since it was by no means coterminous with the Roman Empire, the church in question should not be called the "Roman Imperial Church", as if it were thus limited.

On the other hand, Wikipedia can indeed have an article on this church in the Roman Empire, like the articles on "Roman Catholicism in ...".

A possible title for the article on this church within the Roman Empire is "Catholic Church in the Roman Empire". The adjective "catholic" is more suitable than, for instance, "orthodox", because "catholic" was then the main term used to distinguish that church from others. The Edict of Thessalonica, for instance, used "catholic".

Whatever about the proper title of an article on the church in question within the Roman Empire, this present article, as it now stands, is misleading or expressive of a POV. Esoglou (talk) 10:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• "this article is not about a distinct "'Roman Imperial Church'" - That's not true and the article says so clearly. --Mcorazao (talk) 14:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
• ""catholic" was then the main term used to distinguish that church from others" That's not true. Both terms were used and are still used by historians. In the English-speaking world today the term "catholic" tends to get more play simply because of a modern bias toward the Roman Catholic Church. Attempting to name the article using those terms would be misleading (i.e. it would tend to imply that one or the other modern church has a more legitimate claim to be the sole heir of the Roman Church's legacy). --Mcorazao (talk) 14:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Then according to you, the article is about a distinct "Roman Imperial Church", one that considered itself distinct from the church outside the empire, for instance, from the church in Ethiopia and the church in Ireland (which were never in the empire). Doesn't that affirmation need sourcing, if it is to be put in Wikipedia even implicitly, as it is by the present title? All the more, if you are right in saying that the affirmation is explicit in the article. Esoglou (talk) 14:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

By "both", I presume you mean "also 'orthodox'". The use of "catholic" as a name, not just as a description such as "true", "genuine" etc., to distinguish the church in question from heretical groups is easily sourced; the other not so easily. But in any case, this is not the essential point: the problem is that the present title is misleading. Esoglou (talk) 14:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

You're fabricating policy here. There is no requirement in Wikipedia that an article must agree with how the topic "considered itself". In fact that runs against policy. The criteria is how modern scholars see it. --Mcorazao (talk) 15:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there a consensus among modern scholars that the Church in the Roman Empire (when the empire existed) was a distinct entity from the church of the same faith outside the empire's borders? Or do they consider the Church within the Roman Empire in much the same way as they consider the (for instance) "Canadian Roman Catholic Church"? Esoglou (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not there were followers of the faith of the Roman Church outside the Empire is irrelevant. That's like saying that if a Chinese citizen leaves China he/she is no longer Chinese. Strictly speaking, whether or not there were any sects that did not follow this faith is not relevant to whether the Roman Church existed. But regardless there were many churches that saw themselves as separate from the Roman Church. The degree and timeframe of those splits varied with the church and faith. During the 4th century the splits were less clear. It was debatable which faction was the true Roman Church since the Roman emperors kept changing their allegiances (i.e. though Roman Christianity was divided a lot of people saw it as divided from within since each group hoped its doctrine would ultimately be the faith that won). But the end of that century it was clear that the Nicene faction was going to win and that faction became more and more integrated with the state. During the the 5th and 6th centuries other factions went from simply considering the Nicene factions as heretics to seeing the Imperial Church as a distinct and oppressive entity. The Imperial Church for its part tended to deny the very existence of the other sects (e.g. most of the historical sources about the Arian Church in Italy come from Constantinople. Whereas the "Catholic" Church in Rome tended to deny the Arians existed, Constantinople was only too happy to point out that Rome was ruled by Arian barbarians). In and around Constantinople the emperors tended to make this true by killing or deporting heretics (hence the rapid growth of the Sassanid Church at that time). --Mcorazao (talk) 15:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it not you who are saying the equivalent of "if a Chinese citizen leaves China he/she is no longer Chinese"? You are saying that the Church within the Roman Empire was a distinct entity from the Church outside the empire.

You are right in saying that it is irrelevant whether there were sects or churches that saw themselves as separate from the Church within the Roman Empire. It is also irrelevant whether within that church there were disputes that had not yet reached the stage of forming a separate sect or church - like the disputes today within the Roman Catholic Church that have not, at least yet, led to a rupture. What is relevant is that there were Christians outside the empire who considered those within the empire and were considered by those within the empire to be the same church, not members of a distinct sect or church. Today too there is, to say the least, no consensus that those within and without were not the same church present in different places and having to deal with different civil authorities. Esoglou (talk) 16:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

You are mixing issues. There is always some fuzziness about anything and everything. The point is that there was a very large body of Christians that the Church explicitly excommunicated and otherwise denied and who did not acknowledge the authority of the Church. This is agreed upon by virtually all legitimate scholars. To argue that this doesn't matter because at various times there was fuzziness about where the lines were really drawn is simply looking for excuses to avoid the facts. --Mcorazao (talk) 17:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The point is not that there was a very large body of Christians that the Church explicitly excommunicated and so were not part of the Church. There was no fuzziness about them: they were not the same church. The point is that there was a large body of Christians not under the emperor who were not excommunicated and so were part of the Church. About these, who were the same church, there seems to be, more than fuzziness, a strong indication that no, they weren't the same church, they were instead a different church. Esoglou (talk) 20:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It's more complicated than that. Theoretically those who were formally execommunicated were stripped of Roman citizenship and banished from the Empire. The bulk of the non-Nicene Christians, though, simply practiced their faith quiety (sometimes not so quietly). They were not explicitly excommunicated. The emperor and the Church new they were there but they could not practically control everything that went on. So whereas around Constantinople the churches ended up more orthodox out in the provinces you ended up with a mix. Often there were Nicene churches down the road from Miaphysite or even Arian churches. Officially the Empire declared that all Romans were orthodox but unofficially they we were well aware that it wasn't the case. --Mcorazao (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought you were talking about a church within the empire, not about all Christians, who, you tell me, were all officially declared to be orthodox. I thought that this did not apply to groups such as the Donatists, and also to excommunicated Miaphysites (not, of course, to those who made no open declaration of what was considered heresy and so were not declared excommunicate). Should you then change the title to something like "Christianity under the Christian (or post-313) Roman Emperors"? Esoglou (talk) 07:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC) This discussion is not productive. Esoglou (talk) 08:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

New name

All this talk about different churches, Arians versus "Nicenes" (Although both Arians and Catholics claimed fidelity to the Nicene council) really highlights the point that this article is poorly named. It is not about a church, but about relationships between churches and the power of the emperor.

The word church, like most words, is polyvalent. In addition to several technical meanings that don't really apply here, it has more common meanings, among them are:

• A denomination in the modern sense. Obviously, it would be anachronistic to use this term in a historical article about the ancient or medieval periods.
• A local church, like the Diocese of Rome or the Archdiocese of Alexandria. Some of these churches were in the Roman Empire, and obviously we could have an article called Churches in the Roman Empire.
• A communion of local churches, usually known as The Church. As Esoglou has accurately pointed out, such communions are "supranational", if you will pardon the anachronism; they transcend the imperial borders. There were Catholics and Arians outside of the Empire as well as inside of it. The same goes for Donatists, Nestorians, Jacobites, etc.

Rwflammang (talk) 16:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I have been withholding this comment, but will now make it. The article seems to be in reality little more than this. Esoglou (talk) 16:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a point in getting into tomayto/tomahto debates. "Imperial Church" is one term that has been used by scholars to refer to this entity/body. There are many others (many of which would overlap in usage too much with the topics of over articles). This article is about the entity sanctioned by and integrated with the Roman state. To what degree this entity encompassed vs. was in communion with entities outside the Roman state is a separate issue (though an interesting one and perhaps worth getting into more explicitly in the article).

Caesorpapism is very relevant to this article (perhaps the term should be explicitly mentioned). During the 4th century this concept began to emerge though it was not clearly established. Over the course of the next millenium the degree to which this concept applied waxed and waned. The Roman Church at times was seen as only partially under the authority of the emperor whereas at other times it was seen entirely as a tool of the emperor. The whole situation was made more complex by the fact that the Church in Rome was for much of the history only nominally under the emperor's control.

--Mcorazao (talk) 17:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not have any problem with the current title (and it appears in sources), however I'm not opposed to discussing a different article title (although, I have some doubts, that we can really find a better title). I don't think it is a very good idea to have a title like "Christianity in the Roman Empire", since then it would also probably have to refer to Christianity before the 4th century AD, but this article refers mainly to the situation after it became the favored religion and the state religion of the Roman Empire. However, I think that the claim in the introduction that it "was formally established during the 4th century CE" should be changed into something else, since it might give the impression that a different institution appeared then, (for example, we could say in the lead something like "The Roman Imperial Church refers to the Catholic (or Orthodox) Church in the Roman Empire, after it became the favored and official religion of the Roman Empire in the 4th century AD."). I would also have to say that the statement "The Church was effectively a department of the Roman state under the direction of the Roman emperor." seems too much, for example, the emperors had some difficulty dealing with the diophysite vs monophysite dispute, there was also resistance to iconoclasm, and according to John Meyendorff "the emperors were above neither the dogmas nor the canons of the Church". Cody7777777 (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with rewording "formally established" but it is important to state in some fashion that we are talking about something that was delineated in the 4th century. Certainly it is true that it was not created from scratch (as the article states) but whereas Christianity had nothing to do with the imperial government or anything sanctioned by the government before the 4th century, by the 5th century there was an official Christian doctrine and a Church hierarchy sanctioned and partially established by the state. And that body was distinct to varying degrees from other bodies that opposed it (and those distinctions continued to grow over the next couple of centuries). The article needs to be clear about that up front so that its scope is understood. I think saying something like "department of the state" is important though the precise wording and strength of it can be debated. Several authors use that exact wording. The point to make, though, is that the official church became closely linked to the state (although not to the degree as, say, the army). There was no separation of church and state (that is no separation of the official Church from the state). --Mcorazao (talk) 18:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Although, there was no separation between Church and State, there was still distinction between them (else, we wouldn't be speaking of Church and State, if it was just a department of the state). The official position was that there should be harmony between Church and state. Also, John Meyendorff goes even further to claim in another book that a "A heretical emperor was not to be obeyed." (and gives a list of Saints who who were venerated for their "resistance to the imperial will"). Cody7777777 (talk) 20:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand. The reason I used the qualifier "effectively" in the text was that the Church was not as closely tied to the state as other entities like the military. The relationship was always more complex. But remember that the Church was explicitly sanctioned by the state as compared to others, the Roman emperor often explicitly removed and appointed bishops and otherwise was often involved in their selection, and the emperor did explicitly convene and oversee Council meetings (many other examples as well). The Church was integrated with the state to a large degree, but yes they were not 100% one and the same. --Mcorazao (talk) 21:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I do have a serious issue with saying "The Roman Imperial Church refers to the Catholic (or Orthodox) Church in the Roman Empire". First we should not link to disambigs. But regardless, the question becomes "What does that really mean?". To argue that the Church was catholic in the literal sense is, of course, not at all NPOV. That is saying that the other Christians were not really Christians. To argue that this is an article about the Roman Catholic Church in antiquity or the Middle Ages is similarly not NPOV. Because of the loaded nature of the term Catholic (and Orthodox) these could not be used in the lead sentence in a way that would be NPOV. --Mcorazao (talk) 18:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I used the expression "Catholic (or Orthodox) Church" mainly because the Church did indeed referred to herself during these times as the "Catholic Church" and to its faith and members as "Orthodox", so I don't think it would have been wrong from a historic point of view (and both the "Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church" and the "Roman Catholic Church" consider themselves as continuations of the Church within the Roman Empire, as already claimed by the article), however, I'm not opposed to use "Christian Church" there, instead of "Catholic (or Orthodox) Church" (although, in my opinion it doesn't look ambiguous). Cody7777777 (talk) 20:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree that the terms "Catholic" and "Orthodox" were widely used. I explicitly said so in the article. But that isn't the point. If we look across the spectrum of Wikipedia articles and historical texts one finds that writers often do not use the terminology that was contemporary at the time. Instead they use terminology that is least confusing to the reader. The point here is that "Catholic" and "Orthodox" are understood to have very particular meanings in modern usage. As such we should be very careful how we use them. Using these in the lead sentence is extremely misleading. It is preferable to first introduce the topic using terminology that is as unambiguous as possible and only then discuss other terms that are used to describe the topic. Again, I am not suggesting that my phrasing is the best. I am only saying that we need to make sure that whatever changes are made make the meaning more clear, not less so. --Mcorazao (talk) 21:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

While Cody's proposed solution may perhaps not be ideal, I support his identification of problems affecting the article as it stands. What was delineated in the fourth century was an exercise of power by the Roman Emperor on the part of the Church that was within his empire, other parts of which Church were not under his power. It was not the creation of a previously non-existing Church distinct from what went before in time and what continued unchanged in areas outside the empire.

Even if his proposed title may not be ideal, it is better than the present title. Esoglou (talk) 19:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. However, I don't think I proposed a new title, I proposed a new lead introduction. Cody7777777 (talk) 20:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

You are right. I apologize. Esoglou (talk) 07:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

There's no problem. Cody7777777 (talk) 17:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Esoglou, you are mixing issues again. This article is about the organizational body that was integrated with the Roman state. You are talking about a spiritual body that exceeded those limits. That is a different topic (although obviously there is overlap). Your argument is the same as saying that we should delete all of the articles on the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Lutheran Church, etc. because in reality we are all brothers in Christ. The viewpoint that "there is more that unites us than divides us" has some validity but that does not mean the divisions do not exist. --Mcorazao (talk) 21:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I took a stab at rewriting the lead a little to remove the "department" description (bearing in mind that the cited references do actually state that). --Mcorazao (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for being so much more reasonable than your references. Still, it's a pity we can't seem to be able to agree on a better name. Rivington, in his (highly polemical) tour de force, referred to the phenomenon we are talking about as the "Court bishop". An apt term in its way, but not really appropriate to an encyclopedia, as it is more of a sneer than a description. Perhaps just a simple Roman imperial churches would be something of an improvement, as its lack of capitalization makes it look less like the name of a denomination. But Churches in the Roman Empire would be even better. Rwflammang (talk) 00:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, "Roman imperial churches" implies something a little different. That aside, though, I guess I am ambivalent about the capitalization. I have seen authors use both. "Churches in the Roman Empire" is an entirely different topic as I have stated.

I think the main phenomenon we are dealing with is revisionist history. Throughout most of human history it has been considered the job of the historian to present history in a way that supports a particular viewpoint. It has been only relatively recently that historians have seen it as their job to present history objectively. Unfortunately we have inherited a legacy of revisions and as a world society we still have trouble letting go of that legacy. Rivington's descriptions may have lacked objectivity but they were nevertheless discussing some real historical events. Still the article is not implying that the entire Church fell into the "court bishop" category but it was not separate from the state either (as I have said, the reality was complex particularly when it comes to Rome after the 5th century).

--Mcorazao (talk) 04:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

(With reference to Mcorazao's comment of 21:00, 8 July 2010) What we are both talking about is the Church composed of Christians situated within the Roman Empire and to whom scholars apply the descriptions orthodox and catholic. I maintain that to call it the Roman Imperial Church gives the false impression that it was a distinct church like today's RCC, EOC, LDS, etc., when in reality it was only the Church within the Roman Empire, the Church in the Roman Empire after 313. I am not objecting to having an article on the church composed of those Christians, but I am objecting to the title that you are applying to it. The appropriate analogy is not the one you put forward (lumping together RCC, EOC etc. into a single article), but the one I mentioned earlier: an article or articles in the form "Roman Catholicism in Spain", not in the form "Spanish Roman Catholic Church". Can we think of nothing better than the present title? Esoglou (talk) 07:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Esoglou, I am not objecting to coming up with a different name. The suggestion that all Christians in the Roman Empire can be unambiguously lumped under the topic of this article is false, though. --Mcorazao (talk) 14:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I have not suggested that all Christians in the Roman Empire be unambiguously lumped under the topic of this article, which is, shall we say, the Church in the Roman Empire after 313. I did think that you were making that very suggestion above, when you said that "officially the Empire declared that all Romans were orthodox". It is not my idea. What I have said is that there can be an article on the Church in the Roman Empire, but to suggest that it was the Church of the Roman Empire ignores that the Church was not limited to the Roman Empire. I did not suggest that all Christians within the empire were members of the Church (as here understood). Nor, for that matter, that all Christians outside the empire were members of the Church.

So what about something like "Christian church in the Roman Empire after 313" as a title for the article? Esoglou (talk) 14:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, thank you for clarifying. I think that helps direct the discussion a bit.

Still, there was a "Church of the Roman Empire" in the sense that the empire did explicitly sanction one creed and one body of churches. And people at that time as well as historians today have considered that Church as being the emperor's Church (again the perceptions are more complex than that simple statement but still in a nutshell that is a fact). Even apart from that, though, the state was directly involved with decisions of the Church and the Church was involved with decisions of the state. There was always some distinction between the two but they were certainly not separate (as indicated, for example, by the fact that the Patriarch of Constantinople today still uses the double-headed eagle symbol of the Eastern Roman emperor).

--Mcorazao (talk) 14:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

BTW, some possible alternative names I could live with:

• Church of the Roman Empire
• Church of the Roman state

Some alternatives that I don't like but maybe could be considered:

• Roman Church - name is too easy to confuse with Roman Catholic Church and is also commonly used to refer to the Patriarchate of Rome.
• Official church of the Roman Empire - This maybe avoids some of your concerns about up front stating too close a connection between church and state. But it is clumsy and I have never seen any author use it.
• Constantine's Church - This is debatable. One could argue that when the Nestorians and Miaphysites split from the Church it was no longer the Church Constantine had started. Regardless the name is not very proper.

In the literature, apart from names that can be easily confused with other topics, the most commonly used names appear to "Imperial Church" and "Church of the Roman Empire". But I have not attempted to do an exhaustive search.

--Mcorazao (talk) 15:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I notice that you seem to insist on the preposition "of" or the possessive case, and that you haven't included "Christian Church in the Roman Empire after 313", which seems to be accurate enough. "Church of the Roman Empire" would take things back before 313, and "Church of the Roman state" is even more ambiguous, perhaps (but I am not serious in making this suggestion) including the Church of the nineteenth-century Roman Republic!

I believe that the Church within the empire was something the emperor attempted, generally with success, to control, but whether it recognized itself as juridically "the emperor's church" is debatable. The Kings of Spain exercised very considerable control over the Catholic Church in Spain, but there was no distinct Church of Spain, no separate church called the Spanish King's Church.

I will not debate whether the double-eagle symbol used by the Ecumenical Patriarch (and by the Church of Greece and, perhaps, some other Orthodox churches) is a link with the Eastern Roman emperor or rather with the city of Constantinople. I think it best to await comments by others before I intervene again. Esoglou (talk) 15:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

"Christian Church in the Roman Empire after 313" encompasses a lot more than the topic of this article. Using that phrasing would imply that the Roman Church was the only true Christian church and all of the others were indeed heretical. Certainly not NPOV nor does it reflect the opinion of any serious scholar. Also using the date 313 explicitly is problematic. It is difficult to say what specific date this came into being. One can certainly say there was no imperial church before the 4th century and most if not all scholars would say that there was clearly an imperial church after (though obviously there were changes in what that exactly meant as time went on).

To consider the example of Spain ... There is some merit in arguing that there is some similarity in that Spain had an officially sanctioned Church and the state was involved with the Church there to some degree. The main difference is that the government generally always acknowledged that their bishops were under the oversight of Rome and Spain certainly did not claim to have authority in any sense over Rome. One could argue that is a technicality and that the reality was often somewhat different but IMHO it is an important technicality. A more appropriate comparison would be the Holy Roman Empire. By the end of Charlemagne's reign the Franks did rule Rome and had begun a process of integrating the Frankish state with what would become the Roman Catholic Church. That process never went as far as it did with the Roman Empire in part because the HRE fragmented quickly. So scholars generally do not make a big deal about the state church of the HRE because that integration never fully got off the ground. Instead the Roman Catholic Church became partly integrated with a number of different states and yet Rome still maintained a large degree of autonomy (in contrast to the see in Constantinople which simply continued to become more and more closely tied to the state). And again in all of this we have to distinguish between the temporal aspects of the church body (which is what we are talking about) as contrasted to the spiritual aspects which are somewhat separate.

--Mcorazao (talk) 16:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

What about "Imperial Roman Church" (instead of "Roman Imperial Church") as an article title? (the term appears on "Google Books",) I realize it isn't a big change, but in this way the adjective "imperial" is not attached to the Church (which might also mean in that case, the emperor's Church), but to Roman ("Imperial Roman" can mean "of the Roman Empire", but it could also "within the Roman Empire"). I would also add that according to John Romanides the word "ecumenical" actually meant "imperial", ("The only reason why these Councils (in the East, after the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire) are not called "Ecumenical" is simply that this title means "Imperial" since the decisions of these Ecumenical Councils became part of Roman Law."), the the "Catholic Encyclopedia" from "New Advent" also claims "o’ikoumenikòs patriárches meant no more than "imperial patriarch"", so in my opinon, using "imperial" in the title is not wrong. The article's lead introduction could start as "The Imperial Roman Church refers to the Christian Church in the Roman Empire, after it became the favored and official religion of the Roman Empire in the 4th century AD." Cody7777777 (talk) 17:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The title change is fine with me. I would be careful in rephrasing the lead wording. "refers to the Christian Church in the Roman Empire" could be interpreted to imply that this was the only Christian body in the Empire. Though I am obviously biased I tend to think "the official Christian Church" is very clear and concise in identifying the topic. Whether or not you follow that with "of the Roman Empire" or "in the Roman Empire" I am somewhat ambivalent about. "of the Roman Empire" is more logically correct but if it makes the other editors feel better the "official" wording -- I think -- is clear enough about identifying the scope. --Mcorazao (talk) 21:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Continuation of the church

I hope you don't mind me making the following remark:

If the Roman imperial church or Roman imperial state church or whatever name you want to give it is described, as in one part of the article, as effectively a department of the state, i.e. of the imperial government, then the church in what had been the western part of the empire ceased by the end of the eighth century to be part of the imperial church, even before the East-West Schism. In that sense, Cody's opinion is right, and the Roman Catholic Church is a continuation of the Roman imperial church only in the same way as the Coptic Church too is a continuation of it. Esoglou (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought the question Cody was addressing was what preexisting Church (capitalized) was established, not which churches have rights as successors. In any case, forgive me for interrupting this debate we are not having by repeating my comment about the title under its own head below. We can continue the discussion forum under this head and continue discussing the article itself below.μηδείς (talk) 21:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Esoglou, your point in general is a valid perspective although not the only valid perspective (and more to the point not the only one that scholars consider valid). One can argue that one valid interpretation of history is that as of Charlemagne's conquering Italy and the Pope's essentially switching allegiance to his empire the Western Church had broken away from the state church of the Roman Empire. Certainly this is the way people in the eastern Mediterranean have traditionally looked at things. The Western perspective is that Constantinople ceased to be part of the Roman Empire and the Charlemagne's empire was the new Roman Empire. From that perspective the Roman patriarchate had always been what defined the Roman empire so the Roman Church and the Roman Empire were continuous (since Rome had technically always been under Constantinople's empire since the 5th century). The reason I let the article taper off at Charlemagne's reign is because of the division of perspectives. --Mcorazao (talk) 23:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Christian church of the Roman Empire

I started this as a new section for convenience's sake.

Let me point out first that I agree with most of Esoglou's points above.

The name as it stands is in violation of naming policy if only because capital letters are not to be used except for proper nouns. At best the article should be Roman imperial church. But I find that name unacceptable for all the reasons given above. As noted above, the Irish and Ethiopean churches did not see themselves as separate entities merely because the were geographically outside the Roman Empire.

If this article is to deal with "the official Christian church of the Roman Empire" then that would be a suitable name.

Also, Christianity was not established until the Edict of Thessalonica under Damasus I. From the Catholic Encyclopedia "In February, 380, Theodosius I and Gratian published the famous edict that all their subjects should profess the faith of the Bishops of Rome and Alexandria (Cod. Theod., XVI, I, 2; Sozomen, VII, 4). The conventicles of the heretics were not to be called churches.

The Established imperial church and the Church of Rome and Alexandria are two other suggestions.

In any case the current name is in violation of policy and must be changed to the uncapitalized version or some other version immediately.μηδείς (talk) 00:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I have changed the capitalization of the name to match http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Name#Article_title_format as mentioned above.

See the articles State church and Roman imperial cult for comparison.

I have changed Imperial Church within the body of the article to the lower case. I have left the unqualified "the Church" capitalized since it is common practice to capitalize that term.

I shall also change the name in the DYK template.

This change does not amount to my endorsement of the uncapitalized name. μηδείς (talk) 03:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Medeis, thanks for taking care of the capitalization.

For future reference I would be careful about being overzealous in making assumptions about capitalization. Wikipedia's standard is that judgements about what is considered a proper noun and what is not should be based on common usage in published sources. There are a number of references that do capitalize "Imperial Church" and "Roman Imperial Church". However, there are also a number that don't. In this case there is no compelling argument either way so lower case is a reasonable alternative (and in the interest of consensus building it is appropriate).

--Mcorazao (talk) 03:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

If I understand your focus correctly, you intend to deal with the church that was established by Rome, and not the Church of Rome during the period from Constantine/Theodosius to the Great Schism. The thing denoted may be the same but the terms are two different things entirely. I think "Established church of the Roman Empire" better fits your meaning, even if it outlived the empire itself. Actually, that would make a good hook - "Did you know that the established church of the Roman Empire, decreed by Theodosius I, outlived the empire itself?"μηδείς (talk) 04:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Well done, Medeis! The change you made may not be the ideal one, but it does overcome the main difficulties with the previous title that had been mentioned, even if other difficulties can be raised even against the new title. Esoglou (talk) 06:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I do take it as axiomatic that there is always an ideal choice of words, even if we have to coin a new term, although as in this case it is hard always to be able to identify it what it might be. I can't say that I find this version ideal but the use of lower case does seem to make it a whole lot less objectionable. I'd like to get the word established or at least the sense in there somehow — Established church of the Roman Empire / Established church of imperial Rome (?) — but can't think of a way to do it that isn't awkward.μηδείς (talk) 06:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not enthusiastic about "established", which calls to mind the situation in England with the Church of England's recognition of the King/Queen as its "supreme governor", rather than the situation in Spain and Portugal in the time of the Padronado/Padroado. I think the situation in the Roman Empire was more similar to the latter than the former, though identical with neither. I am convinced that, in the eyes of the church within the empire, the emperor was the supreme enforcer rather than the supreme governor. Of course, the emperor may have thought otherwise! Esoglou (talk) 07:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I mean established church in the broadest sense. (Note that I did say "the word established or at least the sense" above. That the CoE is associated with the mere word "established" is an accident of language and history.) From Established church: "A state religion (also called an official religion, established church or state church) is a religious body or creed officially endorsed by the state." This most certainly fits the Edict of Thessalonica. But the term State religion is used synonymously, and I am not wed to either. How about Roman state church?μηδείς (talk) 07:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It would have to be "State church of the Roman Empire", I think. "Roman" is much too ambiguous. Yes, the accident of language and history associating "established church" with the CoE is unfortunate, but we are writing in the language that has been affected. In addition, Mcorazao may resist having the church in the article begin with Theodosius instead of Constantine. I take it that nobody supports "Christian church in the Roman Empire after 313" as a title. I have a vague recollection that the word "church" was officially reserved for the state-backed church and its buildings, and the others were to be called conventicles or something similar; but there is no practical reason for me to check this. Esoglou (talk) 08:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think either Roman imperial state church or State church of the Roman Empire would be better. It helps to look at the title of other articles and to work on their analogy. Roman imperial cult redirects to Imperial cult (ancient Rome), for example. I still do not think there is anything wrong with Roman state church, since church implies Christianity and "state" implies the nation in whatever guise, not just the city. It also has the advantage of including the period after the fall of the Western Empire. Speaking of which, the article skips from 500 to 700 AD in the west without discussing the continuity of the church within the context of the fall of the empire in the west. That is perhaps the most interesting historical fact, that the empire's official church outlasted the empire. I am (too) busy with other articles to do so myself but a section on the fall of the western empire / dark ages needs to be added after the late antiquity section. Let me say that this is nevertheless a most handsome and well-written article as it is, congratulations to its author.

To answer your comments, Esoglou, yes, non official churches were called conventicles, see the bottom of my first comment in this section above for a mention and a link the the article at the Catholic Encyclopedia. Also, I did not at all mean to imply that the article should begin with the Edict of Thessalonica any more than the article on the United States should begin with the Declaration of Independence. I have no criticism of the way the relevant section of the article stands at present.

Other than adding a section on the dark age and settling the name I see no major issues.μηδείς (talk) 17:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

"Roman imperial state church" can be acceptable for me (although, I think that "Imperial Roman state church" could've been even better), I'm not sure I understand entirely the need to use lower-cased "church" (which I had the impression could be used when referring just to a place of worship or temple) instead of upper-cased "Church" (which as far as I know, usually refers to an entire organization), however, if other users prefer "church", for me it is ok ("State church of the Roman Empire" is not bad, but it is longer than the other, and "Roman imperial state church" or "Imperial Roman state church" could also "hide" the earlier debate of "Church of the Roman Empire" vs "Church in the Roman Empire"). In this case, I think the lead introduction could start as, "The Roman imperial state church refers to the Christian church in the Roman Empire which became the favored and official religion of the Roman Empire in the 4th century AD.", or more simply "The Roman imperial state church refers to the official Christian church in the Roman Empire from the 4th century AD onward." Cody7777777 (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

You capitalize [one capitalizes] Church when it is being used to stand for a specific proper noun such as the Roman Catholic Church. Not just some church but a specific named Church. In this article we are (I presume) talking about whatever church happened to become the state church of the Roman Empire. That church happened to become the Roman Catholic Church, which is, for convenience's sake, referred to as the Church. But had some other church become the church of the Roman Empire, then that church would likely have become the Church instead.μηδείς (talk) 19:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, as I said, I don't have any problem if we use "church" instead of "Church". We are indeed talking about the Church which became the Roman imperial state church (although, in my opinion, it was the Orthodox Catholic Church which became the Imperial Roman state church, but we don't need to debate this, since the article claims that both the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church are continuations of the Church which was the state church in the Roman Empire). Cody7777777 (talk) 20:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you capitalizing Church, Cody7777777, because you see the Orthodox Church as a preexisting entity which was then adopted by the Roman Empire and made its established church? That, according to my POV, is an anachronistic POV. Prior to Theodosius's establishment of the tradition of Rome and Alexandria there were, one could say, the "Nicene" and the "Arian" churches. Both the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox church claim continuity from the 'Nicene church'. But there was no Orthodox Catholic Church as opposed to a Roman Catholic Church at that time. Those proper names postdate the establishment of the Christian tradition of Rome and Alexandria. Indeed, had the term existed, Theodosius could have said that he was adopting the Orthodox Catholic Church's religion as the state religion. Rather it was the other way around, he said "We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title of Catholic Christians." To say that the empire adopted the Orthodox Church as its official church is kind of like saying that The Union (or The Confederacy) won the American Revolution. That's my POV, not that I want to debate this. μηδείς (talk) 20:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't meant to say that it was called at that time the "Orthodox Catholic Church" or "Orthodox Church" (I'm sorry for not being more clear), but in my own point of view, it was the same Church (even if all the ecumenical councils had not taken yet place) which later became also called in this way. The canons of the ecumenical councils, indeed refer to the Church, more often as the "Catholic Church", but they also use the term "Orthodox" usually when referring to the "Orthodoxy", "Orthodox faith" or the "Orthodox" people, and there actually some later Orthodox documents like the Confession of the Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem Dositheus from 1672, which often refers to the Orthodox Church as the "Catholic Church" (in fact, the term "Orthodox Church" does not even appear in the Confession, instead it uses the term "Orthodox" when referring to the "Orthodox faith" or to the "Orthodox worshippers"). However, this discussion is probably starting to get somewhat off-topic. Cody7777777 (talk) 17:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Back to the issue of the title, State church of the Roman Empire seems better and better to me because the word imperial in the other titles is somewhat ambiguous. There is a tension between the logical nestings ((Roman Empire)-ial church)) and (Roman (imperial church)). Roman imperial church makes it sound as if there various Imperial Churches and we are specifying the Roman one. μηδείς (talk) 20:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Back to the issue of the title

Let me again say that State church of the Roman Empire seems better and better to me because the word imperial in the other titles is somewhat ambiguous. There is a tension between the logical nestings ((Roman Empire)-ial church)) and (Roman (imperial church)). Roman imperial church makes it sound as if there various Imperial Churches and we are specifying the Roman one. μηδείς (talk) 21:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, there's been lots of discussion since yesterday afternoon.

"State church of the Roman Empire" seems like a reasonably descriptive term. And poking around Google it appears to be used as much as "Imperial Church". I could live with it although, with respect, it seems a bit clumsy as a title. But from the standpoint of appropriateness it seems ok.

I do not agree that "Roman imperial church" explicitly implies that there was more than one Christian state church in the world. However the reality is that there was. The Armenian state church predated the Roman Church and was only in communion with the Roman Church for a brief period. The Western Church became the state church of the HRE under Charlemagne's reign, though the degree of separation from the Eastern Roman Church is debatable (hence the reason I was vague about it in the article). There are other examples.

--Mcorazao (talk) 23:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you are right, Mcorazao, to end the article with Charlemagne since it is a pivotal moment. I am curious if you saw my comment above about the need for attention to the dark age period.

I fully agree with your statement that "State church of the Roman Empire" seems like a reasonably descriptive term. . . . although, with respect, it seems a bit clumsy as a title. But from the standpoint of appropriateness it seems ok." The problem is that we have to prefer appropriateness to elegance.

I suggest we consider switching to the title State church of the Roman Empire in a few days if there is no significant objection or better suggestion in the meantime. μηδείς (talk) 01:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I support this proposal. Esoglou (talk) 05:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

That would be an improvement, but does not help with the issue of this article purporting to cover the period up to the 11th century. Essentially this should be merged, as appropriate to History of late ancient Christianity, History of medieval Christianity and Christianity in the 6th century, Christianity in the 7th century, Christianity in the 8th century and so on. The last thing we need is another short article on a huge field. This article does not even link to, or seem aware of, the many other more substantial articles we have in this area: Constantine I and Christianity, Roman church under Constantine I. It can't decide what its subject is, and covers the later period with random paragraphs, while not even mentioning the church outside "imperial borders", Byzantine Iconoclasm and other topics one would think it impossible to ignore. Johnbod (talk) 16:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer "Imperial Roman state church" as an article title (and in my opinion, "Imperial Roman" can mean "of the Roman Empire", although I am not against "State church of the Roman Empire", but it looks a bit longer than necessary). However, I disagree with ending this article with Charlemagne, there are books which claim that "the imperial Roman church survived in the Byzantine empire until the latter's fall in 1453", I think that the article could be extended to include both eastern and western perspectives (and as far as I know, in the west, the German emperors had actually lost most of their influence on the Popes of Rome during the XI and XII centuries). Cody7777777 (talk) 17:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I support the proposed name change unless something better emerges. (Imperial Roman state church is fatally ambiguous for the reasons mentioned above.) μηδείς (talk) 18:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

(Let's keep the above section for comments on whether one supports or opposes the proposed name change. I will reproduce Johnbod's comments below. μηδείς (talk) 18:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC))

Unity of the Article

Johnbod said: "That [changing the name to state church of the Roman Empire]would be an improvement, but does not help with the issue of this article purporting to cover the period up to the 11th century. Essentially this should be merged, as appropriate to History of late ancient Christianity, History of medieval Christianity and Christianity in the 6th century, Christianity in the 7th century, Christianity in the 8th century and so on. The last thing we need is another short article on a huge field. This article does not even link to, or seem aware of, the many other more substantial articles we have in this area: Constantine I and Christianity, Roman church under Constantine I. It can't decide what its subject is, and covers the later period with random paragraphs, while not even mentioning the church outside "imperial borders", Byzantine Iconoclasm and other topics one would think it impossible to ignore. "

If the topic is the established church of the Roman Empire then it is a well circumscribed subject which begins with Constantine and Theodosius and ends with Charlemagne. With Charlemagne you have a real pretender to the Roman succession in the West, at which point you can speak of Roman Catholicism as differentiated from Byzantium. Charlemagne's alliance with the pope has to be identified as ending the notion of one empire with one established church. The Great Schism can certainly be mentioned as formalizing a split in the Church which reflected the political split occasioned by the rise of the Franks. Anything detailed after Charlemagne would be outside the scope of the article since a single empire could no longer be said to exist.

I would suggest a thesis for the article along the lines of:

This article deals with the establishment of Nicene Christianity as the State church of the Roman Empire. During the late Roman Empire Christianity had grown so much in popular support that in the age of Constantine its official persecution ended, and with Theodosius I, Nicene Christianity, described as the tradition of the bishops of Rome and Alexander, was formally established as the state church. But as Nicene Christianity had been gaining strength, the Roman Empire itself was weakening and splitting apart East and West. With the sack of Rome in the West, the established church had in effect outlasted the state which established it. While far eastern monophysite Churches broke away from domination by Constantinople, and the Church in Ireland was effectively autonomous given the weakness of Rome, the real tensions between Rome and Constantinople had not yet occasioned a formal split. With the rise of the papally-allied Frankish Kingdom in the west as a real pretender to the mantle of the Western Empire, any pretense of one empire with one state church could hardly be maintained. The insuperable political split between East and West occasioned by the crowning of Charlemagne as Imperator Romanorum would be formalized in the Church by the Great Schism and the mutual excommunication of 1054.

That would provide the article with a definite unity. It leaves open the need for at least mention of internal developments in Constantinople during that period - with brief references to main articles existing elsewhere. Rather than "random paragraphs" a brief but comprehensive outline dealing with developments which are not themselves matters of establishment by linking to the appropriate articles would be sufficient. And again we can't just skip 500-700 AD in the West.

As for the notion of this being one more short article in a huge field, that's a problem with the uncentralized nature of wikipedia itself. In a real encyclopedia there would be a director or board who would make such difficult and often arbitrary decision as to how to divide the topic. Assuming that this article isn't the duplicate of another - if it is please point that article out - the concern here has to be internal unity, not the accident of what other articles happen to cover.μηδείς (talk) 18:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

No historian calls Charlemagne part of the "Roman Empire", and he was a beginning not an ending! By "Roman Empire" you appear only to mean the Western Empire. As you say, we don't have "a director or board", but we do often (if not often enough) decide by consensus to merge articles that overlap too much, as this one does. Johnbod (talk) 18:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, this discussion is driving in a lot of different directions.

I think we all need to take a step back and remember that there are lots of different interpretations of history which are valid. It is not the job of Wikipedia to try to decide which interpretation is true. The criterion is always what the consensus is among scholars. And for a lot of the issues we are discussing the consensus among scholars is that the issues are a matter of perspective, not a matter of facts.

I never meant to imply that the subject matter ends at Charlemagne's reign. I don't believe any serious scholar agrees with that assertion. Charlemagne's reign simply marks a point where there was a significant split (just as their was at the miaphysite schism and the Nestorian schism). The only difference there is that this split makes the term Roman a bit ambiguous. In the same way the Roman Empire did not end in the 5th/6th centuries. But there was some important separation occurring at that time. After that point there is some debate as to how to properly use the term Roman Empire. Wikipedia deals with this by tapering the Roman Empire article off at that point and letting the Byzantine Empire and Holy Roman Empire articles pick up at the later history.

Regarding Johnbod's assertion that the article "can't decide what its subject is" I don't find any explanation or justification for the statement. Most of the articles he mentions cover topics that are much broader than the topic of this article. It is however, true, that many of those articles actually focus a lot on the topic of this article and ignore the other aspects of their actual topic. That is a failing of those articles not this one (and hopefully the creation of this article actually motivates moving some of the Christianity articles away from Roman Catholic bias). As I have stated, though, this article does not yet fully cover its own topic and certainly I invite interested authors to contribute in that vein.

I'll reiterate what I stated when I created this article. There was no other article that I had found that addresses this topic directly, which is why I created it. IMHO this is an important article if for no other reason that many people are unaware of the different branches of the Christian faith in the 1st millenium and understanding how each branch developed gives some important perspective on religious differences today.

--Mcorazao (talk) 20:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

You have some nerve saying that frankly! This article has a broader scope than any of the others, and notably lacks any focus on church/state relations at all, or frankly much sign of awareness of the issues. For that one is far better looking at Constantine I and Christianity, Roman church under Constantine I, Byzantine Papacy and other articles. This article doesn't even link to the articles we have that cover the area. Johnbod (talk) 22:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

You have to pay attention to the entirety of the arguments, Johnbod, not just pick out one idea out of context to gainsay. And it would also help to object to statements that have actually been made— Who said historians call Charlemagne part of the Roman Empire? — rather than denying what no one has asserted, and with an exclamation point no less!

At the time of Theodosius I there was one single empire with one single established church. Given the administrative split of the Empire into two halves (or various other arrangements) and the sack of Rome and the decay of the western half, the Western Empire ceased to exist in fact, but the Church which had been established maintained its unity, however fragile, and the Emperors in Constantinople continued to maintain the assertion of their authority over Rome. With the alliance between the pope and the king of the Franks, and his crowning as Imperator Romanarum, any pretense of a unified Roman Empire was definitively ended. Yes, Charlemagne was and ending. (!)

This article is not about the church without reference to the state or the state without reference to the church. Mcorazo is justified in his position. It is about the state church. It is that established state church, from its beginnings with Constantine and Theodossius to its devolution into the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox churches which is the subject of this article. Does anyone deny that such a state church existed? Or that the events of Theodosius and Charlemagne are pivotal?

Mcorazao I ask that you comment on my proposed thesis statement above.μηδείς (talk) 20:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

If the article is to have either its present title, or "State church of the Roman Empire", and covers Charlemagne, the implication is clear! The Roman Empire in the West does end. There is then a gap of centuries before the Holy Roman Empire. These are the sort of basic facts this article tries to ignore. Its scope is terminally confused, the material is not very good, and I really can't see any point in keeping it; bits should be added to other articles, as I've said above. Johnbod (talk) 22:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Johnbod, you still haven't explained your critiques well and seem to be deliberately misinterpreting the article and the commentary here. I suspect your dislike of the article has something to do with an agenda you are not stating. Regardless, I'm not sure how to respond to you in a way that would be productive.

Medeis, I assume by thesis you mean an outline of the article's scope and not content to be added. The thesis has some good statements but I have two main concerns:

• It is not quite focusing on the fact that the Empire defined a certain Church as being the official one. It does talk about the divisions in a general sense but we need to be clear that we are talking about one particular political division of the Christian body (i.e. political as opposed to spiritual) and we are only discussing the other divisions in the context of how they affected or were related to the topic.
• It is not exactly accurate (though not entirely inaccurate) to say the "that the Church had outlasted the state" with the sack of the West. Odoacer for his part submitted (technically) to Constantinople's authority; so in a sense the Empire and the Church became more united. The reality obviously is far more complex. But Rome theoretically was part of the same state as Constantinople until Charlemagne's reign.

--Mcorazao (talk) 22:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Well you seem to have that problem with everybody who has commented! I can see discussion is not going to take this much further. Afd seems the inevitable next step. Johnbod (talk) 22:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

That's up to you. --Mcorazao (talk) 03:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Mcorazao. As a side comment, let me just say that when I saw the title of this article at DYK I was doubtful to the point of contempt. But it is very well written, POV neutral, and it certainly does cover a topic which has not been addressed.

I do sense hints of POV in some of the criticism I have read above.

And as a matter of policy! I reserve the right! to ignore! posts that substitute emotion! for elaborated reasoning.

Yes, by thesis I meant a restatement of the theme of the article, not a plan for adding new material. I am not quite sure what you mean by political as opposed to spiritual division of the Christian body, beyond the fact of establishment. I don't think you are saying that bishops were secular magistrates per se or that there was a theocracy. Do you mean that you are concentrating on the intrusion of state power into deciding and enforcing matters of doctrine? As for Odoacer, I would definitely maintain that that was a break in continuity of the state, that the Roman forms had dissolved in the West. The mechanism of the state was simply gone, not reformed or even overthrown. I do endorse the view, however, that until Carolus Magnus was crowned Imperator Romanorum that Rome was theorectically part of the same state as Constantinople, no matter how much a fantasy that was in fact.

Given the lack of opposition I suggest we consider switching to the title State Church of the Roman Empire sooner rather than later, given that it also helps make more explicit the rationale behind the separate existence of this article. μηδείς (talk) 03:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and although I reverted Carlaude's addition of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy as aliases in the infobox, I do think they should be listed as successor churches. Perhaps someone who knows how could do so.μηδείς (talk) 03:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Carlaude added only Chalcedonian Christianity as AKA, which (in your edit summary) you said you liked. I am adding it in again. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 10:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm ok with changing the name to "State Church of the Roman Empire" if it will make everybody more comfortable. --Mcorazao (talk) 14:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

When did this state church end?

This state church did not end with Charlemagne surely. The same state, with the same attitude to the church, continued, even if progressively shorn of its territories. The state church continued within the actual state, but not elsewhere. When the state lost power in Italy, the church in Italy was no more the state church of the Roman Empire than was the church in Ireland or Germany, which had never been part of the empire. The reduced Roman Empire may have dreamt that its juridical territory was the whole inhabited world, the οἰκουμένη, and that the church everywhere was its state church, but that was not reality. In places lost to the empire or that had never been part of the empire the church was not in fact (and did not consider itself to be) the state church of the Roman Empire. It was deeply interested in maintaining spiritual unity with the church within the Roman Empire, but Mcorazao says that the article is not about the church in this spiritual sense, according to which it was the same church whether in the empire or in Ethiopia or in Ireland.

It could even be asked whether the state church in question ended in 1453. Did not the new rulers continue the policy of the former rulers, treating the Christian Church as effectively a department of the state, even if they no longer treated it as in theory embracing all the citizens? But perhaps 1453 is the best date to put for the end of the state church of the Roman Empire. Esoglou (talk) 10:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

It did not ever "end" per se. It stopped being one church and stopped being a state church at various times and various places. See, for example, Celtic Christianity. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 10:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The church in question did not "begin" per se later than the first century. The fourth century and the Roman Empire (nowhere else) were the time and place when it began to be a state church; and it stopped being a state church at various times and various places that had been part of the Roman Empire, the latest and final being probably 1453 and Constantinople. Esoglou (talk) 10:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The way I look this is that the state sanctioned and partially unified with a portion of the body of Christians in the 4th century after which time parts of that body broke away. The state itself gradually broke up and as that happened so did more parts of the state church. Just as it is complex to discuss the genuine successor of the state it is complex to discuss the genuine successor of the state church. The fact that a significant part of the original state church became part of the state church of the HRE makes it especially complex. I'm thinking that a useful way to view the articles is this:

• Roman imperial church, or State Church of the Roman Empire, should focus on the 4th century through the 8th/9th centuries.
• History of the Roman Catholic Church and History of the Eastern Orthodox Church should focus on the 8th/9th centuries through modern times.
• Other branches resulting from other schisms can pick up at the time of the associated schisms.

That's not to say that the articles in question should not discuss any of the periods the others discuss (or should imply that their topics are in fact limited to these periods), but rather that the bulk of their coverage should be limited in this fashion to control overlap. I am certain others will disagree, though.

--Mcorazao (talk) 14:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

How right you are! Unfortunately this is not the way historians divide their subject up at all, and you are still ignoring the mass of other articles we have, many linked to above, that deal with these periods far more fully than this one, and actually focus on the connections between church and state. Johnbod (talk) 14:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, you are not really articulating your viewpoint. Which historians divide up the subject in what way?

The fact that there is a mass of articles that contain a lot of related content is beside the point. To be honest part of my thinking when I created this article was that there were many articles that existed essentially as band-aids to compensate for this article not existing. You have not demonstrated that there is another article covering this topic directly nor have you demonstrated any reason to think that the importance the cited sources place on this topic makes it lack merit for creating an article.

--Mcorazao (talk) 15:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has many articles on Roman Catholicism, on the split between it and the Eastern Orthodox Church, on their theological differences and disputes etc. Roman Catholicism became the state church of many states: the Holy Roman Empire, Spain, Portugal, Poland, Hungary, ...: but it was never the state church of the Roman Empire and doesn't belong here at all. The church in which the Bishop of Constantinople, though at first of minor importance, came to take an increasingly central role remained the state church of the Roman Empire long after the 8th/9th centuries. In fact, as long as the empire lasted, it wasn't a successor church to the state church of the Roman Empire: it was the state church of the Roman Empire, down to the mid-fifteenth century. As Johnbod says, there are many detailed articles on aspects of this church and its history, aspects that it is useless to treat of again here: this article needs to consider only its aspect as the state church of the Roman Empire, no more than that. Esoglou (talk) 16:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, except that at that point the article becomes a clear fork of History of late ancient Christianity, and the other articles linked above, which go into far more detail, and aren't even linked here. Johnbod (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The sole topic of the article is the Empire's state church. It is certainly true that the patriarchate of Constantinople came to dominate what was left of the state church (if we accept that Constantinople's empire was the only genuine successor of the original state). But at the same time a substantial portion of that church, and one led by what was at least theoretically considered the church's head, broke from the rest claiming to the sole state church. Granted this was largely of a farce but it is at the same time problematic to uniformly dismiss such a large body of Christians claiming to be the sole continuation of the Roman state church and in fact being a state church, albeit for an different entity.

Honestly I don't have a personal problem with seeing this article deal with the Eastern Roman church from the 9th to 15th centuries in detail. Personally I think that is really telling the truth. But you could make the same argument about the Roman Empire article. Why does it largely cut off at the 5th century? It sidesteps controversy by not implying that the Empire ended then but just allowing the Byzantine Empire article to pick up where it leaves off. I was thinking along those same lines. --Mcorazao (talk) 16:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that the "substantial portion of that church, one led by what was at least theoretically considered the church's head", claimed, when it became one side of a split, to be the sole state church or even a state church of the Roman Empire.

The article on the Roman Empire says: "The Western Roman Empire collapsed in 476 as Romulus Augustus was forced to abdicate by Odoacer. The Eastern Roman or Byzantine Empire ended in 1453 with the death of Constantine XI and the capture of Constantinople by the Ottoman Turks led by Mehmed II." Again, I think that this says that in its eastern portion the Empire lasted all the way to 1453. We don't really believe that 395, the year of the death of the very emperor who a mere 15 years earlier had officially made the church the state church of the Roman Empire, marked not an administrative division of the one Roman Empire, but the end of that empire and its replacement by two successor states (perhaps each with its successor state church?). Esoglou (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, Esoglou is correct about this issue. Pope Gregory II had actually rebelled in the 8th century against the Emperor Leo III the Isaurian because of the imperial iconoclast policy (for which reason, Leo III transferred Illyricum (along with Macedonia and Greece), Southern Italy and Sicily to the Patriarchate of Constantinople), from that point, the Empire had lost its control on Rome, and only the Patriarchate of Constantinople remained within the state church of the Roman Empire (although sometimes, imperial control was re-established on Antioch), and after fall of Constantinople, we cannot really speak of any other state church of the Roman Empire, since the "Eastern Roman Empire" ended, (and the German "Holy Roman" Emperors had also lost most of their influence on Rome during the 11th-12th centuries, after the the 11th century we can rather speak in the west of a "Papal Roman Church" instead of an "Imperial Roman Church", but in the east we can still speak of an "Imperial Roman Church" until the 15th century). Of course, Charlemagne represented an event which could be said to mark an official political schism between west and east, since until the year 800, the Franks (and probably all of Western Europe) recognized only the Emperor of Constantinople as the only Roman Emperor (although the Emperor did not had any influence on them), but after 800 this changed (it is perhaps ironic, that the European Union even considers Charlemagne as one of the "founders of Europe", when actually contributed to a political, and also religious split in Europe), however, the pope wanted to assert his supremacy even during the time of Charlemagne (by placing the crown on Charlemagne's head, while the Eastern Roman Emperors took the crown themselves, the patriarch only blessed it), but of course it was later that the popes escaped from the influence of the Frankish Emperors. But still, I think that ending with Charlemagne could give the impression of a subjective point of view, so in my opinion, I do not see any problem with ending the article in 1453. The articles "History of the Roman Catholic Church" and "History of the Eastern Orthodox Church" are meant to discuss about the "Roman Catholic Church" and the "Eastern Orthodox Church" from their origins to the present, and this articles discusses about the state church of the Roman Empire (which actually wasn't always orthodox/catholic, it changed its doctrine several times, in the 4th century we have some arianist emperors, later some miaphysite, monothelite or iconoclast emperors, later we have emperors who accepted "reunions" with Rome after the councils of Lyons and Florence). (And regarding the article "Roman Empire", in my opinion, most of the content of that article should be moved to "Ancient Roman Empire", and a new more general "Roman Empire" article, neutrally representing all points of view should be made, however the infobox states anyway the end date as "476/1453", but this is off-topic.) Cody7777777 (talk) 17:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, as I say, I do not have a philosophical disagreement with the notion that eastern church was the only one properly designated as the Roman state church after Rome allied itself with Charlemagne. My approaching it the way I did was intended to avoid controversy (specifically an edit war between Roman Catholics and others). But provided that the split is properly and impartially described I'm not going to fight against the notion of extending the discussion to fully cover the Church up to the 15th century.

A couple of points, if it matters:

• Though the Pope would have disdained calling his church a state church he did explicitly and intentionally associate his church politcally with Charlemagne's empire. We can quibble about terminology but in any real sense Rome's church was the state church of the HRE (though as the HRE quickly fragmented the Church assumed a supranational role).
• "The Western Roman Empire collapsed in 476 as Romulus Augustus was forced to abdicate by Odoacer" - I think this is a bad statement (that should be changed in the article). It does not represent reality either in a legal sense or in a practical sense. 476 is a convenient reference point but there was no "collapse" in that year.
• --Mcorazao (talk) 18:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Chalcedonian Christianity

My only objection is to adding Chalcedonian Christianity to the infobox without comment as if it were an equally valid name for the state church. It is rather a policy that was adopted over a century after Constantine. It's like putting The Nation of Manifest Destiny or Land of the Monroe Doctrine in the AKA for the US. I had already added Chalcedonian Christianity to the See Also list and welcome expanding it in the text, just not as an AKA.μηδείς (talk) 16:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Though arguably in some contexts historians may use Chalcedonian Christianity as a synonym for the state church (i.e. the political entity) I believe that this is not generally the case. Chalcedonian Christianity generally refers more to either the body of beliefs which extended beyond this entity. --Mcorazao (talk) 16:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem with Chalcedonian Christianity, is that there were some emperors like Zeno and Anastasius who were miaphysite (non-chalcedonian). Cody7777777 (talk) 18:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Lead

I do not understand your total rewrite of the lead, Mcorazao. Except for the first sentence, which 'had; to be rewritten due to the name change, my changes were in the form of additions to your own writing. You have deleted almost the entirety of my contributions, including the details of the two central events, the edict of thessalonica and the crowning of charlemagne - along with the extremely relevant verbatim reference to the tradition of the pope and the bishop of alexandria - and substituted a sundry list of schisms which did not sunder Rome and Constantinople. I have no problem with your opening sentence, but I fail to see how your deletions are more encyclopedic, or how any matter of NPOV is involved. I am restoring the prior version with the exception of your opening sentence. The verbatim and the essential phrase Imperator Romanorum should not be touched. Feel free to add back in the details of the schisms. But don't delete relevant facts such as that the church was Nicene without giving a reason. None of my editions, so far as I can see, can be characterized as unencyclopedic or POV. μηδείς (talk) 22:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

While retaining the additions, I have restored the information and essential details that were deleted, and made a few minor edits for style and sentence and word order.μηδείς (talk) 01:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you are being unfair. I retained most of the content you added though I modified how it was presented. To the extent that I removed and added content ... you went into great detail on a few items at the expense of others. I had to even it out a little to make it neutral. Most of the detail you have added at this point has more to do with the empire and the government than it does the Church. And in particular you have added a lot of detail on the 4th-century decline of the West which is only peripherally relevant; certainly it merits no more than a passing mention in the lead.

--Mcorazao (talk) 01:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Given that you say you didn't delete much I assume you don't mind that I didn't restore much.

I don't understand your use of the word neutral. I have not said that the East was better than the West, or vice versa. Neutrality is certainly not achieved by replacing specific facts and quotes with vague timeframes and editorial generalities.

Given that the article is about the state church, the events of 380, emperor endorses pope, 800, pope crowns emperor, and 1054, state churches excommunicate each other, are all quite relevant. Nothing is gained by mentioning things vaguely and without dates or relevant verbatim wording. For an article of this length, the lead is of quite a reasonable length. The only possible "overboard" I can see argued is the three dates of sacking, but in reality it is far more informative and takes far less space to say "Rome was sacked in 410, 455, and 546" than it does to say "Rome was sacked multiple times in the fourth and fifth centuries." I'll assume the matter is closed since I didn't delete any of your points and you haven't reverted the details I restored.

I think it would be fine to add more theological matters to the article and the lead. Ireland and Armenia stand out given your mention of missions. μηδείς (talk) 02:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem adding mention of Ireland and Armenia but the sacking of Rome is not relevant enough to merit mention. Romulus Augustus is trivial even in the history of the Empire and has no importance in the history of the Church. You are focusing on details that are apparently very important to you but not as important to the topic. The issue is not the current length of the lead. In order to balance the lead and keep the details you have added the lead would need to be at least as long as the whole article is now.

Please either balance the lead yourself or stop fighting efforts of others to do so. --Mcorazao (talk) 03:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Be careful about including quotations. It is generally inappropriate to include a quote without explicitly crediting the source in the prose. --Mcorazao (talk) 03:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

If the subject of the article is the "State church of the Roman Empire", one would have thought the ending of the Roman Empire in the West worthy of mention! But not here apparently. Johnbod (talk) 03:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

? You just said yourself that the article is about the "State church of the Roman Empire", not the "Roman Empire". Regardless, the 5th/6th century sackings of Rome were not the "end of the West". Even at that there were many other important events that caused loss of territory and loss of lands controlled by the Church.

Honing in on a narrow set of peripherally relevant issues and treating them as though they define the topic is biased. --Mcorazao (talk) 19:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's look at the facts then.

According to WP:LEAD:

"State facts that may be obvious to you, but are not necessarily obvious to the reader."

"The lead should establish significance, include mention of notable criticism or controversies, and be written in a way that makes readers want to know more. The appropriate length of the lead depends on that of the article, but should be no more than four paragraphs."

Article Length	Lead Length
Fewer than 15,000 characters	One or two paragraphs
15,000–30,000 characters	Two or three paragraphs
More than 30,000 characters	Three or four paragraphs

(Including notes, this article has just under 25,000 characters.)

"Because some readers will read only the opening of an article, the most vital information should be included."

The argument:

With fewer than three lines out of ten mentioning the fall of Rome and the crowning of Charlemagne Emperor by the pope [1]:

The Church survived multiple schisms during its history. During the 4th and 5th centuries the Donatist, Nestorian, and Miaphysite schisms, among others, caused many Christians to separate from the imperial church though the Empire preserved it as an institution. While the Western Empire decayed as a polity, with Rome being sacked in 410, 455, and 546, and Romulus Augustus being forced by Odoacer to abdicate in 476, the church as an institution persisted in communion, if not without tension between the east and west. While the Muslim conquests of the 7th century would begin a process of converting most of the Christian world in Asia and Africa to Islam severely weakening both the Empire and its church, missionary activities throughout its history created a communion of churches that extended beyond the empire. With the 25 December 800 AD crowning of Charlemagne as Imperator Romanorum by his ally, the bishop of Rome, Pope Leo III, the de facto political split between east and west became irrevocable. Spiritually, the Church continued to persist as a unified entity, at least in theory, until the Great Schism and its formal division with the mutual excommunication in 1054 of Rome and Constantinople.

one can hardly complain of bias or a lack of balance.

And the alternative of merely saying [2]:

he Church enduring multiple schisms during its history though it survived as an entity. During the 4th and 5th centuries the Donatist, Nestorian, and Miaphysite schisms, among others, caused many Christians to separate from the imperial church though the Empire preserved it as an institution. Even as the Western Roman Empire decayed in the 5th and 6th centuries the Church persisted, at least in theory, as a unifying entity between East and West. The Muslim conquests of the 7th century would begin a process of converting most of the Christian world in Asia and Africa to Islam severely weakening both the Empire and its church. As the Franks under Charlemagne conquered much of Western Europe including Rome the Church in Rome finally separated itself from its allegiance to Constantinople thus ending any pretense of connection to the state church in Constantinople in the West.

is unacceptable. That Rome was sacked and the last emperor was forecd to abdicate and that Charlemagne was crowned emperor are not details to be omitted in order to achieve balance. (If you believe there are more important facts about the existence of the empire as a state you are free to assert that they should be addressed.) None of these concrete facts is a POV requiring balance. Concrete examples tie our writing to reality. Otherwise our editorial summaries become floating abstractions. An article without details and links treats the reader as a captive audience expected to accept our statements on faith. We should feed their curiosity, not spare them details in the pursuit of some notion that balance rests in vagueness.

To summarize:

• Pertinent facts are to be summarized in the lead
• The lead for this article is of acceptable length and expanding it even more would be within the guidelines.
• Bias consists of pushing a POV, not in presenting verifiable facts.
• Bias can never be addressed by removing factual details
• In removing the concrete facts we would be left with mere editorial summarization

There is simply no valid wikipedia rationale for deleting this information.μηδείς (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Medeis, most of what you have stated above is a straw man argument, putting words into my mouth or arguing points that have nothing to do with what I have said. I'll respond to your summary though:

• Pertinent facts are to be summarized in the lead
  • This is good advice. Follow it.
• The lead for this article is of acceptable length and expanding it even more would be within the guidelines.
  • Restating what I said.
• Bias consists of pushing a POV, not in presenting verifiable facts.
  • Restating what I said.
• Bias can never be addressed by removing factual details
  • Completely false. Bias is often pushed by focusing deeply on one set of details and ignoring others.
• In removing the concrete facts we would be left with mere editorial summarization
  • That is an argument of convenience. Anything we write is a summary. We could write volumes on this topic and would still be summarizing it.

--Mcorazao (talk) 17:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The assertion that actually specifying what happened amounts to bias is silly and not worth further effort on my part. μηδείς (talk) 18:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, let me approach this a different way (I don't really like spending this much time on this but I'll do so as a courtesy out of respect for you personally):

The problem I am trying to state is that some of the content you are adding in the lead gives too much weight to one part of the topic without giving appropriate weight to other things that are at least as important. I'll name some of these and you can choose what you want to add or else change:

• "Nicene Christianity as 'professed by the Pontiff Damasus and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria'" - Damasus and Peter are not so inherently important to this topic that they deserve mention above all other theologians. If you are going to mention them then you should also mention Athanasius of Alexandria, Cyril of Alexandria, John Chrysostom, Gregory the Great, among others, as well as Arius of Alexandria, Nestorius of Constantinople, and others whose contrarian views helped shape the discussion that led to orthodoxy.
• "official church of the Roman Empire by the Edict of Thessalonica on 27 February 380" - You cannot place that much importance on this one event. Though that edict was a key step the empire did not go from not having a recognized church to having a recognized church on that date. If you are going to mention that so specifically then you also need to include the Edict of Milan, the Tolerance Edict, Henotikon, Enkyklikon, among others.
• "the Western Empire decayed as a polity, with Rome being sacked in 410, 455, and 546, and Romulus Augustus being forced by Odoacer to abdicate in 476" - If you are going to provide this much detail on these events in the Empire's history there are many others that need to be mentioned as well: the plunder of Gaul beginning in 406; the sacking of Hippo Regius in 430 and Carthage in 439; Wars of Justinian which destroyed Rome, North Africa, and other areas; the sacking of of Alexandria in 619 and 629 which led the loss of Egypt; etc. These events were at least as important as the individual attacks on Rome.
• "With the 25 December 800 AD crowning of Charlemagne as Imperator Romanorum by his ally, Pope Leo III" - If you are going to be so specific about these people and this split you also need to mention: Nestorius, Theodosius II, Babowai, and Barsauma who were involved in the Nestorian Schism, the exodus of the Nestorians to Persia, and the separation of the Persian church from the Roman church; Dioscorus of Alexandria and Leo the Great whose disagreement led to Alexandria, Antioch, Armenia and other churches leaving the Roman church; and others.

I hope you can see my point. You can't mention the specific facts that you are in such detail and then omit other comparably important facts. It implies that the other things weren't that important. Mentioning one event in passing is arguably ok if you are implying it is simply an example. But when you start listing names and dates it goes from being a passing mention to holding particular importance.

--Mcorazao (talk) 22:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

P.S. It would be fair to argue in some sense I am a hypocrit because there are some things in the body of the article that are mentioned without giving appropriate weight (or even mention) of comparably important things. My point is that at least we should try to avoid having the lead set off the discussion with a biased perspective (not that I am perfect). With the body of the article it's a matter of spending the time to finish putting in the missing content (to some degree I focused initially on some things I knew more about or had readily available info for). --Mcorazao (talk) 23:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Medeis, I'm assuming that you are just not going to respond. The lead can't be kept the way it is. All I can think to do at this point is turn it into a ridiculously long lead that includes a lot of detail. Maybe if I do that a consensus will emerge that it should be reduced to a proper summary. --Mcorazao (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

one of the state's defining symbols

This sentence, "It became one of the state's defining symbols throughout the remainder of its history," sounds okay until you ask what does the second "it" in "its" refer to? The history of the Church? The history of the empire? In what guise? The idea should be rethought, clarified, and stated in explicit terms, even if this requires making it into three sentences with references to different specific events and entities - or deleted. I would prefer the first alternative. μηδείς (talk) 06:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the "it" could have different interpretations. However, I think that no matter what interpretation you use the statement still applies. That is, during the Middle Ages, for many people "Roman Empire", "civilization", and "orthodox Christianity" were all essentially synonyms. What people used those synonyms to refer to varied of course. In any event, I have no problem rephrasing that. The point I was making was that synonomous aspect of how people in Europe and the Med viewed the Church in the Middle Ages. --Mcorazao (talk) 15:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you cannot say that a sentence is true whatever it means. Please make the effort to rewrite it as a clear and specific claim.μηδείς (talk) 18:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions? --Mcorazao (talk) 21:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I am assuming the thought is clear in your head, so that's why I wanted you to clarify it. If you need help, then write me a paragraph where that is the topic sentence, and where you use nouns instead of pronouns. Either that will suffice, or we can then shorten what you write. Or we could just take it out. The problem is that if we leave it as is it is ambiguous and if we replace the "it"s with nouns it ends up making a very stong while at the same time unclear claim. I am not syaing I disagree with the sentence, I am saying the sentence isn't clear enough to agree or disagree with.μηδείς (talk) 22:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Legacy counterpoint

I removed the following text in the Legacy section:

It has likewise been said: "Membership in a universal church replaced citizenship in a universal empire. Across Europe, from Italy to Ireland, a new society centered on Christianity was forming."

This was inserted to contradict a quotation from a different author. Although this quotation is certainly valid and authoritative, it is off-topic. If the authoritativeness or appropriateness of the other quote is being questioned then please bring that up.

--Mcorazao (talk) 14:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

What this article should be about

This may come across in a way I do not intend, but I am making a genuine attempt to reach consensus given the current situation with AfD nomination.

1.) The article should be called "State church of the Byzantine Empire". I am aware that the Byzantines called themselves the Roman empire (actually they called themselves something in Greek, but I don't speak Greek, just Latin), but who cares really what they called themselves? It is what most people today call them that matters.

2.) Material about the rise of Christianity, Constantine I, the Edict of Thessalonica, and everything else before 476 should be in some sort of "Background" section.

3.) The article should make it clear that there was increasing divergence between Roman Christianity and Eastern Christianity, and after 1054 Rome should be treated as outside the scope of the article altogether.

4.) The article should be much more tightly focused on the relations between the Eastern church and the various eastern emperors.

5.) The temporal scope of the article should be more strictly and explicitly defined.

and/or...

1.) The article should be about Roman Christianity between 380 and 476.

2.) Material outside this scope should be treated as above, either before "Background" or after "Influence" etc.

3.) As above, except we don't make it to 1054, so that is a non-issue in this case.

4.) As above except substitute "western" for "eastern".

Congratulations, you now have 2 articles to improve! I don't mean to be flippant, but honestly I think that either one of those articles, or both would raise few if any objections or AfD nominations. Revcasy (talk) 23:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

This adresses many of the main problems here, and is maybe one way out. Personally I think I'd prefer a thematic approach, rather than an article about a "church" - we have seen the tangles that gets into. There's no obvious title: Church and Empire perhaps. The article needs to lose the delusion that it is the main historical article on a 1,000 year+ period of church history, and actually add material focussed strictly on the subject. The current title matches the "short" 380 to 476 period, but we already have History of late ancient Christianity on that, although it could be expanded. Johnbod (talk) 01:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

There are three good article suggestions here; two of them (History of late ancient Christianity to 476 and History of the Orthodox Church) are already covered; that leaves the thematic Church and Empire. Although the thematic approach is theoretically wonderful, I think in practice it would result in even worse tangles. -- Radagast3 (talk) 05:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

History of late ancient Christianity is a mess from its unEnglish title onward. Merge it in here perhaps, but it will not and cannot substirure for this article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

This article should be about the state church (or christian state religion) of the Roman Empire (and it does not refer just to the unified Roman Empire, but also to the Western Roman Empire and the Eastern Roman Empire). "State church of the Byzantine Empire" has some problems. The concept of "Byzantine Empire" has no clear beginning (for example, there are historians who claim who claim that it starts in the 8th century). It will also give the impression that the article refers only to the Eastern part of the Roman Empire, but this article is also meant to discuss problems from the Western Roman Empire, such as "Donatism" and "Pelagianism" (which was also condemned at the third Ecumenical Council of Ephesus (431)). Also, the religious events of these periods are too linked (for example, the decisions taken at the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451 influenced the decisions taken at the Ecumenical Councils of Constantinople in 553 and 681), so we cannot make a sudden stop in 476. Also, the date 476, is contested by historians ("No Empire fell in 476"), and there are sources which claim that "The Roman Empire did not come to an end until 1453". (And regarding 476, most sources claim that only the "Western Roman Empire", the "Roman Empire in Italy" or "Ancient Rome" ended in that year, not that the entire Roman Empire ended in that year). (I would also add that "Byzantine" is a pejorative term[3][4][5][6][7].) Cody7777777 (talk) 12:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, let's be very clear. While the Byzantines saw themselves as Roman, and obviously were a direct continuation of the Eastern Empire, if only for convenience historians writing in English invariably refer to the Empire from about the time of Justinian as "Byzantine", and while this was in the past, and sometimes today, used pejoratively (just like "medieval", "Roman" etc), it is still unquestionably the standard term. This article has enough fringe crankery already without taking on trying to rename it. Johnbod (talk) 12:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

And I do get the feeling that the present article is rather too ambitious in scope. -- Radagast3 (talk) 12:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

It is convenient (at least in Western languages) to have some division between Hadrian and Basil Bulgar-slayer, but there's no particular reason, and on this subject no use, to have it fall at Justinian. Modern scholarship can have it fall as early as Diocletian, and the natural line for an ecclesiastic article is Constantine, where this article begins. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Does this mean having the Byzantine Empire begin with Constantine? Then this article should be about Church-State relations in the Byzantine Empire. No objection on my part. On the contrary. Is there any evidence of the existence of a state church of the western Roman Empire or of a western Roman Emperor acting as a church's chief executive? Esoglou (talk) 18:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it less than useful to describe the Edict of Milan as Byzantine. But I was trying to discuss the scope of the article, not its title, which is a secondary question. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

As also said above, "Byzantine Empire" has no clear start, since there are some historians who claim that it begins in the 8th century (and it is also a pejorative term, and normally we should not even use pejorative terms on Wikipedia, when there are more neutral alternatives, since they are clearly against NPOV). "Eastern Roman Empire" would've been less ambiguous and also more neutral. However, this article is not just about the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire, it also refers to the Western Roman Empire (and also to the unified Roman Empire), and we have in the west the problems with the Donatists and Pelagians (who were also condemned, along with the Nestorians, at the third ecumenical council of Ephesus). (Also there were times before 380, when the Western Empire was following Nicene Christianity, and the Eastern Empire was following Arianism.) Cody7777777 (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The above is about as useful as claiming that what the article United States of America should be about is the subjugation of blacks, women, and homosexuals in the 1940's and 50's. It is the substitution of personal agendas for the coherently identified sense of the article's topic as originally conceived, The simple fact is that the author came across a scholarly term, the imperial church, widely used in notable sources, which referred to an entity not treated as such - the state church of the Roman Empire - in wikipedia. Given that the topic of the Roman Empire is huge, it is not surprising that the article has to address matters which can be described as borderline. But the topic exists and the proper way to treat it is to address all areas of verifiable scholarly comment. Otherwise, arguments about what this article should be about' amount to POV pushing and original research. Editors who think that there should be an article about some topic are free to do exactly that, create their own article on that topic.μηδείς (talk) 19:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps as the proper scope of this article, we should choose the Church-State relationships involving the Constantinople-based emperors, not the supposed unitary church in east and west. If, when the "state church" was Arian, the church in the west was Nicaean, was the church in the west then part of this "state church"? No problem if we treat the article as concerning Church-State relationships, but not so simple if we claim to be talking about a church, a single "state church". Esoglou (talk) 19:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, the article states that the first "state church" (or Christian state religion) was officially adopted in 380 (and there was no more Arianism supported by the Roman Empire after this date), so in my opinion "State church of the Roman Empire" is still not incorrect. However, I have no problem renaming to "Church-State relations in the Roman Empire" (or even to "State churches of the Roman Empire"), especially if this would help end these debates. But the scope of this article, does not restrict just to the Eastern Roman Empire, it also includes the Western Roman Empire (and also the unified Roman Empire). Cody7777777 (talk) 20:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

For what it is worth, the statement about 380 being an "official" date was inserted erroneously. I have held off trying to change too much of what others are adding for the moment. Though 380 is an important year it is no more correct than saying the western empire ended in 387, 476, 536, 546, or 800. The imperial church had its foundations in the 4th century and became more firmly established over the next century. 380 is a conventional reference point but it is not absolute in any real sense. --Mcorazao (talk) 15:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

this article should have a different name and be about something else entirely

The proper scope of the article was well stated upon its creation. If you wish to have an article with a different scope and a different title, (i.e., a different article) what, I ask, is stopping you from creating it?μηδείς (talk) 20:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

So no effort at compromise and consensus then? I was not attempting to dictate the article's content in my post above, merely transform the debate to something productive with an opening toward a new avenue of discourse. I would think that genuine discussion is a better option than everyone simply repeating their position over and over until the AfD nomination has run its course. Have it your way though. My good-faith efforts go unrewarded. Alas! *swoon* Revcasy (talk) 21:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

thumb

My criticism applies more widely than just to you, although it does include you. You will have to be much more specific as to what compromise and consensus it is that you want if you expect a meaningful answer. My point is that to argue that this article should have a different title and a different focus is logically equivalent to saying that a new article should be created, and in no way does the continued existence of this article prevent anyone from creating a new one. I am more and more reminded of the obsession of the tormented Dr. Janice Lester.μηδείς (talk) 00:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Folks, I don't mean to be overly pessimistic and I am certainly open to being proven wrong but ...

I had a bad feeling when I created the article that there would be those who, for a variety of reasons, simply would not be able to accept this article because it challenges cherished beliefs some people have based on certain views of history. I certainly agree that there are important nuances to the topic of this article that make it more complex than what is presented (but we can never cover every nuance in one article). But those nuances aside the topic is valid. I honestly don't see that there is anything I or anyone else is going to say that is going to make those who need to see it as invalid more comfortable. Not sure where that leaves us.

--Mcorazao (talk) 01:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The article as originally created is (1) fatally compromised by a false premise: asserting the identity of a single unified Roman empire and a single unified church during the period in question, and (2) redundant, given existing articles such as History of late ancient Christianity and History of the Orthodox Church. The people suggesting a new title and focus are displaying good faith in suggesting a way of passing AfD while retaining the bulk of the content. Or do you really want to force a situation where "keep" and "delete" are the only choices? -- Radagast3 (talk) 02:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I've said before that I am fine with discussing new titles, refining the focus, etc.. But I'm not going to support fabrication just to make someone happy, no matter how important it is to them. --Mcorazao (talk) 03:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Please, no personal attacks. Things are heated enough already. -- Radagast3 (talk) 03:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Interstate 95 in New Jersey

The issues involved here have little to do with the article itself, except in so far as the article deals with a topic explicitly defined by scholarly stipulation, rather than traditional language.

Specifically, Radagast3, whose position is like that of many others, wrote

The phrase "the Roman Empire" in the title already makes an implicit claim. The sentence "The state church would refer to itself by many names during its history, notably the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, a designation disputed by other Christian communions. The Church has also been referred to variously as the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, the Imperial Church, or simply the Roman Church" in the article lead explicitly claims that all these names apply to a single entity: a false claim.

The simple fact is that every article at wikipedia has to have a title, and what a specific editor sees as implicit in it is a judgment call. It is not for Wikipedia to determine what a thing should be called or what scholars should mean by a concept they do use. The fact remains that scholars do speak of the imperial church which they identify, at its core, with the church established by the Edict of Thessalonica.

The mere fact that Mcorazao listed various names that various individuals have used at different times and in different contexts to refer to the Nicene Creed church of the Roman Pontiff Damasus and Bishop (Pope) Peter of Alexandria in no way amounts to an assertion of true nature. It is merely a reflection of the fact that, for example, a Roman Catholic writer might certainly refer to the Church at that time as the Roman Church. None of this amounts to an assertion on wikipedia's part that that is what the thing really is in some realm of Platonic ideals. This debate comes down to not making the distinction between a word and a thing, whether that be in reference to what names are used for what institutions by whom in what context or what name is assigned to an article which deals with a complex historical event that some scholars have called the (Roman) imperial church or the state church of Rome or any myriad of other names.

The debate would be amusing in other circumstances if it weren't couched in the idea that one editor insists that another editor not be entitled to write a unique, verifiable, and NPOV article on a notable subject because the objecting editor knows in his soul it is not true. What we know in our souls is not relevant. It is mere POV, and to assert it as a factual basis for argument is Original Research. Wikipedia doesn't care what your opinion is. It cares if what you write is notable and verifiable, not whether it is true.

Perhaps an analogy will help:

The New Jersey Turnpike is so famous that Simon and Garfunkel even featured it in one of their songs. A now forgotten Saturday Night Live comic used to joke that New Jerseyans introduced themselves to each other by asking "What exit?" US Interstate 95 is also quite famous, at least to americans, given that it stretches from Maine to Florida and that if your map of the US shows any highway it will show this highway. The New Jersey Turnpike opened in 1952. Interstate 95 opened in 1957. The funny thing is that both largely ran over pre-existing highways, and in New Jersey, the two roads are infact largely identical, with what, with its green logos, is normally considered "The Turnpike" by locals having red and blue federal interstate 95 signs posted along its length. One can take interstate 95 north through Delaware, cross over the Delaware Memorial Bridge, get on the Turnpike, and shortly find that one is back on I-95. The turnpike is not just one road. It has a spur that connects to the Pennsylvania Turnpike in the Trenton area. There is a spur of the Turnpike to the Holland Tunnel of Manhattan which is not technically considered I-95, although signs in lower Manhattan indicate one can take the tunnel to get to I-95. Further North one can take a branch of the Turnpike to the George Washingto Bridge, which takes you to the northern end of Manhattan. This branch of the Turnpike counts as i-95, but another branch which takes you north to the Pallisades Parkway on the NJ side of the Hudson river does not. And between the Holland Tunnel and GWB crossings there is a split in the Turnpike, with express traffic going north on the left side and local traffic and those exiting to the Lincoln Tunnel in Midtown Manhattan will take. So far as I know both branches at this schism count as part of I-95. Happily they merge again ecumenically after travelling their separate ways.

Imagine if matters of personal metaphysics were to enter into the discussion of these two roads. You can't talk about the beginning of Route 95 at exit 6! It begins in Florida! You can't talk about "the" New Jersey Turnpike! It splits in two in North Jersey and you have to specify the Turnpikes, east and west branches. You can't talk about the Turnpike connecting to the George Washington Bridge! It turns into I-95 at mile marker 476 and any reference to it as the Turnpike after that is sheer POV forking! What do you mean that radio announcers talk about traffic on I-95 in Central Jersey? The Turnpike existed long before anyone ever dreamt up the fiction of I-95 in New Jersey! No one who works for the Turnpike Authority in Newark, New Jersey will tell you he drove home to New Brunswick, New Jersey on I-95; show me a toll ticket for a trip from exit 14A to exit 9 marked I-95!

Then, imagine the difficulties if, after we have become used to having an article on the New Jersey Turnpike, and an article on Interstate 95, some young punk comes along and creates an article entitled Interstate 95 in New Jersey!

He can't do that! Can he? μηδείς (talk) 04:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that (very nice) parallel runs in almost totally the wrong direction: your hypothetical article involves the intersection of two precisely defined criteria: (1) those bits of tarmac legally designated I-95 and (2) roads within the state of New Jersey. The subject of the article is therefore very precisely defined. Furthermore, the implicit claim in the title (that I-95 runs through New Jersey) is clearly true. The article would, therefore, involve no equivocation or anachronism, and raise none of the concerns that this article has raised (which are more like what would have happened if someone started an article on B-Train traffic on the Jersey Turnpike). -- Radagast3 (talk) 04:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no hypothetical article. All three articles exist, although not for long, since I expect certain editors here to try to delete the article Interstate 95 in New Jersey as being a POV fork and a rather odd one at that. Don't be confused into thinking that what is and what is not Interstate 95 in New Jersey is such an easy matter. It is not and cannot be defined only in physical terms. Like the Imperial church it is a complex entity, and should it last for two millenia, I am sure questions of "where things begin" and "where things end" will become as complex as defining what does and does not count as "the Silk Road." μηδείς (talk) 08:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The situation here is more like the result of someone writing an article entitled "The New Jersey Turnpike: from Maine to Florida". Revcasy (talk) 11:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

And including only a 100 year-old map, a brief section on leaving New York by road, discussion of tourist sights in Delaware, and mention of rail services covering the same route. Johnbod (talk) 11:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

"The New Jersey Turnpike exists! Why won't you let me write an article about it?" and "My friend lives just inside Delaware. He commutes into New Jersey every day, and he takes one road the whole way. He calls the road he takes the Turnpike. Therefore, he lives on the New Jersey Turnpike, and the road that runs through Delaware must be called the New Jersey Turnpike." Revcasy (talk) 12:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Revcasy writes:"The situation here is more like the result of someone writing an article entitled "The New Jersey Turnpike: from Maine to Florida" No, the situation is that an editor, who mentions in an article entitled the State highway of New Jersey that the same highway begins in Florida and runs to Canada, is told by Virginians and Vermonters and sailboating advocates that his opinion as an evangelical motorcyclist is suspect and that his article should be deleted for lack of focus because they want and aarticle about the Pennsylvania Turnpike norther extension.μηδείς (talk) 22:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I am curious to see when I mentioned anyone's religious affiliation or beliefs. I do not think that reacting to all dissenters as though they have all said collectively everything that each one of them has said individually is appropriate. I hereby officially reject for my part the hypothesis that religious belief or affiliation has any role to play in this discussion. Revcasy (talk) 22:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Change title?

Cody has stated above his agreement with the idea of changing the title to something like "Church-State relations under Christian Roman Emperors".

Some such title (and an article that corresponds to it) might solve the difficulty pointed to by Radagast, namely that the present article and title presuppose a single unified Roman Empire and a single unified church during the period in question. The article could specify that the emperors in question are those who bore the title of Roman Emperor, whether they ruled over the whole of the Roman Empire or only over the part of it that is now referred to as the Byzantine Empire. It would cover all forms of Church-State relations even when the church in the east was monothelite, while that in the west rejected monothelism, and all the other circumstances when it can well be denied that there existed one single unified "state church".

It might also be thought to overcome, at least largely, the objection of redundancy, the second that Radagast raised. The topic of the Church-State relations in question merits an article, not just a section under "Caesaropapism".

Observations? Esoglou (talk) 06:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

That would certainly satisfy my concerns:

• It would give the article a specific topic, as Esoglou has so clearly described
• It would no longer depend on any claims of identity, either for the Empire or the Church; thus avoiding several problems
• It would better fit in with the existing articles, which could point here for more information on Church-State relations

Some rewriting would be required, particularly to the sections which explicitly make identity claims, but that would be easy if the article creators agree. -- Radagast3 (talk) 07:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

You do not need the permission of the "creators of this article" to go and create a new article with a new title and on a new topic - no more than Janice Lester had to steal Captain Kirk's name and body and kill his soul before she could attempt to make something of her life.

What, other than your bizarrely mystical desire to own the soul of this article, is preventing you from going right now and creating exactly that article which you say should exist?

Click here: Church-State relations under Christian Roman Emperors and start editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs)

A soul, if it exists, belongs to a single individual, so trying to tamper with it (were such a thing possible) would certainly be transgressive. Wikipedia articles, on the other hand, do not belong to anyone in particular. You do not own this article. The creator of the article does not own it. If he did not wish to make it open to public comment, criticism, editing, and possibly even deletion he should not have put it on Wikipedia. WP:OWN. Revcasy (talk) 14:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Folks, it is rather unclear what the precise topic of this proposed article is supposed to be but please feel free to create it if you see that there is a clear topic. However trying to redirect this article toward that topic is tendentious editing (also see Wikipedia:Advocacy). --Mcorazao (talk) 15:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It might be tendentious editing had anyone actually edited anything other than the talk page. On the contrary, I see a group with broad disagreements trying to reach consensus. Accusations of bad faith are not productive. Everyone here who disagrees with the premise of the article has shown remarkable restraint, I think. Revcasy (talk) 16:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Revcasy, you have made a lot of accusations, implications and subtle slurs throughout the discussion, so you have no basis do stand on a soapbox. Nevertheless I do appreciate that everyone has avoided edit warring. --Mcorazao (talk) 16:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Mea magna culpa! I apologize for my many accusations, implications and subtle slurs. If I have in any way stonewalled or raised obstructions to the normal process of consensus building, I apologize for that as well. I am truly, sincerely sorry. Revcasy (talk) 17:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The proposal here is not for a new article (although the article does require adjusting, as even those who defend it admit). It is for a change of the title of this article. If you don't like the proposal that, as an example, I have made above, why not suggest an alternative? What about "Byzantine imperial church"? Why not suggest a variant of these two suggestions, or add a third, or even a fourth? The present title has proved to be still quite contentious, even if less so than the original title. Esoglou (talk) 16:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

As said several times, the scope of this article is not restricted just to the "Eastern Roman(/Byzantine) Empire", but it also includes the "unified Roman Empire" and the "Western Roman Empire" (And "Byzantine" has ambiguity, since some historians use "Byzantine" only from the 8th century onward, and it is also a "pejorative" term). And in case, the title is changed, it should not change the scope of the article. Cody7777777 (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Look, this title change proposal (like some previously) is an attempt to water down an article some editors don't like by trying to use seemingly innocuous proposals like renaming. Why don't we stick to discussing the topic and follow what I proposed below. --Mcorazao (talk) 17:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Cody has at least indicated that he is open to a change of title. Has Mcorazao no constructive suggestion to put forward for solving the problem of the present title that has in fact proved to be contentious?

With regard to the word "Byzantine", "Roman" is even more ambiguous. Surely only a minority of historians would refuse the adjective "Byzantine" to the empire as it existed before the eighth century. If the state church was established by Theodosius in 380, if the unified empire ceased to exist a mere 16 years later, and if there is no evidence that the emperor who governed the western part intervened in any way in church matters, "Byzantine" (meaning centred on Constantinople/Byzantium) is far more accurate than "Roman". Esoglou (talk) 17:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Esoglou, if you can't even acknowledge other viewpoints, valid or not, there is no basis for discussion --Mcorazao (talk) 17:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

For the sake of productivity I am going to insist that any further debate about when Wikipedia articles should say the Roman Empire really ended or what was really the Roman Empire be moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. Much of the debate here and on rest of the talk page centers around that and this is not the proper place for that debate. --Mcorazao (talk) 17:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Is my viewpoint so absolutely invalid? There is no point in discussing here the date when the Roman Empire really ended, about which there is a millennium of variation in the dates set for its end. All the more reason to seek something less ambiguous than "Roman Empire" for the title of this article. Esoglou (talk) 18:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

No the debate belongs here: this article needs to justify its use of the term "Roman Empire." And Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome is the wrong forum for discussing the Middle Ages. -- Radagast3 (talk) 03:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)