Jump to content

Talk:First Council of Nicaea/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Blocked for Editing

I'm not sure why this got locked down with no discussion about locking it down... but Here is the source that I found for the disputed material.

Questions regarding the Holy Spirit were left largely unaddressed until after the relationship between the Father and the Son were settled around the year 362.[1]

  1. ^ Fairbairn, Donald (2009), Life in the Trinity, Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, pp. 46–47, ISBN 978-0-8308-3873-8

ReformedArsenal (talk) 14:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, "not deeply discussed" and "unaddressed" seem far enough apart and unaddressed seems like what other sources indicate.

"the exact role or nature of the Holy Spirit was not deeply discussed"

Basileias (talk) 16:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Not done: This page is no longer protected. Subject to consensus, you should be able to edit it yourself. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 21:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Padberg citation

Gabby, you need to provide full citations to satisfy WP:Verifiability. I understand that you got the Padberg citation from an article... so you should provide either the citation for the article:

Padberg (1998), p. 26 {{citation}}: Missing or empty |title= (help) as cited in LastName, FirstName (Day-Month-Year), "Title", Journal, # (#): ##–## {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Or, you could look in the bibliography of the article and provide a full citation for Padberg. Either way, your data is not verifiable at this point. ReformedArsenal (talk) 12:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand. I don't even totally disagree necessarily. I do kind of agree in fact. But as I said, tell that to the editors of the article "Germanic Christianity", because THAT'S where I got that ref citation from. That source (and the way it was displayed) was NOT my own. If you go to that article, you'll see that Padberg ref there a number of times for this type of point. I'm not sure why it was put in a less than thorough way (according to what you're saying) in that other article. But it is a valid source, from what I see, even if not written in the best way.
But I did not originate that source display, or find it, or put it that way myself. I simply copied and pasted it from that related article (Germanic Christianity), where that source, that reference, dealing with that specific matter of "controversy continued in the empire"...existed...and was written out that very way.
I normally myself would NOT write a source quite that way (my style is generally a bit more thorough or precise in the wording). But it seems that aside from that (which I basically overall kind of agree with you on), that the source itself is valid. Gabby Merger (talk) 12:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Just because someone else improperly references something, does not make it okay for you to do so. ReformedArsenal (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
The reason that the reference at Germanic Christianity does not provide the full details is that the Padberg source is included in the list of literature, in this case below the references. It is "Padberg, Lutz E. von (1998), Die Christianisierung Europas im Mittelalter, Reclam Verlag". That book is not mentioned in this article (First Council of Nicaea), so therefore readers of this article are unable to look up the original source. So either the book Die Christianisierung Europas im Mittelalter should be mentionded in this article's 'Literature' section, or else the full details need to be supplied in the citation. If the book is used only once, the preferred method is the latter.
When copying a citation from another source, it is always better check the original yourself, but in any case make sure that readers are able to track it down, because they have no idea where you copied it from. - Lindert (talk) 13:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Gabby, I've fixed your citation, please stop expecting other people to do your work. Also, cutting and pasting a citation from another Wiki-article does not constitute research. ReformedArsenal (talk) 15:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
To Lindert, I agree with everything you said there...that is true. There was a context in that other article. To ReformedArsenal, you need to read what I wrote when I said that I AGREE that it was not displayed in the most thorough and best way. But I disagree when you uptightly now say that my going and searching in another WP article that deals with that matter in question is zero research. It is in some sense. Collating and researching points and references dealing with the matter, so what that it was in a RELATED Wikipedia article?
I only put that ref there because it was used in another WP article and no one raised a fuss on it there, and it was definitely seemingly solid and reputable...
but also, as Lindert said, the Germanic Christianity article already had the Padberg source, and is included in the list of literature. So that is true.
Also, Reformed, who said I was even necessarily finished with that there? That could have just been a temporary thing to put, to later make better, because if you notice, after that sentence in the article THERE WAS NO REF CITATION AT ALL!!!! It was totally unsourced. Better to put a good source there, though not displayed the best way, (temporarily) than no source there at all. And I already said I agree with you that it was not written in the best way there, and I said that on my own I don't ever write refs that way...and that it was written that way in the other article that dealt with the point in question, though listing it elsewhere. Gabby Merger (talk) 23:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

"Next council" in the infobox

I see that there is an effort to list the Council of Rimini as the "next council" ([1], [2]). I don't think that the proposed compromise ([3] - "Council of Rimini (358, Arian), First Council of Constantinople (359, Orthodox-Catholic)") is acceptable. The field is obviously meant to show the next ecumenical council - local councils are too numerous to make the field useful. And the ones who accept this council accept the First Council of Constantinople as the next ecumenical council. Furthermore, the article "Council of Rimini" ([4]) does not list any group that would consider it to be ecumenical. Thus I propose to return to the previous version of the field. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, the Council of Rimini is not an ecumenical council by definition since it was only intended to have SOME of the Church represented, not all of the Church. ReformedArsenal (talk) 10:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Agreement seconded. No one who may have considered the Council of Rimini in any way correct, much less authoritative, much less ecumenical, would have considered the First Council of Nicaea as ecumenical; therefore, no one ever could have considered Rimini the *successor* to Nicaea, but rather, anyone who deemed Rimini authoritative deemed it so as an *alternative* to Nicaea. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 12:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree, Rimini is clearly not Nicaea's successor. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
The second Ecumencial Council was in 381, *not* 359! I'd change it, but while I am (or someone aelse is) at it, I'd like consensus for removing "Orthodox-Catholic" also, as this seems meaningless in that there is no group who accepts I Nicaea that doesn't also except I Constantinople. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
No need for consensus for that, the Orthodox-Catholic thing was leftover from when someone put Rimini in there (see above consensus). ReformedArsenal (talk) 19:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
When the Orthodox-Catholic thing was introduced, so was the date, which has been corrected as I had suggested; however, no other article using the template has a date associated with "Next council", so I'll take it out unless there's some objection. I mention this because I have some changes to this article in my sandbox and I need to merge them into the present article, which I hope to do this weekend, and it's then that the "381" would disappear. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 17:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
So all you Trinitarians formed a consensus that Rimini should not be listed as the next ecumenical council? Despite it having over 80 attendees, far more than counts for a 'local' council? I pray that some hard evidence shines forth around your wide net censorship and reaches the public eye in this era. 24.247.146.2 (talk) 18:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I assume that with your attitude comes a WP:RS that lists Rimini as the next ecumenical council? ReformedArsenal (talk) 19:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm surprised Council of Laodicea in 364 wasn't listed, it established some fairly significant canons! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, as far, as I know, none of us prevented you from participation as well. If you do not participate in the discussion then, naturally, the matter gets decided by the ones who do participate. And, by the way, even now, while you did talk about censorship and the like, you have yet to answer the arguments given against your view... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

"Unreliable sources" in "Misconceptions"

The section title "Misconceptions" commences with:

However, looking at the section, I think that's no longer true and that the template/caveat should be removed, but, I'd like some others' opinions before removing it. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 19:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The reference after Judity (number 66 currently) is a blog post... ReformedArsenal (talk) 19:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Since there are two other references in the same place, both to solid sources, methinks we should simply delete the questionable blog reference. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Presence of the word "Political" - POV

There is a disagreement as to whether the word "political" here is unacceptably POV, or if it should remain due to the fact that the cited source leans toward political expediency.

Threaded Discussion

It is a pretty accepted fact that Constantine's actions regarding the church throughout the whole of his reign were influenced, if not driven, by political expediency. See González, Justo (1984), "13 - Constantine", The Story of Christianity, Prince Press, pp. 124–125, ISBN 978-1-56563-522-7, retrieved 14 May 2013 for an example that is extremely even handed, but also indicates that political expediency was at least PART of Constantine's motivation.

The phrase in full, which appears twice and was first removed by another editor, is "for political reasons". The first example is "While Constantine wanted a unified church after the council for political reasons, he did not force the Homoousian view of Christ's nature on the council...". Even though some schools of thought may judge what his ulterior reasons or primary motives were for wanting a unified church, it still seems like a discernible point of view for us to be endorsing outright. It seems feasible to hold alternate points-of-view regarding why he may have wanted a unified church. The phrase here seems on the whole extraneous to the sense of the sentence and possibly calculated to impugn insincerity into Constantine's wish for church unity. That sentence will read just as well without the introduction of a p.o.v.. The second example is even more questionable on similar grounds: "This can be seen in his initial acceptance of the Homoousian view of Christ's nature, only to abandon the belief several years later for political reasons..." No one doubts that there is a school of thought claiming to discern why he rejected the Homoousian view later on in this way. But this vantage-point should not be endorsed as the only possibility. Once again, he just might have been earnestly convinced that the Homoousian belief should be abandoned on theological grounds, not necessarily just for the political gain. This sentence would also be improved with the trimming of the phrase "for political reasons" and still be just as informative. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
the solution is simple then, find a source that makes a similar statement that does not include the lean toward political expediency. Our job as Wiki editors is to report what the WP:RSs say... in this case, the source cited includes the lean toward political motivation, so our report of what that source says should also say that. Until you have a source that does not have that motivation as part of the discussion (which, during my Master of Arts studies in Church History, specializing in Nicene-Chalcedonian history, I have not come across), we should not change the sense of the paragraph. If you wish to clean up the language so it flows better, I have no objections, but in the arena of Church History, that Constantine was politically motivated at least in part is not questioned.ReformedArsenal (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
You concede that these sources reflect a discernible POV, yet you are placing a burden on me to find a source to be able to apply NPOV here and challenge this as a POV, otherwise the editorial POV claiming to assign motives into someone's heart should be endorsed as factual regardless? If the POV is that crucial to the sense of the sentence, NPOV policy clearly calls for it to be at least attributed rather than endorsed. I don't think the addition of blatant POV is even that crucial to information in the sentence, so I concur with the other editor that it's best just to remove the obvious redflag POV phrasing. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
There is no such thing as a truly neutral point of view. Our job as editors is to provide a report of what the WP:RS says. Do you have a source that covers this topic and does not make reference to political expedience motives? ReformedArsenal (talk) 16:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
"There is no such thing as a truly neutral point of view" is just rhetoric. If it were true, WP:NPOV (q.v.) wouldn't be our cornerstone policy. It is possible that you want wikipedia to teach readers expressly that Constantine's motives were political, to reflect your own biased views. I am certain other views have regarded him as a Saint (literally). If you really feel this viewpoint is so crucial, a more cautious and scholarly approach required by NPOV would be to remove the extraneous endorsing phraseology and add an attributory sentence such as "The consensus of most (secular? / Protestant?) historians is that Constantine's reasons for these moves were mostly political expediency." Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
There is a simple solution to this... provide a source that does not include the lean toward political motivations. The only thing I want wikipedia to teach readers is what the WP:RS say. Every source I've ever seen that addresses the topic of Constantine (both Secular and Christian sources) attribute political motivation to his conversion and actions in calling the Council. Most actually go much farther than I would, but never-the-less, that is where they go. You want the article not to reflect a political motivation, provide a source that does not reflect a political motivation. ReformedArsenal (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
No, the simplest AND policy-required solution is to remove the blatant POV, only add the POV with attributation if at all, and it's not the "simple solution" to require me to come up with sourcing just in order to to enforce WP:NPOV, so that the article can continue to endorse a bias. This is a common sense situation. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
If all WP:RS say that Constantine had political motivations, then what foundation do you stand on to say that he didn't? There is ZERO reason given by you to think that the article is not reflecting the reality of his motivation, and all of the resources agree. Can you show me even one source that doesn't argue that he had political motivations? If not, why would we remove that data? ReformedArsenal (talk) 17:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I am the originator of the edit under discussion, a newbie of a few days, and working on a bit more contribution to this section as a first project (not yet ready to be discussed here, but that's where I'll start with larger changes). It was not my intention to claim that Constantine had no political motivations, nor do I think anyone here is making that claim. It is my contention, however, that multiple motivations on Constantine's part are always possible, not just political ones. I think that the whole aspect of assigning motivations to another person is a highly suspect activity, regardless of expertise or intention on the part of the assigner, be he or she a Wikipedia editor or the provider of source material. It amounts to mind-reading what one cannot really know for certain, and Constantine is not around to ask. That being the case, and with the desire to help Wikipedia towards as much neutrality as can be achieved, I think it is helpful generally to remove or tone down such POINTS OF VIEW, whether or not the source material draws such conclusions, unless point of view is specifically the means to attaining an understanding of what current controversies exist, or where generally-accepted understanding originated. In any case, if it cannot be removed, then at least reference to the source material as the origin of the point of view is desirable, in order to retain the neutrality of Wikipedia itself. I am too new to know the fine details of current editing policy, but if your position really reflects that policy, then I would argue that there needs to be some discussion (somewhere ... where?) about the policy itself. Currently, I yield to the greater experience of you both, but I still think my edit should stand, and I would like to participate in the discussion. Evenssteven (talk) 18:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

It isn't just protestant Church historians and theologians who speak this way. New Advent (Catholic Encyclopedia) writes: "It has consequently been asserted that Constantine favoured Christianity merely from political motives, and he has been regarded as an enlightened despot who made use of religion only to advance his policy. He certainly cannot be acquitted of grasping ambition." ReformedArsenal (talk) 18:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

There, that should settle it. We now have Protestant and Catholic perspectives presented... and they all say the same thing. ReformedArsenal (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Typical bias, so "that should settle it", Orthodox aren't even at the table as long as Catholic Encyclopedia mentions (using more cautious, scholarly wording) that "it has been asserted" in reference to the Protestant theologians' assertions. "Asserted" is indeed certainly the more neutral choice than "attested" (WP:CLAIM.) And the wikipedia articles for these men call all of them "theologians" so why isn't that the correct term? The reference to "Church historians" is ambiguous since one is Methodist, one is Reformed Calvinist (and apparently very anti-Catholic) and one is Baptist. "Church historians" usually means as in Eusebius and Irenaeus etc. not modern day Protestant theologians including those with a clear bias. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
So put your Orthodox source in there and quit whining. Neither Latourette nor Gonzalez are primarily known as theologians, both of their pages indicate they have done theological work, but their primary work has been in the area of Church History... White is a theologian, which is why I did not include him in the change. The new advent source makes NO reference to Protestant claims, who has asserted it is completely ambiguous... the telling part is that the author states that he cannot be acquitted of the charge. If you want an Orthodox claim to be represented, do your own homework and include it. Until then, we have a wide variety of sources presented from a wide array of perspectives. In terms of "asserted" versus "attested." Asserted has the connotation that there is no argument behind it, it is a bad choice of words that tends toward POV pushing (see WP:CLAIM). Attested bears no such connotation, only that the person cited agrees with the previously cited source. Would you prefer that it say "X and X agree that..." instead of "X and X attest to this..."? ReformedArsenal (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
"Agree that" would be better but right now it says neither; it says in the passive perfect form "are attested by", the participial form "attested" in particular does have a weightier connotation, it suggests that something concrete has been found like "the tablets are attested" (we're talking about conjecture of what he was thinking, not anything concrete that can be attested) whereas "asserts" completely contrary to what you said, does not make any implications at all about the assertion, and is thus a more neutral verb. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

To write that someone claimed or asserted something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence.

— WP:CLAIM
You were saying? The WP:MOS seems to disagree with you about the neutrality of assert. ReformedArsenal (talk) 19:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello? This may be a pertinent and important discussion in its own right, but is it not a different discussion from the one in the heading? Evenssteven (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
No, I withdraw my questions immediately above. If "asserted" is problematic by way of connotation only, and therefore of pushing a POV, then isn't that reason enough to avoid "for political reasons", as I argue immediately below? Evenssteven (talk) 20:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Searching for assert on wp:MOS (which constructs "assert prefix:Wikipedia:Manual of Style") produces a "not found" page. Where is the reference you were asserting? Evenssteven (talk) 21:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:CLAIM ReformedArsenal (talk) 22:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I had found it myself and was just posting here when I saw your reply. It seems to me that the MOS is urging caution in the use of "assert", because of what it "can" imply. It does not necessarily have those implications in all contexts, hence is sometimes perfectly suitable, and neutral. I find most words are subject to variabilities in meaning that depend on usage. I might even (in fact, I do) assert as much in this context, and I'm not intent on providing evidence for it here. I tend to think that it remains neutral enough as long as the context itself is neutral (and this talk page is much more neutral than a content page). It becomes problematic more often when the assertion itself is not universally or widely agreed. But assertion can definitely be milder than attestation, because one must have something (like a fact) to attest to, and attesting to a fact that is not accepted as fact by all then becomes the more aggressive form, by its implication that you're dealing with facts, not mere assertions. Context is everything here. Evenssteven (talk) 22:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
The fact is that it's not simply an assertion, all of the cited sources make arguments and support their arguments with evidence. When you say "assert" most people assume that you are saying they claim something without evidence. ReformedArsenal (talk) 22:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
By the way, my objection is not that the word "political" is a priori "objectionably POV". My editing out of "for political reasons" in both instances lies in part because the inclusion of that phrase implies that Constantine could have had no other kinds of reasons as well. Now, I have no objection to his having had political reasons. Political reasons are not in themselves either good or bad; they are simply political. There is no question that Constantine ruled the empire for a significant length of time. Therefore he must have had sufficient understanding of governance to hang onto power for that time. And it would be surprising if being the son of one in high political position, that he did not learn some savvy. He also proved quite capable of governing his armies and winning battles, so as to solidify his hold on power in the first place. Since politics at its core is really just human relations, and governance is the exercise of authority within politics, there is no need for any criticism of any political figure simply on that basis. A problem can arise, however, through a subtext that implies a criticism, and such criticisms are intended and expressed very often by means of phrases like "for political reasons", more strongly by "politically motivated", and perhaps most strongly by "political expediency". But the difficulty lies then in the possibility of implied criticism, directed towards the subject, and indicating something of a selfish or self-serving character, which criticism is itself not honest by being made explicit, nor by being made specific. It is possible to interpret each phrase neutrally, but I think we all know of many instances where we consider that it is not. "We consider" is the problem. Such phrases leave behind a bombshell, for the reader is left to wonder if the writer actually is implying such a criticism or is trying to denote only. The text itself becomes dishonest (intentionally or not on the part of the writer) in that it cannot be interpreted meaningfully, because it engages the reader to draw unsubstantiated and unsubstantiable conclusions. It is my opinion that this dishonesty is not desirable either in text written by Wikipedians, nor in source materials. Where it cannot be avoided in source materials, at least Wikipedia text can remain neutral and avoid repeating it. Evenssteven (talk) 20:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm picking up both the above loose threads here. Your claim about "all of the cited sources" is an assertion in itself, and one which I find to be somewhat arguable. While I doubt that I have explored them as thoroughly as you might, yet I find the evidential support to vary among them, and the tendency to pile argument on argument more variable. And I find besides that the tendency of the sources to use POV in their arguments varies most of all. I will attest (assert as fact) that not all sources (here or elsewhere) are equally reliable or valuable or unbiased, and I'm guessing that in your studies you will have encountered as much yourself. When one goes to any material for information, learning how to test, evaluate and synthesize the material is a required skill. The producers of source material and research certainly know this also. And as one might expect, some do it with greater skill than others. And there's no harm in their expressing their POVs based on what they learned either, as long as it's clear when they are giving a POV, and when they are presenting material or findings. Now, I'm not suggesting that Wikipedia is the place to do source evaluation publicly, by elevating to the article text all source points of view or argument, however evidentially-based they are. The article does need to balance comprehensiveness against its value as being both summary and representative. But in the editing of an article, I consider it important to draw attention to a source-POV as nevertheless a POV, as distinct from purer material or findings. The level of importance will differ depending on how hot any related controversy may be. I anticipated this article on the Council of Nicea would be sensitive ground, and already find it to be so. So I touched (lightly) a spot that I found to be sensitive myself, and found it was also sensitive to at least two other editors. I conclude therefore that it will be sensitive to Wikipedia users (readers) as well. Finally, we come to "for political reasons". The source material(s) may use the phrase in summaries or the like, but in my opinion do so improperly unless they first explore may specifics: WHAT political reasons, WHY those and not others, WHOSE reasons, reasons to WHAT EFFECT, or for WHAT GAIN. And is the gain for an individual, or for a group, or for a whole nation (for example)? And are there OTHER reasons: WHICH, HOW, WHY, etc etc. So my point is that the authors of the source materials have both the opportunity and the obligation to provide some meaning behind the summary line "for political reasons". The article does not readily have that luxury. Thus, when the article reader encounters it, the phrase is content-void (which makes it dishonest, as I have said before). The phrase screams out to be filled with meaning, and the user has no basis to fill it with any. If the user can't recognize that point and walk away, they're left with conflicting impressions only: what's THAT supposed to mean; what's being implied; is that a criticism? do I LIKE what I think the author is trying to say? do I like what I'm hearing (or think I'm hearing) about so-and-so or such-and-such I'm supposed to be reading about? until the reader becomes flooded with emotions that go nowhere (and worse, CAME FROM nowhere), and has learned no substance because the unsupported reactions will flood the memory with colors and leave working knowledge in the dust. THAT's why I think it's POV; it's the USER's POV, and it came from nowhere relevant. In less dire cases, it will simply leave the user confusion without answers and a sense of distrust about the article (SOMEBODY seemed to have an ax to grind, even though I can't quite make out what it was). The article needs to make a more circumspect use of the sources, and to draw more on explicit statements of specifics. The reason POV (and other proscriptions) are avoided is in order to unload articles from emotional weaponry - much the same kind of thing as the guidances for editors, but with nothing but the article text to fall back on for support. Can I go ahead and delete "for political purposes" now? Evenssteven (talk) 23:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC) Ok, I overreached a little: getting tired. "For political purposes" is also the source's POV, but that view does not translate to the article along with the phrase; instead, it leaves an emotional bomb. Evenssteven (talk) 00:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, if you insist. I see you have both made changes to the article. I still think it is slanted, and much is based on conclusions that are not necessarily warranted. And especially, I still think that "for political purposes" does it no good. However, my intent was never to erase conclusions I don't agree with, and the added attributions now identify their sources more clearly so that one can see the origins. They do belong in the article because the opinions they represent are both sincere and learned and form a POV that is quite widespread, even prevalent, today. And those attributions also fill in some of the content void even with "for political purposes", which helps defuse the bomb. In all, I call it improvement. Still, I wonder why the views of the "referenced" ancient sources are not also represented. Why spend time exclusively with vastly later commentators when those who were there or so much closer have at least as much to say? If they do not meet "modern" standards for this or that, so much the better. Each age has its prejudices too. Older ages' prejudices are that much more visible to us for being distant from our way of looking at things, and that can yield the opportunity for fresh insights. We also have to work harder at understanding them then, which provides opportunities for yet more benefits. I may not be an expert in this field, but I am well-educated and generally capable intellectually. Perhaps I'll give a shot at producing something along the lines of what I'm referring to. I'm still feeling my way towards what I may spend time on at Wikipedia. Evenssteven (talk) 04:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Articles on Wikipedia should represent the POV of WP:RS, when multiple POVs exist, all of those POVs should be represented in a way that is balanced to the mix of POVs in the literature. For example, the fact that Constantine existed is a POV, the fact that he was the Roman Emperor is a POV. When there is a POV that is overwelmingly the case in the literature, and an extreme minority view in the literature, that minority view can be left out due to WP:FRINGE. So, if someone held the POV that Constantine didn't exist, or wasn't the legitimate Emperor, we could leave that out. Likewise, if there is someone who believes that political expedience was not a motivation in his attitude toward Christians and the overwhelming majority state that it was... that expert opinion should be included. Please refrain from changing the article more until we have more comments from the RFC. ReformedArsenal (talk) 10:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
RFC? What is that? In any case, I'd have much more work to do before I'd have anything presentable for inclusion, so changes from me would not be immediate. I understand also that there are means of vetting new material before they reach the article, but I don't know specifically what they are, and I could use some guidance on how that is done. I have a talk page (best), and am also emailable from WP (lesser choice) if you'd like to show me a few ropes (which I would appreciate). I only started with the edit that I did because it only involved removing text, and a minimal amount at that. But that seems fine to me, as it has generated useful discussion and some action. I think more is necessary, but that only means there is work to be done. Thanks for the pointer to WP:RS. I was thinking about POVs earlier today, and had had much the same ideas as it expresses, and along much the same lines as you describe. Every policy, though, ends up having to be interpreted and applied, and one major gray line in this one is deciding when you leave "minority opinion" and enter "fringe". I doubt that numbers are the only thing that count, although they do matter. In that regard, a Protestant POV is certainly a minority view, since there are more Roman Catholics than any other expression of Christianity, and more Orthodox than all Protestant denominations combined, and there is certainly more than one Protestant POV, too (even about what constitutes "Protestant"). Some (I among them) maintain that Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are not really Christian sects, but knowing that there is dissent on that point, I'd say they have a POV that could also be represented here if any cared to create it (I do not). And the reason I'd give is that they are not fringe (fringe Christians? - arguable, but not fringe POVs as in "extreme minority"). But even at that, there needs to be a judgment applied about how much POV the article can accomodate for balance, as opposed to the need to summarize. Finally, I do not like having to see a phrase like "political expedience" at all, for reasons I already described, because it is emotionally-charged language and tends to defeat neutrality, whether or not many vetted sources use it. It therefore implies a criticism of its target that can legitimately be seen as judgemental (thereby defeating any number of WP premises) because of the emotional ammunition it employs. It seems to me that a neutral statement might have to read more like: "X has been criticized [by someone [provide ref]] [in such-and-such a way] [with regards to ...] [by calling his/her actions 'such-and-such'] ...". Part of writing a neutral article must sometimes involve neutralizing the exact wording of the source, lest the article take on the same lack of neutrality of the source. As an aside, I'm new to WP, but I'm not so new to certain problems of editing. Evenssteven (talk) 22:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Note: We seem to have hammered out a mutually acceptable attributory sentence for the political POV now, the only question that remains is the original one, whether stressing "for political reasons" at two different points in the text is going overboard. (Whether politics is all as some povs say "politricks" is a distinct theological question in itself!) Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it's acceptable to me for now, because I think it stands improved. The remedy for remaining faults (including the overstressing of the text) needs to take a different or more comprehensive tack, and that will take a lot more work (for inexperienced me, anyway, but that's good too). (And I'd tend to agree that there's a lot of "politricks" in politics, although if someone- not you- said that it's nothing else, that would be too cynical for me to ratify.) Besides, I think real politics is present in all human relations. Politics as office/title or government or organization consists ultimately of human relations and very little besides. They may have infrastructure, but they function the way they do because of the people in them. However abusive politics gets, that is the abuse of real people. However beneficial it can be, that is benefit to real people. So, what one's politics are, that's shown in how one treats other people. And it's been that way since far before the 4th century. Evenssteven (talk) 22:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the article ([5]), "While Constantine wanted a unified church after the council for political reasons, [...]" does look somewhat "sinister"... Perhaps giving more details would be more neutral - and thus, a good compromise? For example, "While Constantine wanted a unified church after the council, hoping that it would bring peace and unity to the Empire, [...]"..? Finding a source that says so shouldn't be hard. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 21:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

New question. In my newness, I marked my original edit (removing "for political reasons") a minor edit. I now find it wasn't (under WP:MINOR), and I was thinking it had proved itself not to be even before I saw that. Actually, two questions. Is there a way to remove the minor flag from the edit? And, is there a reason to do so (maybe for archival purposes?). Maybe even, is there a reason NOT to do so? Evenssteven (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry people, but the more I have thought about it, the more I consider that I should withdraw my consent to the language as it is currently in the article. The fact is, I don't know enough yet about what tools are available to resolve matters, and am reaching a dead-end for trying to work them out here. I am unsure of what steps to take next and will need to do some more work to find out. In the discussions above, it has become apparent that the underlying issue is about more than "for political reasons" and at least about use of "politically motivated" (or something like it) and especially about "political expediency", all of which are emotionally-charged catch words. As it stands, I think The role of Constantine section is deeply slanted in places (mostly because of application of those catch-words), and also needs an expansion of subject matter. The issue digs deeply into what is and what is not proper editorial practice, and is connected to a steadily increasing number of WP rules. While we may be able to make some incremental improvements, there may also need to be larger improvements or additions in order to balance the section better. There needs to be a toe-hold somewhere to continue these discussions and their application to this article section, so for now, I do not yield my objection to removal of my original edits. However, I am unable quickly to suggest exactly the ways in which more changes should be made. I need to gather experience at how to do things at WP, and also need to do research to bring suggestions to the table, which will take me up another learning curve. From my end, that's all good. From everyone else's, I expect no one to wait on me, so the text stays as it is now until I can be ready to point to something better (in that and that alone, I yield). But make no mistake, the dispute is deeper than a word here or there is likely to address adequately. When something is slanted, it needs to be brought into balance. BTW, if someone knows of a better way to handle the situation, I'd be delighted to hear about it. Evenssteven (talk) 06:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

One more point. In my opinion, the crux of the whole disagreement is incorrectly characterized in the original request for comments. Is there a way to give the community a better banner to fly? Evenssteven (talk) 06:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Survey

  • Give more details. For example, EWTN Document library lists a part of the book "Upon This Rock", by Fr. Valentine Long OFM, called "Arius and the Council of Nicaea" ([6]). It says "This doctrinal threat to the peace of his empire, which was growing rampant, alarmed Constantine." and "An aggressive party with an enormous inclusion of Semi-Arians and the benefit of a co-operative army, they posed a threat to the peace of the empire if not humored.". Those are the political reasons mentioned in the article and they should be given explicitly. That will avoid the vague and at least arguably non-neutral "political expediency" or "for political reasons". --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Replace with specific attribution to the sources. Reflect what the sources say, and identify the sources in the article. GoodeOldeboy (talk) 04:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep or replace with specific attribution to the sources. There is nothing wrong with the information. I think that with good reference it can be kept. However, since a question is raised, I see no problem in specifying by adding the source to the text. "According to ...". Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 18:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to Restructure the Primary Sources section; request for review

Here's what it would look like:


Primary sources

Concepts/Premises of the Changes

  • Some sources were identified in an abbreviated manner more proper to scholarly publications. I felt it might be helpful to the general reader to provide a view which was more explicit, assumed less knowledge, and provided a little ground to stand on in unfamiliar places (within the limits of this context).
  • For all but one primary source, the article points to their appearances in Schaff's massive compendium. Arranging them hierarichally according to their appearance within that makes it easier to locate them, even outside WP. It also implies a few things about where, when, and by whom the translations were done (the internal commentary also provides more of this), which can add to the weight of scholarly authority behind these article sources.
    • If this presentation is rather unusual, I think the mass and configuration of the Schaff works calls out for a non-standard treatment.
  • To convey information about Schaff's role and that publication, in addition to the online publisher being referenced, and the identification and dating of the source works themselves, is too massive for the ordinary WP mechanisms to support in one-liners. Hierarchical presentation allows more of that information to be conveyed without confusion or repetition.

Description and Motivations of the Initial Changes

  • It is essentially the same set of links as before: no additions, no subtractions. However, one link from the Literature section which follows this one, listing Schaff as author, was really a means of accessing the three synodal documents, which have been broken into three links here under the final volume of Schaff. The council itself was the author of the real sources, so the line in the Literature section can be deleted if this proposal is adopted.
  • I think the visual presentation above is the best description of itself, especially the hierarchical construct.
    • Note that the citation of the original Schaff publication in Michigan is retained without change. The one in the hierarchy is only partially duplicative, and contains the Internet publisher, for whom a link is now also presented.
    • The single source which was not referenced in Schaff before now stands alone outside that hierarchy, unchanged. I didn't check to see if it was present in Schaff, but considered that if it were, whoever put it there may have wanted the Tertullian-website-based English translation to be presented.
    • On second-level lines in the hierarchy, which define placement of documents to within a Schaff volume, I've included a little additional information (like dates, alternate names, and more complete names), so that the less knowledgeable reader can get a better idea of how to identify some of the people who appear within the source texts themselves. (When you don't know anyone in the room, the first mapping strategy is identifying their names. And a modern reader might not realize at first that there is more than one Bishop Eusebius in the picture in Nicaean times, so learning how to separate them becomes important too.) The changes try to leave what clues they can without becoming cumbersome.
    • On third-level lines in the hierarchy, I decided that it was important to present the authors of the source documents first, as they had been before (mostly, not always). Where they hadn't been, I changed the presentation so that's where the authors are now, consistently.
      • This is not necessarily a straightforward choice, as a writing of one ancient source is sometimes found through being quoted in another ancient source. And as Schaff reports in his document editing, the same target writing is sometimes quoted by several other ancient sources and was never found elsewhere alone, so indications of "this source was reported by that source" might be of interest (or even critical) information for an article reader (also due to possible textual differences). Thus, the entry must take pains to say all it can. I've tried to present information in a logical and consistently-tiered design.
  • Existing URLs were of two types, inconsistently applied, and I found one type less helpful than the other, especially (again) to the general reader (experts can find their way better). All were converted to the general type.
    • The "expert" type directs the mouse-clicker to a table of contents for the top of the resource. These tables are sometimes quite extensive (50 or even a couple of hundred entries), and locating an intended link target related to the council was not always apparent from the TOC entry. Besides, the UI of the Internet publisher (CCEL) makes the TOC only a mouse-click away on every page (icon in the upper left corner of the window frame), so the utility of going to the TOC as the page was questionable.
    • The "general" type directs the mouse-clicker directly to the document page related to the council. This is always a section or chapter within the source, not a pointer directly into further subdivisions (even if that is actually an option - I don't know). The text the article reader is looking for is therefore always close by even when it is not directly in front after the click on the link. "Engineering" note: while the URL points more deeply into the document structure in this type, note that the internal structure of Schaff is of the compendium itself, followed by the structure of the incorporated documents, all of which are bedrock stable. There would be little motivation for CCEL ever to change the link structure to something else, thereby breaking existing links. The more likely scenario (though unlikely, according to CCEL) would involve moving whole Schaff volumes, or the entire compendium, in which case links would break no matter which type was employed by WP.

Description and Motivations of Subsequent Changes to the Proposal

  • Replaced use of the Latin "æ" with "ae" so as not to hamper search behavior.

Proposal Discussions

I'm new enough not to know the best way to go about this task. I put the whole proposal here so that it can be seen by all interested parties. I also have a copy on my user talk page, since I'm not sure where the ordinary place is for review comments. I do know that I will want to clear (delete) my user talk of all discussion material once there is resolution, so my preference is to have the review take place on this article talk page. I'm guessing that's better also from the standpoint of archiving afterwards. Thanks in advance for any directions if I need to be starting somewhere else. Evenssteven (talk) 07:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Why are you changing all the "ae"s to the Latin "æ"s in the English transliteration of a Greek city's Greek name? Beyond that, it makes it hard for people to search. Just leave them as "ae". ReformedArsenal (talk) 11:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Ah, easy. Pure ignorance on my part. I saw it here in a couple of source titles and thought it might be preferred, but that not everyone would know how to produce it from scratch. (In fact, I don't either.) I've made the change in the proposal above also. (Is that proper editing for a talk page? No attribution up there...)

Evenssteven (talk) 15:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Not much action here. One more day before it goes in. Ok? Please speak up if you have an issue. Evenssteven (talk) 03:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The proposal was entered into the article as reviewed. This space held open for comments until someone else decides it's time to close. Evenssteven (talk) 22:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:First_Council_of_Nicaea/Archive_3&oldid=593810321"