Talk:First Council of Nicaea/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Unclear language in "the role of Constantine" section

First paragraph, last sentence:

The Catholic Encyclopedia further states: "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."

This recent addition arose in response to another discussion about "for political reasons" and like phrases in the article, but the issue here is different. As a newer WP editor, I have been asked to tread carefully (in which I concur) in sensitive matters, and the issue I raise here is likely to generate some discussion anyway. I have not begun with an edit because I thought that the editor who put in this sentence would know more about its context and his/her intent, and might be able to smith it in a less controversial way, so I invite that activity before I touch it myself.

It is perhaps an unfortunate consequence of lifting this passage from its own context, but in the context of the article, its meaning is certainly unclear. Generally, the use of passive voice, as in "it has been asserted" (by whom?) and "he has been regarded" (by whom?), is sometimes employed intentionally so as to be evasive of controversy or to avoid an appearance of confrontation (not an effective technique, in my opinion). Whether or not the Catholic Encyclopedia is doing so here I cannot tell for certain, and neither can the article reader. Moreover, it's unclear whether the encyclopedia is standing behind the assertion and the regard itself, or simply acknowledging that some other unnamed person(s) or source(s) are doing so. And if the latter, it is unclear in the context of the article whether the person(s) or source(s) the encyclopedia is referring to might be in the same category as the protestant sources given in the article text just prior to it. It does seem clear that the encyclopedia is standing by the final statement "He certainly cannot be acquitted of grasping ambition.", so that part does not fall into the issue here.

Whatever is done to the article, it should try to make clear the stance of the encyclopedia source on its own. That also needs to happen within a WP-editing referral that does not imply that WP endorses the view (which I don't think is a problem at present either). Evenssteven (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Evensteven, I'm not sure why you are so gungho to whitewash out a fact that is accepted by nearly every critical Christian historian I have ever read (and holding a Master of Arts in Church History, that is quite a few). We have two WELL respected Christian historians who have attributed political expedience to Constantine's actions... A catholic encyclopedia who is saying that he was ambitious... You can keep banging your drum, but until you provide some kind of source that calls that analysis into question you aren't going to make any headway. If you really want to pull out everything up until "He certainly cannot be acquitted of grasping ambition" then you are welcome to, but it isn't really changing the sense of the quote in anyway. You still have the CE confirming the position that he was politically motivated. The only difference is that you are further ripping it out of its own context (which by the way makes no reference whatsoever to whom it is indicating has asserted the motivation). ReformedArsenal (talk) 00:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

ReformedArsenal, I'll see if I can tamp down the gungho-ness. I really haven't considered myself to be on some kind of crusade here. Sigh. I had forgotten how hard it is really to communicate in a text-only medium. So I have left some false impressions strewn around all that verbiage. I know, if I correctly interpret "gungho". I've found it kind of exciting to get started on WP, and even more so to be able to engage in a discussion of interest to others as well as myself. So now that you mention it, I guess I had some gungho feelings about that. Perhaps that's part of it. Now, from my end, I have never wanted to whitewash anything, fact, or even opinion, or even POV. The issue deepest to my heart as it applies to WP is that this article be and remain as neutral as it can be, and that's been the primary goal of every one of my arguments. Now, I consider that you are both intelligent and knowledgeable (as well as well-versed in wikiness), and I must admit that what you did work through with Til Eulenspiegel looked enviably efficient to me (and I've got a way to go on that score). So, if on re-reading the passage in question it is your honest opinion that it is not unclear, then I'll cede the point. I'm not interested in running roughshod over any honest opinion. And the issue here is clarity, not neutrality, so it's down the list in importance to me (enough that it's a lot easier to give way). You've already noticed that I'm pretty tenacious about neutrality. It takes time to get to know other people, and this is not an ideal medium, but it's not impossible. Let's try to get onto a more amicable track than we have seemed to land on heretofore. For here's another thing that's deep in my heart as it applies to WP, and that is that it belongs to the community, of us editors, and of the world. It works by the good relations of its participants, and that is something I love about its premise. So I think taking a little time and disk space to establish and maintain good relations is just as important as polishing article content. All that said, I recognize that we have differing views on some things. I don't accept as a-priori fact the opinions of however-many or however-prominent historians simply on the basis of their authority as scholars, even with all that gravitas behind the opinion. For scholars are people too, and fallible like anyone else (me too). The history of science is replete with examples of well-accepted scientific notions, theories, and expert opinions being proven all wrong, sometimes through the work of just one person. So it's not really unreasonable to be reticent, even to the extent that I am, to talk about something as "fact". That it's a fact that they all hold that view in common, there's a statement I'm perfectly comfortable with. That by the gravitas of their considered and proven-knowledgeable opinion that view is worthy of inclusion in the article, I say "definitely", "without question". That the article still needs to say so in a neutral way, well, I insist I'm right about that, by WP principles and mine too. (I do think clarity counts.) I definitely do understand that the underlying issue about the truth or falsity of that view is NOT-WP (or whatever that acronym is supposed to be), so direct work on the article needs to avoid getting sucked into that discussion. And I'm afraid that we may have been fencing around that exact thing (as subtext), to the detriment of improving the article. Still, the article's on a fascinating topic, isn't it? Hard to restrain onesself. Such a multitude of interesting lives, events, and interplay, and such an intense focus on ultimate truths as don't often occur in history! No wonder there are so many perspectives on it, and so much discussion even after nearly 1700 years! So, to talk about such things with intelligent and knowledgeable people, especially if they're not of your own view, that's well-nigh irresistable. But we'd need to take it to another medium. Care to join me? I promise I don't play the drums. Evenssteven (talk) 08:51, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

NPOV is good, but it is not the One Ring that rules all the others. There are always multiple factors that need to be considered. In this case, I would actually argue that if all of the sources present Constantine to be a politically motivated and ambitious person, then to not present him as such here is more of a POV violation than what you're proposing. Reason being, we have to analyze the REASON that he's not being presented that way. In this case, "He is a Saint to Catholic and Orthodox" is a POV, and it goes against the majority of the WP:RS that I have seen. As such, it would be POV pushing to attempt to overturn the sources based on the religious inclination of those groups. We as editors need to remain as neutral as possible, and we should not let OUR bias influence how we edit Wikipedia (as mas as is possible), but if all of the sources have the same POV, then that is the POV that needs to be represented (even if it doesn't seem neutral... reality isn't always neutral). In addition, it something is fact, it is not a POV issue. Lets compare this to another similar kind of issue. Evolution is written as though evolution is a fact, it uses definitive language and reflects the statements made in the sources. There are LOTS of people who disagree with evolution and consider it to be faulty (both Christians and Secularists alike), and that perspective is essentially unadressed. It is left out because it violates WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. In this case, I would say that any perspective that Constantine was not politically motivated is one of those. Now, in terms of clarity, I don't think that the section is unclear at all. The original source isn't extremely clear, and they do not give us any context as to who has done the asserting. They simply used the passive voice (which is why the passive voice is risky in written text). That is why I chose to quote verbatim instead of paraphrase, because I wanted to make sure the Authors words were represented. The reason I included the "He cannot be acquitted" was to show that WHOEVER asserted the statement, that the author was agreeing with him. The sense I got from reading the Catholic encyclopedia article is that for the reasons listed previous to the sentence in question, some people have asserted that Constantine was a political opportunist, and that the authors agreed with that assertion. I'm open to someone arguing that it means something else, but they're going to have to argue it form the article in question, not from presuppositions that Constantine is a saint and therefore Catholic encyclopedia cannot be saying he was politically motivated. ReformedArsenal (talk) 13:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

You're arguing too many different things at once. 1) There is a POV that considers him a saint, so it's a POV issue. 2) The opposing POV that says he not a saint is correct, and therefore not a POV but a fact; 3) POV doesn't matter to wikipedia so much anyway since once POV is correct and the other POV incorrect and therefore it's a matter of fact and not POV, since the other POV that he is a saint is mistaken and therefore inadmissible. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:23, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

That is not at all what I'm saying. 1) Wikipedia reports what WP:RS say about a subject. 2) The WP:RS say that Constantine was politically motivated. 3) Wikipedia reports that Constantine was politically motivated. 4) If the overwhelming majority of WP:RS says that he was politically motivated, and a large minority says he was not, according to WP:UNDUE we do not give much treatment to the minority view (if any at all). 5) Since NO sources have been presented saying that he was not politically motivated, and 3 sources say he was... we report that he was. If you want to include sources that say otherwise that fit the criteria of WP:RS then feel free... until then we're not going to get anywhere. ReformedArsenal (talk) 15:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

ReformedArsenal, I agree with Til E. that there are a lot of issues on the table here, and he names some. That's why my entries have been so long up to now too. I agree with a lot of things you said, not with some others - and let's see if I can sort some of that out. I agree that NPOV is not the one ring; I think WP is set up in such a way as to see to it that there is no one ring here that can rule all the others; that's part of the beauty of it. "Multiple factors that need to be considered?" You bet! Look at how many we're dealing with, both on Talk and in the article itself! "All of the sources": ambiguous phrase. All of the sources that exist can hardly be represented in the article, and all of them that are represented - well, it's up to us to select and present a balanced representation from among the most reputable we can find. The only point I'd make there is that our work is not done; and it never will be done - we can always improve it. But I've never meant to suggest that we should "overturn" (remove? emasculate even?) any of the current sources, based on any kind of inclination among us editors or any other "groups", nor to attack them. I for one accept them as legitimate input to the article, and consider their input to be necessary to a balanced article (though if everyone agreed, it would be possible to alter the selections in favor of other sources that might be better in some way - but I have no issues or inclinations there at present). I would still say they have a POV, you have a POV, and I have a POV. But the fact that they all say Constantine was politically motivated is not enough for anyone to say that it is a fact that Constantine was politially motivated. I think that you and I are not aligned as to what "fact" means, and that is making for difficulties of communication. I can be an unconventional thinker sometimes, in the sense that my opinion does not always derive from what is most commonly perceived or believed. But I do like to believe that I'm thoroughly rational, and reasonable, and able to deal with others in both a reasonable and respectful way, and also to articulate the ways and reasons behind why I am unconventional. That can be work though, both for me and for my audience, and it takes patience from us both. I'll try to keep excursions there to a minimum, and as concise as I can make them. So, (taking a plunge here), I have never said that I did not think that Constantine was politially motivated. In fact, I do think so. But I find that a fearful phrase to use, because it can be so easily misconstrued. It has many meanings, and I do not mean that I think all of them, only some of them. I think political motivations can be a positive and beneficial thing, even in a large arena like public policy, which is certainly where Constantine was placed. And I think it likely that quite a number of Constantine's political motivations were indeed positive and beneficial, to the empire and its citizens. The need to keep order is present in any society, and as emperor that duty was certainly his to carry out - no one else could have done it -, and the basic history seems to indicate that he did (in fact?) keep it, and I call that positive and beneficial. What his personal motivations were for carrying out that duty, well, here we're approaching an area that I consider dangerous as far as finding facts goes, because it is mined with pitfalls, including the temptation for analysts to read Constantine's mind into what they know about him. First, I myself don't know enough to say anything about what his personal motivations were. Second, I don't see how I or anyone could ever come by reliable information on what they were. The experts know much, and much more than I, but I question that they know that, because (unconventional thinker that I am) it is commonly supposed by many people these days that we CAN see that far into other people, even people who lived 1700 years ago. But I don't agree that it's anything like as simple or automatic or even as possible to do so as is commonly believed. I've lived with my wife now for over 30 years, and as well as I know her, I still find it hard at times to know this sort of thing about her. If that kind of experience doesn't teach a person some caution, then I'd say they're just not paying attention. So pardon please, but I just can't assent to the idea that any group of experts, no matter how well-informed and well-meaning, can find actual facts about Constantine's personal motivations beyond only a superficial depth. Now, here again, I don't know these sources nearly as well as you, but I hope you can now see why it is that I am so certain about this one thing. And the same reasons I express for being cautious I apply to myself in saying that I am not leveling a criticism at the sources. Yes, I have said that their view is slanted, and have argued that the article (actually, the one section - the article as a whole is much better balanced) has reflected that slant, but I do not imply a criticism of the sources by that. A slant, properly articulated, can be beneficial too. I don't know how they all present that slant, but some of it that I have read seems to me to be done in a helpful and beneficial way. When an author makes clear his/her own preferences and points of view, it helps readers to separate POV from harder fact, and to weigh and measure, assimilate, evaluate, and synthesize what they have read. It's a very human activity, and always necessary in scholarly work, wouldn't you agree? I think the WP article can help the reader if it makes them aware of not only harder facts, but gives them a summary of opinions, so that they can understand what the issues/differences are in current disagreements or POVs that may (do) exist. Current controversies are also a part of the story around Nicaea and what happened there. But the article itself needs to be careful to be neutral about its descriptions. There's no time and place there to go into discussions like the one we're having, and anything inflammatory in the article text is bound to be disruptive to helping a reader understand anything. I'm not saying that the sources in general, by saying things like "politically motivated" or "expedient" are themselves leveling criticisms at Constantine. I don't know that they all necessarily mean the same thing when they say that. But I do know that an article reader (or even me, for example), living in the climate of today's opinion (which often stays highly-charged emotionally), and finding within that environment that a phrase like "politically expedient" is often used to imply a criticism of something or someone along the lines of being self-serving, that reader is very likely to carry that implication over into the article itself when they find the phrase there. It's a vagary of language, and a problem of communication, that we as editors just do not have control over. All we can do is to apply our words sensibly and sensitively to the situation at hand to keep the tone down as much as possible. And that's partly why I just don't see quite why the sources choose to frame their own statements in that particular language either. For myself, it only tends to make me suspicious of their own motivations. But it may be an innocent choice on their part, and I prefer to hold back from forming uninformed opinions on that matter either. And really, I don't think it's my place to argue about their own choice of words. It's up to them to choose how to say what they say. Whew! There's more on further items, but I think it's best just to leave it all there for now. I hope this helped to clear the air a bit further. Evenssteven (talk) 19:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

After coming up for a breath of air myself, I find there is one more item I should probably say something about. "He is a Saint to Catholic and Orthodox" is NOT a POV, it is a fact. It is indeed what Catholics and Orthodox profess. Whether or not one agrees that he actually is a saint or not is not the issue; the fact that Catholic and Orthdox profess him to be one is not in question any more than "Constantine was once Emperor" is. On that point, I'm getting the feeling that you don't agree that he is a saint, and that you may feel strongly enough about it that it's hard to deal with. That's ok with me. As you have said, "We as editors need to remain as neutral as possible, and we should not let OUR bias influence how we edit Wikipedia", and I agree with you entirely. We all have to grapple with that statement at times, but the grapple is good practise, and another excellent thing about the WP environment. I certainly accept your right to choose and take ownership of what you believe, and to express it also within bounds of respectfulness and the like. If you have grappling to do, then from my viewpoint, you certainly haven't overstepped any bounds. To me, you do sound a little edgy sometimes; it seems I sometimes have sounded edgy too; although I'd also say that is diminishing on both our parts - hope you feel the same. What Catholics and Orthodox mean when they profess someone to be a saint may have shades of differences; many things do when applied to the two groups (which is why they are two groups and not perfectly one). (But I think that part of a discussion heads off into non-WP territory.) The thing is, I don't think that anyone's calling Constantine a Saint implies his perfection on Earth, and most certainly does not deny his humanity along with all the possibilities that brings for foibles and shortcomings. It's not incompatible with his having "political motivations". We human beings are all "of one substance" also, begotten of the same nature of flesh and spirit. I doubt an atheist would frame the statement in anything like that terminology, but I think most Christians and atheists would agree on the basic meaning behind it: we are all homo sapiens. All of which is to say that I think all people do best to back away from hyperbolizing or labeling individuals as regards their professions of faith and means of expression. There it is again: that "respect" thing. The article needs to show respect too, in every word. The more we can come to agreement on how to do that, the better the article will turn out. I reiterate my offer to cede the point as regards the clarity issue. Different people read a text in different ways, so the way it struck me is not universal. Evenssteven (talk) 19:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Now ReformedArsenal, regarding your May 18 15:20 reply to Til E., I understand the main thrust of your argument there, that more sources need to be found before the article can be changed in certain ways. And that I agree with. However, some details of the argument have problems. You make a list: "1) Wikipedia reports what WP:RS say about a subject. 2) The WP:RS say that Constantine was politically motivated. 3) Wikipedia reports that Constantine was politically motivated." Items 1 and 2, fine. Item 3, no. WP does NOT report that Constantine was politically motivated. It reports that source x or source y or "many sources" SAY that Constantine was politically motivated. The phrase "politically motivated" is just too hot for the article to use and remain neutral. The meaning of the phrase is nebulous to begin with. But it also tends to morph when lifted directly into the article. So, no. Too hot to handle. Then comes your next item: "4) If the overwhelming majority of WP:RS says that he was politically motivated, ..." You assume that they all mean the same thing when they say "politically motivated". No, the term is too nebulous out of context - each separate context. It loses what small meaning it had collected when first used; the meaning does not transfer. Then the last: "5) Since NO sources have been presented saying that he was not politically motivated, and 3 sources say he was... we report that he was." No, pretty much like #3. And it's not about just counting up numbers of sources. It's about conveying meaning to the article reader. So, then, yes, the article needs work, more sources, and it's not all in place yet. But before we reach the point where the article itself will be changed, there is this disagreement over interpretation of how to do editing. If we can't resolve that, we're less likely to be able to resolve more concrete issues of article change when more material is presented. We're getting frustrated because real communication is difficult in this matter. We need more understanding. What I am hearing is reiteration and insistence, but I can't find a path to understanding. And I hear myself reiterating and insisting too, but I can't find a path to articulate the points any better, at least right now. Time for me to get air again. Have some handy? Evenssteven (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

You really need to learn to be less verbose, I'm not going to spend hours reading something on a volunteer editing site that is way TL;DR... The basics of WP is that we follow the sources. If you feel that explicit attribution is important, go for it. Interpreting and analyzing the meaning of what the sources says is a GREAT way to slide straight into WP:SYNTH ReformedArsenal (talk) 20:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, (TL;DR) point taken. Still, don't bring up an issue unless you're prepared to discuss it. WP:SYNTH: already had that one. I hear you leading me into understanding WP policies, and it has helped. Thanks. I may be further along than you know in some cases, but don't stop. Violating WP:SYNTH is ok on a talk page, though, if it impacts an editing issue, as it has ours. Here's one I haven't seen in WP policies: Readers have a POV too. We're writing for them; we should try to avoid offending them (insofar as possible). Let's not let WP be the one at fault if they are. Seems to me that's not bad material for a policy - know of one? You say "If you feel that explicit attribution is important, go for it.". Thanks, I've been waiting to hear your acceptance of that point. Now it's worth my time to spend effort producing a contribution. It took a lot of verbiage to get here. Trust me; I'm not a loose cannon. Evenssteven (talk) 03:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

"Violating WP:SYNTH is ok on a talk page" - Allowing our interpretation of primary sources (in such a way as you are suggesting with the Catholic Encyclopedia article) to affect our paraphrase IS WP:SYNTH. That is why I quoted it directly, because I could not rephrase it without risking synth. This is simply supposed to be a collection of statements about what the sources say, not our analysis of what those sources say. WP:NOTESSAY ReformedArsenal (talk) 11:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, yes, you're right about that. I was aiming a little differently than I hit - namely, that in order to resolve issues when two sides are sparring, it can help to know a little about the other (perhaps the way they analyze). I did overshoot the mark, and by more than I had in mind when I wrote it. Evenssteven (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Hold up, I'm not sure I understood you right the first time. Too fast on the reply. Evenssteven (talk) 22:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Your first sentence: yes, definitely. Your second: I sure understand. I couldn't see any way to rephrase it without changing it either. Cutting was the only option I would have considered. Third sentence: "about" - where I stumbled. Yes, that's the right word, and I thought it might be a different one. But it takes analysis to arrive at "statements about": one must understand what the author means and construct the paraphrase, and make sure the meaning carries forward. It's a different kind of analysis than the author undertakes when he/she writes. We shouldn't do the author's kind, but we need to do the editor's kind. And the editor's kind of analysis can be shared and worked out on a talk page. That was my point (I think). I can't quite make out what I was thinking before. I know your comment caused me to re-evaluate, but I think I understand WP:SYNTH the better for it too. Thanks. Evenssteven (talk) 23:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The issues here are dense; one more thought. Back to your first sentence: "Allowing our interpretation of primary sources to affect our paraphrase IS WP:SYNTH." I'm entirely behind that thought. "(in such a way as you are suggesting with the Catholic Encyclopedia article)": I don't agree that that is what I was trying to do. But the base issue was clarity. I still think the reference here leaves unclear meanings in the article (again disagreeing with you). But I do recognize how hard it is to do some specific thing that will resolve that point between us. I also recognize that my reading of the reference is one of the necessary parts of editorial analysis, as is your reading of it, and that honest differences of reading and interpretation can (and do) exist. You're the one who put in the reference, and you're the one who understands better why you did so and how you thought it might benefit the article. I can't help but think there is a better way to benefit the article, but I don't think it's fruitful for us to argue about it by focussing on the text of that reference, because there is no evident way to improve the way that text is referred to. If some more fruitful avenue presents itself to me, I will suggest it, but lacking that, it doesn't make sense to continue a controversy that has no benefit in end. And for now I think it is a lesser point also, and I'm satisfied to yield to your education and experience. Evenssteven (talk) 02:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

There, I reversed the order that the attributions appeared in the article so it doesn't appear as though Gonzalez and Latourette are the antecedents for the non-referring "it" in the CE quote, I also paraphrased the first sentence with more clear attribution so it is an introductory statement to the discussion of political expediency. That should help with the clarity issues you're trying to resolve. ReformedArsenal (talk) 10:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that fixed the clarity issue. I'm afraid it did introduce a different issue, which Til Eulenspiegel addressed in his subsequent edit. Evenssteven (talk) 21:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

All he did was undo my edit... now it's back EXACTLY to the way it was before... which I'm fine with. I only made the edit to placate you two. ReformedArsenal (talk) 22:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I saw that. And you needn't have bothered. I had already told you three times I was fine also. Evenssteven (talk) 23:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I re-read my last post, and realized the tone was not what I had intended. Please accept this as substitute: "I saw that it was a revert. Thanks, but you needn't have gone to the trouble, for I had already told you three times I was fine with it. Evenssteven (talk) 03:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Question on number of attendees

A user at IP address 109.255.80.241 made an edit claiming a connection between the number of Abraham's household and the traditional number of 318 attendees at the council. There is a ref (which I do not have the expertise to judge myself), but the editor's premise that the traditional number only rose a generation after the council seems clearly to be refuted by the primary sources, several of which mention specifically 318. In addition, the editor maintains that "the Council wished to draw a parallel with a new covenant". This would hardly be possible if the traditional number 318 only originated a generation later. Does this strike anyone else as questionable? I would like confirmation before somebody (me?) reverts. Evenssteven (talk) 17:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I was considering rewording the addition to make it a more clearly attributed theory and less of an endorsement. I agree that the primary sources mentioning 318 makes it even more questionable. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I've read the theory in a number of sources (in fact, I was just reading Gonzalez's chapter on Nicaea and he references it as a reasno critical scholars question the numbre), so I think it's probably a theory that bears mentioning. ReformedArsenal (talk) 18:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Fyi, I've tweaked/corrected two numbers reported by the attendees: Eusebius did in fact report 250, and Eustathius took some pains to explain that his number of 270 was an estimate that he did not take pains to verify in any precise way. As for the new IP-editor's contribution, I would say "In actual fact there were between 220 and 250 at most." is WP:POV, and not substantiated either. In fact, it's controverted by the surrounding materials already present. I'd like to remove that sentence. And before accepting the rest, I guess I'd also like more reason given as to why this theory is so significant that it bears mentioning. Evenssteven (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I also have to agree with Til Eulenspiegel as to "make it a more clearly attributed theory and less of an endorsement". Evenssteven (talk) 21:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I've addressed the less controversial aspects of the edit with a series of edits designed to separate issues, if any arise. Still at issue are the questionable aspects of the theory itself, and also the query why the theory merits mention in the article at all. Evenssteven (talk) 02:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Rather than let a challenged theory sit too long in the article itself, I think it better procedure to remove it while discussion continues here. Evenssteven (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Article Title Change?

Should we change the current title to Council of Nicaea (Ecumenical Council of 325) to match the new naming convention represented by Council of Ephesus (Ecumenical council of 431)? ReformedArsenal (talk) 18:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course not. As you might note, the requested move discussion ([1]) resulted in the page move to "Council of Ephesus", not the name that you were proposing (and - mistakenly - offer here as a precedent). I am afraid that at the moment you are the only one who thinks that such names might make sense... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Does Credo (card game) belong in the "See Also" section of this article?

Be alerted to the discussion at the Nicene Creed talk page regarding the Credo (card game) article. If added to this article, it would also require monitoring, imo. Evensteven (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Attendees

The material that was removed was not a part of reference reorganization. While not untouchable, it should be understood that the liturgical sources they reference are in fact one documentary preserve of the Eastern traditions, generally of very ancient origin, and are not subject to changing over time. In addition, their appearance in the worship services represents both the high degree of confidence the eastern churches place behind their expression (superior to the writings of saints, though not equal to the Bible). They are used both inside and outside of worship for purposes of teaching, and often express interpretive aspects of Scripture or else give a written record of parts of Holy Tradition. They stand very firmly as WP:RS for what Orthodoxy is, and demonstrate the backing of the count given by the entire eastern traditions, not just one author. They are, one should say, ecumenical writings. In some form, this material should stay. Evensteven (talk) 19:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Find something that is in print and doesn't look like it was published by an 8th grader on geocities and I have no problem including it. If it is as central as you claim it is (I'm not saying it isn't), then it ought to be pretty easy to find a clearly reliable source. I removed what was there because the English version of it was clearly a publication from a single local group. Also, the modern liturgical practices of the Eastern Orthodox Church is not the subject of the article. The number 318 is clearly established and these are extraneous entries (two of which have no source, and one which is questionable). I've rephrased it so it is inline with the paragraph, placed the Eastern Orthodox from Anastasis.org.uk in line, and added citation needed for the Coptic and Ethiopic references. ReformedArsenal (talk) 19:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

[Intervening edit conflict] No need to be testy. I am saying that the eastern liturgies are a better WP:RS than any individual author, at least when it comes to representing the historical tradition of the eastern churches. Apparently you don't understand that these texts are not only written, but have been in continuous use (in written form) since St John Chrysostom. They don't change. "Tradition" here does not mean some legendary or indistinct idea embellished by the unlettered over ages of time. It has been carefully transmitted to the present day in much the same way as biblical text. Every Orthodox church has a copy of the liturgy (in sufficiently wealthy nations - a priest who has it memorized in some places). It's not all in a single book or volume, but distributed among several liturgical books, because some elements of the liturgy are unchanging day to day, and some are particular to a specific observation or feast, like Christmas or the Ascension. The website you object to simply put that text online; it's not the source, it's the medium; the written liturgy is the source.

I agree that the "liturgical practices of the Eastern Orthodox Church is not the subject of the article", speaking generally. But liturgical practice and the liturgy itself are two distinct things.

The number 318 is clearly verified by the other sources. But if any single source "establishes" the number, it would be the eastern liturgy. Has the Roman Catholic Church preserved this source throughout the centuries in its liturgy? (I ask; I don't know.) It had the number in its tradition originally. After all, Jerome is in the references list.

I do not object to rephrasing and reshaping in principle, but care and discussion must be taken. I have not yet examined your specific changes, but I will feel free to modify them with a (single) edit as we continue discussion. If mine is objectionable to you then, I submit that we should revert to the original article text until discussion is complete. Or you can revert to that state right now if you do so before I step in. I'm ok with either, and don't want anything that smacks of an edit war. Evensteven (talk) 22:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm okay with leaving the citation in as it stands, although I don't think it is entirely relevant, which states that the traditional number of 318 is represented in the modern liturgy. As I said before, I would prefer a better source than a 6 year old web page with no official markings or references. The reference to the Coptic and Ethiopic traditions will need independent sourcing or those statements will need to go. ReformedArsenal (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Real life interrupted my edits here. I still need to look at what you did, but no objection to the idea of condensation and verification you're taking. Evensteven (talk) 22:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

If I may make another point about "modern liturgy". The modern liturgy is the ancient liturgy. Greek churches today celebrate their liturgy in the original Koine Greek as it was written in the time of John Chrysostom (whose influence and impact on its creation were so great that he is considered the de facto author). Translations into other languages, today or earlier, always begin with the Koine Greek. The original Russian liturgy was translated into what is now known as Church Slavonic, a dialect quite distinct from modern Russian, but it is that translation that is used there. It doesn't change over time. "Modern" does not enter the picture at all, except insofar as a more recent translation is needed to bring the liturgy into the vernacular for a population that speaks a different language, like English. Evensteven (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

[Intervening edit conflict] Ok, that wasn't so hard. I'm fine with your changes for now. That's a much more appropriate summary presentation for the article. As for the citations needed, I'll see what I can do about the Copts. I would not expect it to be difficult (though who knows in English). As for the Ethiopic tradition, there were two WP articles linked to the previous text, so I would not be comfortable about removing their mention from this article until references in those areas were explored. That should not be so hard for one who knows that material better, but I have no knowledge of it at present. I will explore it some, but I suggest that you do so also, and perhaps a request for help if we come up short, all before deletion. Evensteven (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't have time to research the material. It is not my responsibility to provide citations for material that someone else wishes to include. I will let the statements stand for 2 weeks, at which point I will comment them out (they can be added back in at any time when someone provides a WP:RS)

If what you say is the case, then it should not be terribly difficult to provide a citation for the original liturgy, if the line of succession is intact as you say it is. ReformedArsenal (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

What "original" liturgy? What "line of succession"? Evensteven (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

You're claiming that the "modern liturgy" and the "ancient liturgy" are the same thing, what I'm asking for then is the original source. Where does the "ancient liturgy" come from, what document is it present in? If you are trying to say that the modern liturgy accurately reflects the ancient liturgy, you either need a WP:RS that says that, or you need to provide the ancient liturgy. ReformedArsenal (talk) 23:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so I'm claiming that. That claim is irrelevant to the issue here; I was only trying to help you understand the situation. Don't believe me, that's fine. The reference that you deleted in your edit gives you the clue, though. Ok fine, I understand the reason for its deletion; it's in Slavonic (I think - I don't read Slavonic). The key point is that it referenced the Triodion and Pentecostarion, which are two Orthodox service books that contain parts of the specific Divine Liturgy service, and specifically parts that belong to observations that are kept in that service at certain times of the year and not at other times. The Slavonic translation I mentioned above. The same passages can be found in Koine Greek in the same places of the Greek service books; those are the documents. That is the original source, the ancient liturgy, reprinted the way primary sources generally are. And yes, that is the same liturgy used in practice today. The Bible is also a collection of primary sources used intact today. If I say "Now Mary arose in those days and went into the hill country ... - Luke 1:39", do I need an RS to prove that I have made the quote correctly? Evensteven (talk) 23:46, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

You don't need to be defensive, I'm not disbelieving you, I'm simply saying that your word or statement is not sufficient for Wikipedia (nor is mine). Both you and I are incapable of assessing the Slavonic source since neither of us read Slavonic, and in the absence of any kind of evidence of specifically what it is, it isn't directly relevant to the article. We don't really know if it actually did reference the Triodion or the Pentecostarion. If you have a reference to one of those service books, that we can verify and validate, then we can include it. As it stands, I think that the source that is there is already sufficient citation with the Archdiocese source and I think that the slavonic reference is spurious and unnecessary, and only adds to the bulk of the article (since anyone clicking on the link gets a document that they can do nothing with. I still think that a modern liturgy doesn't do anything to establish what the ancient liturgy was in the eyes of Wikipedia unless we have a WP:RS that indicates that it was. As far as your Bible comparison, it is clear that you are quoting the Bible, which is commonly known to be a translation of a primary source. That kind of common knowledge cannot be assumed with the Eastern Orthodox Liturgy, since very few people outside of the Eastern Orthodox tradition would know what you are saying about the text. ReformedArsenal (talk) 00:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. If I was defensive, I wasn't aware of it at the time, but it could have been there anyway. Agreed about what is sufficient for WP; that's just not the standard I was trying to meet at the time. I can get an English Triodion or Pentecostarion to look up the reference. As to their being "primary sources", it's true that their origins are not well known in the west. But would you know how to find a source that identifies the Bible as a primary source? Maybe it's just me - I'm having trouble visualizing the same thing for the Orthodox service books. When a thing is common knowledge within the circles where it's used, it's seldom if ever that anyone might take the trouble to say so in writing. But I can go ask some questions too. Oh, and right about the "Slavonic" source; I was just giving a best guess at identification, but it certainly couldn't stand as it was. Evensteven (talk) 00:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it is about finding something that identifies the Bible as a primary source, but I would appeal to what is common knowledge. You don't need to cite something that is reasonable common knowledge. If I were forced to do so with the Bible, I would appeal to the translation basis that most English versions have, where they indicate the Greek Manuscripts that are primarily used. I would imagine that somewhere along the line, especially if there were a critical or academic edition of the service book, it would indicate what the source document it is a translation of is. ReformedArsenal (talk) 01:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I can look into that. I've also thought that some sort of "intro to Orthodoxy" might have something, if scholarly enough to qualify as RS. Evensteven (talk) 02:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The Ethiopic tradition in the Fetha Nagast and Kebra Nagast clearly originate nine centuries or more later than Nicea. If they say 318, I hardly think that would matter unless the place they got the number from were verified somehow. Fetha Nagast is also part of a legal tradition, not so much a religious one, and the Kebra Nagast focusses on the historical line of Solomon in the Emperors of Ethiopia. Neither seems focused enough on Nicea to be of much help to this article. I will delete that reference. Evensteven (talk) 23:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Canon law

Some Canon laws are not well translated.
f.e: Law nr.15 and 16: Current description: prohibition of the removal of priests
Actual meaning of law nr.15: neither bishop, priest, nor deacon shall move from city to city. And if any one, after this decree (of the Council of Nicaea) , shall attempt such a thing, or continue in any such course of action, his actions shall be utterly void and he must return to the church where he was ordained bishop or priest.(in other words: Restriction of freedom of movement)
Law nr.16: If they will not return, they must be excommunicated. (The punishment for non-compliance of the restriction of freedom of movement).

Regards, --Stefan Bach77 (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

And the prohibition of bending the knee at prayer summarized as "the practice of standing at prayer during liturgy" which might sound to the modern reader as prohibiting sitting during public worship (when that was not an option unless sitting on the floor) when it actually prohibits kneeling while praying (and not just "at liturgy").

Methinks the whole sub-section could use an overhaul. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 11:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Points well taken;; no objection from me to an overhaul - in fact, I'd like to see it. I just can't take it on myself at the moment. Evensteven (talk) 17:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Easter computation

Some would like to remove or hide this quotation on the Easter Computation page, directly attributed to Emperor Constantine, who presided over the council:

At the council we also considered the issue of our holiest day, Easter, and it was determined by common consent that everyone, everywhere should celebrate it on one and the same day. For what can be more appropriate, or what more solemn, than that this feast from which we have received the hope of immortality, should be kept by all without variation, using the same order and a clear arrangement? And in the first place, it seemed very unworthy for us to keep this most sacred feast following the custom of the Jews, a people who have soiled their hands in a most terrible outrage, and have thus polluted their souls, and are now deservedly blind. Since we have cast aside their way of calculating the date of the festival, we can ensure that future generations can celebrate this observance at the more accurate time which we have kept from the first day of the passion until the present time....

This quote in a single paragraph summarizes and historically places the 5 preceding vague and wordy (see 'hermeneutic') paragraphs, and should not be removed. To remove it is to whitewash history and should not be supported, especially when this quote so succinctly summarizes the position of the Council. 24.176.59.130 (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

It was not removed, it was referenced. The quoted paragraph repeats the article. Including it is WP:UNDUE; there is just no need. Anyone who wants to see the quote can get right to it - or at least they can when an unbroken reference is used. 24.176.59.130's reference will not display. Whitewash? What whitewash? Evensteven (talk) 02:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Evensteven. The quote is unnecessary, and overly long. If a proper and functional reference can be found, then we ought to include a summary statement with a citation to both the primary source and a secondary source that confirms its application. Including long (or even short) primary source quotes is a great way to slide into WP:OR ReformedArsenal (talk) 11:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I understand 24's quote a lot better than all the other stuff in that section. I think it should be back in. 108.79.217.176 (talk) 14:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Extra Liturgical Links

What purpose does adding non-english, non-translated citations have here?

• [2] "Pentecostarion— Sunday of the 318 Godbearing Fathers of Nicaea", Retrieved 2014-02-22
  • This is a duplicate link for what I have here listed under "Vespers", so the person adding this in is obviously not actually looking at if these links are beneficial... since they are clearly duplicating what is there.

I put in the original link, too, but from it's title ("Vespers Liturgy on the Sunday of the 318 Godbearing Fathers of Nicaea") I did not recognize it; "Vespers Liturgy" has a specific meaning in Orthodox liturgics, and what the link is is not what that term means. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 13:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with renaming the shortlink to Pentecostarion, but please make sure you check what you're doing when you change things. You broke the CITEREF link and I had to go back and fix it. I'm working very hard to make sure this article (which was terribly disorganized before) is clean and consistent, and when you break things it makes me have to go back and spend time fixing it rather than continuing on with the rest of the article. ReformedArsenal (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• [3] "ΠΕΝΤΗΚΟΣΤΑΡΙΟΝ — ΚΥΡΙΑΚΗ ΤΩΝ ΑΓΙΩΝ ΤΙΗ' ΘΕΟΦΟΡΩΝ ΠΑΤΕΡΩΝ ΤΩΝ ΕΝ ΝΙΚΑΙᾼ (Pentecostarion — Sunday of the Holy 318 Godbearing Fathers in Nicaea)", Retrieved 2014-02-22
  • As far as I can tell, this is just a Greek version of what is already there. Why is a second copy of the same thing beneficial.
• [4] "Цветная Триодь — Неделя седьмая по Пасхе, святых никейских отцов (Flowery Triodion — The Seventh Sunday after Pascha, of the Fathers of Nicaea)" Retrieved 2014-01-16
  • In the absence of anyone who reads Slavonic, there is no indication of what this actually is or what purpose it serves.

Before we leave these in here, I would like to get a specific statement for what purpose each one serves, and how it contributes to an already complicated and extensively cited source. What does it add that the Vespers link to anastasis.org doesn't already supply? ReformedArsenal (talk) 02:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Verification of the translation of what you in the previous section refereed to as " ... and one which is questionable". Actually, it is hardly questionable; it is from the Patriarchate of Constantinople's diocese in the UK. The texts all confirm that the Eastern Orthodox Church celebrates a feast of the 318 Fathers at Nicaea. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 13:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say the translation was questionable, I said the web page was questionable. Anyone can put up a web page and say it is the official web page of XYZ... there is nothing whatsoever that demonstrates that that page actually IS the page for the Archdiocese. Either way, I'm fine using that webpage as a source in the current sentence structure, but the non-English language pages add nothing (simply providing an alternate language does not verify that a translation is currect). ReformedArsenal (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, first off, it might be desirable to take the article back to "liturgies", instead of "Divine Liturgies". The latter is the central service of the Orthodox church; the former is a category including all the services. One of the principal of the others is Vespers. So now we have only one reference, to Vespers, while the text refers to the Divine Liturgy. The removed references were to the Divine Liturgy (often referred to as "the" liturgy). One thing the languages demonstrate is that the liturgy is the fundamentally the same service throughout Orthodoxy, and all of them use "318". Having both Vespers and Divine Liturgy referred to shows that both those services of that day of remembrance use "318". And having the Greek demonstrates at least that it is Koine Greek; and the Slavonic would be Church Slavonic, not old-style vernacular Slavonic, or modern Russian. All of which serve to give you some evidence for the loose background I was trying to supply earlier. If we ever get serious about needing to establish the continuity and consistency of the liturgy across time and distance, this and more will probably be necessary. (Don't dismiss the languages just because I can't read them. There are English WP readers who can, and editors too.) But I for one am not ready (yet) to claim that we need to do that, at least at this time.

I don't care if it is divine liturgy or Divine Liturgies, it was Lipsio who changed it. ReformedArsenal (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Which means we come to the question of what the article needs. I think it needs sufficiently ironclad, widespread support of "318" to counter the notions of those who would want to challenge the legitimacy of that number. The references (whichever ones are used) also need to establish the proper weight for "318". I am not particularly concerned about whether Orthodoxy or its services are mentioned in that regard, but I am fully behind the idea that they can be used to weigh in, to ensure proper support and weight in the article. So, I am ok with complete removal of the mention of Orthodox services as long as the article stays basically balanced with regard to 318. What path do you suggest we take here? Evensteven (talk) 04:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that the fact that the modern Eastern Orthodox Church has a liturgy called "Feast of the 318..." helps to make it any more ironclad to people outside the tradition than the "Feast of the immaculate conception..." convinces anyone that the immaculate conception actually happened. I think that there is sufficient sourcing beyond that to make it unnecessary. However, I can understand your desire to include it, so I propose that we retain the single reference to the feast from the archdiocese page that is provided. ReformedArsenal (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, good enough. Whether you personally see it that way or not, Orthodox sources can contribute to maintaining article balance and neutrality, so I'm glad you've agreed to let it stay. Evensteven (talk) 23:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I am remiss in not adding a section of liturgical commemorations as I've done for some other councils. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 13:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Why? What relevance does contemporary liturgical celebration have on events that transpired over a thousand years ago? If you insist on doing this, then it needs to be in its own section, and the section needs to be relatively small. To make it substantially larger represents a WP:POV issue of tipping the scales to an Eastern Orthodox position in this article. ReformedArsenal (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Why? My thoughts are:

1) It is a place to couch the reference to Genesis and the seemingly coincidental 318. In personal opinion, the 318 of Nicaea may well have been reverse engineered, so to speak, from the number in Genesis; I'd never state such a conjecture in the article, but putting in the reference would let a reader know of the coincidental 318 and draw whatever conclusions, if any, from that.

2) It is a cultural reference, which I see many Wikipedia articles having even though such references do not directly elucidate the subject of the article.

3) It shows the continuing importance of the council in, at least, the Eastern Orthodox church. If other churches have such commemorations, they belong there, too. I know that the Copts invoke the prayers of the 318 Fathers of Nicaea, and the 150 of Constantinople, and 200 of Ephesus (their 3 ecumenical councils) but beyond that, I don't know of anything.

As for its own relatively small section, see Council of Chalcedon#Liturgical Commemorations Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 22:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. And the new smallish section is the correct place for all this material. The other paragraph is a different sub-area. Finally, commemorations are important in the Orthodox tradition for a reason (rather, for more than one). While we needn't go into it all, one thing that bringing the fact that they occur today (as they have for centuries) into the article, is that it demonstrates that the council's meeting and actions have consequences that continue to the present day, that those are not only remembered, but are also a part of life today. So many people think "history is about dead people"! What rubbish that is! Evensteven (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I have no objection to a small section similar to what's over at Chalcedon. ReformedArsenal (talk) 01:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll do so when my time permits. I have long planned to add two sections to this article, the other requiring me to dig up written reference pro and con, about the dispute as to whether or not Easter may ever coincide with the Jewish Passover, ambiguous in the epistle written by the council, although IMHO a silly obsession, but quite heated nonetheless with, IIRC, 19th century Anglicans concerned with the matter. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 13:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

That's great; thanks. I have too many other foci at the moment to take it on any time soon. Evensteven (talk) 17:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree to have it mentioned that the council is commemorated each year. It at least helps show how important it is for the specific church. In fact, I believe all seven ecumenical councils are celebrated. Earlier someone mentioned something about the immaculate conception or something. Well, in the Article for Mary at least there is listed the feast day for the immaculate conception and I think it makes sense here as well to list the feast day for the first ecumenical council. Personally I do not believe that dogma of immaculate conception so hopefully that clears up an idea that I might be pushing some catholic POV or something... Again, it just helps show how important the ecumenical council really is for the Church, whether Catholic or Orthodox. By the way, the commoration of this event is quite old, the Orthodox and Catholics are not what I would call contemporary churches (That is, churches which get most of their liturgy from modern time). Orthodox at least, have hardly changed the liturgy since St. John Chrysostom, with only evidence of additions mostly being a few things for the Virgin Mary. Cant say the same for Catholics unfortunately after some certain councils. To find out how old the commeration is, you would have to find the oldest surviving Menologium which lists it, but I am quite convinced they simply commemorated it every year after the council was finished, not that it really matters.75.73.114.111 (talk) 08:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Dom Gregory Dix (an Anglican), author of The Shape of the Liturgy, (pp 546-8), writes that the Eastern mainlines of the Divine Liturgy were complete before 400 A.D., developments and adjustments of detail continued to the 7th century, becoming "absolutely rigid" by the 9th century. After that, there is nothing more than occasional minor changes of wording and "accumulation of supplemental devotions". Those supplemental devotions include commemorations, which are observed at specific times, in specific locations of the service, and in specific manner (the unchanging structural elements). As history proceeds, more saints live and die and are commemorated, likewise for more events, so the specifically required prayers are then written and used at the times of ongoing celebration. They remain equally fixed thereafter. That is the "accumulation". So the structure for commemorations was in place very early. That's not surprising, given how important the councils clearly were to the undivided Church - any history shows that - and the liturgical structure shows the need for incorporation of observances. While I have no direct knowledge of when the specific commemorations of the councils (yes, multiple and various) were created, it would be highly surprising if they are not all over 1000 years old by now. Furthermore, "contemporary" churches spend much time and thought in contemplation of the significance and implications of the councils, so I observe, or at least their scholars do. Speaking for the Orthodox practice of commemoration, that thought and contemplation is exactly one reason the commemoration is regarded as important, one of its purposes. All the councils, in fact, are quite contemporary, even though they took place in history a long time ago. And in fact, that is why the Catholic and Orthodox churches are not only old, but current. It's not about clinging to the past; it's about making alive in the present, and recognizing the ongoing "present"s of what is meaningful. The churches that don't commemorate are missing out by trying less active ways of considering what even they regard as important. Nothing works forever on autopilot. Yes, commemorations are important. Evensteven (talk) 17:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Problems with this article

Here is a quick listing:

1. The lead section fails WP:Lead section in that it bears little relationship to the contents of the article as it stands. (In some ways the following section Overview supplies this need.)
2. In some sections there is a good deal of overlinking, that is linking terms which are easily understandable and geographical locations.
3. The quality of the supporting references is patchy.
4. The sources sections seem to be overloaded and includes a number of very old works which are hardly reliable sources today.
5. Some sections (eg "Role of Constantine", "Overview") contain material which is not relevant or redundant.
6. The material needs restructuring in a more logical way. For example, include what is relevant of the role of Constantine under Agenda and Procedure; integrate the "Role of the Bp of Rome" into "Promulgation of Canons" (better than Promulgation of Canon Law). I also suggest moving "Attendees" well down the page - few readers will have much interest in this or be able to identify most of the names.Jpacobb (talk) 02:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't have time to embark on such an extensive project, but I support everything you're saying and will be willing to help as I can. I also wanted to say thanks for bringing these up in the talk section before just having at it. I'm all about BRD but it seems like people use BRD as an excuse to burn an article to the ground and then rebuild it in their own image. ReformedArsenal (talk) 18:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to second the "willing to help as I can", and the thanks, Jpacobb. Good points. I hope, though, that by "old works" not WP:RS, you're not referring to Schaff. That's old, yes, but still WP:RS. I even have source mentions of that same, dating from about 2000-2003. Evensteven (talk) 22:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Right, Schaff is still considered a definitive source. There are certainly better translations available, and it might be nice to update the citations, however I'm not convinced that the gain from better citations outweighs the loss of having them in a single anthology (or having easy online access). ReformedArsenal (talk) 12:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Alternate translations can be referenced (even provided by quotation) in the article if truly necessary, but having online access to use as a direct pointer for the reader will often alleviate the article from that burden. Evensteven (talk) 20:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)