Talk:First Council of Nicaea
Page contents not supported in other languages.
| This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to theFirst Council of Nicaea article. This isnot a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies |
| Find sources: Google (books ·news ·scholar ·free images ·WP refs) ·FENS ·JSTOR ·TWL |
Archives (index):1,2,3,4,5Auto-archiving period:3 months  |
 | First Council of Nicaea was one of theHistory good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet thegood article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can berenominated. Editors may also seek areassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This level-5 vital article is ratedC-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale.It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The issues with the article is two-fold; firstly the lead isn't comprehensive for an article this side. But secondly, and more importantly, there is a great deal of uncited information in the article. I believe that with these two issues in place that the article should be delisted from the GA status.Miyagawa (talk)10:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are a couple of unsourced material, and there is no indication of any modern scholarly POVs from any religious/non-religious groups. The article does not fully meet GA criteria. —JudeccaXIII (talk)23:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article claimed, uncited, thatMacarius of Jerusalem was among the foremost attendees and named him "patriarch". This is incorrect. Jerusalem (still known by its Roman name of Aelia) was probably a dependency of either Caesarea or Antioch at the time, so not even self-governing let alone a patriarchate. It was not until this council rendered its canons, in fact, that Jerusalem gained a measure of independence. It would actually be another century before Jerusalem gained full recognition as one of the chief sees. While Macarius was certainly influential at the council, and was a prominent spokesman for the eventual winning side, he was not by any means a "patriarch". Seehttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.vi.x.html andhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.vi.xi.html192.91.171.36 (talk)23:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Domnus of Stridon as one of only five attendants of the council from Western part of the empire, has most likely never existed. In Gelzer's bookPatrum Nicaenorum nomina the index of council fathers lists only Budius ofStobi (probably missread as Strobi and Stribon; see pages XLIV, 56 and 247) and Domnus ofPannonia, listed directly after him. In one of the list Domnus is also mentioned as metropolitamis (of metropolis). It seems that the name of Domnus of Stridon was coined by mistake from names of these two bishops. This error was pointed out byFrane Bulić in his articleStridon (page 13) as early as 1920. --Janezdrilc (talk)11:06, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The first one feels entirely redundant and basically just repeats what will later be described in the article. (Discuss0nshore'scontributions!!!)13:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sections "5 Agenda", "6 Procedure", and "x. Results" should all have the same sub-sections.
Perhaps these:
.1 Arian Controversy.2 The Melitian schism.3 Date of Easter
But, let me note, the latter two sort of melt into the promulgation of canon law and, methinks, are difficult to distinguish from other matters; however, at least as a starting point, I'd opt for these three sets of sub-sections.
Next in my priorities would be the order and length and the main sections:
Ecumenical Council (a bit shorter with a {{Main|Ecumenical council}} or {{See also|Ecumenical council}} . )AgendaProcedureResults (or Outcome)Promulgation of canon lawEffects (some of the above, e.g., "Exiled", belong here.)Misconceptions (some of the data on the date of Easter, including the recently edited-out "Zonaras proviso", belong here.)AttendeesRole of ConstantineDisputed matters (much abridged or omitted, as most are included in "Promulgation of canon law" or are out of scope.)Following on the discussion from above, in addition to organization (which is certainly choppy and repetitive), the article seems to need some source work. The extensiveCambridge Companion (2021) is not used at all, and Ayres' and Anatolios' monographs seem to be underused. There seems to be an overuse of primary sources. I'm working through the Cambridge Companion, and re-reading Hanson, Ayres, and Anatolios to reacquaint myself. In line with the notice at the top of the page and the proposal byVincent J. Lipsio, I'd suggest a simpler structure with four main headings (basically following the structure of the Cambridge Companion):
I'm going to do some sandbox drafting as I read. Any further thoughts on structure? Also, would anyone be opposed to using ashort footnote reference style in the article? It's very easy to use and helps better link citations to the bibliography (currently the two don't match up).Seltaeb Eht (talk)19:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]