Talk:First Council of Nicaea

Community reassessment

First Council of Nicaea

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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: delist —BlueMoonset (talk) 15:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

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)

This is the GA nom, such as it was. Things were more casual in 2006, I think. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Just to add, the reason why I brought it to a community assessment is that I don't have any knowledge of the subject whatsoever, so I couldn't say one way or another if it met the comprehensiveness requirement. Miyagawa (talk) 18:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

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)

Delist: There are many pieces that need sources. The sources appear to be somewhat POV. The "Disupted matters" section appears to be unfinished. I'd recommend a bit more on that section and the lead. Thanks, Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Delist - source issues for sure, it needs some work to get to the GA level, I am not sure it's a quick fix either. MPJ-US  04:17, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Delist: There are too many paragraphs without sources. Despite listing many well-respected academic sources in the bibliography, the majority of the article seems to come from primary sources, which raises Wikipedia:Original Research concerns. Some of the external links also need to be fixed.--Khanate General ☪ talk ^{project mongol conquests} 00:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Delist Per my comment on the talk page before I noticed this, the article at present assumes a knowledge of The Da Vinci Code and its cultural impact but never once mentions the book itself. Not only does this lend undue weight to a relatively recent American pop culture phenomenon. The article has problems with WP:RECENTISM and WP:SYSTEMIC, and given that at present probably 90% of active en.wiki editors get all they now about this topic from Dan Brown these problems seem unlikely to be resolved. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:11, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• Delist – This article has serious defects. All the above comments are true but some seem to underestimate the quantity of corrections that are needed. A good deal of copy editing is called for. In particular the section on attendees needs thought, as it stands I reckon it will put off a lot of readers.— Jpacobb (talk) 01:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Macarius of Jerusalem

The article claimed, uncited, that Macarius 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". See http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.vi.x.html and http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.vi.xi.html 192.91.171.36 (talk) 23:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Domnus of Stridon

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 book Patrum Nicaenorum nomina the index of council fathers lists only Budius of Stobi (probably missread as Strobi and Stribon; see pages XLIV, 56 and 247) and Domnus of Pannonia, 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 by Frane Bulić in his article Stridon (page 13) as early as 1920. --Janezdrilc (talk) 11:06, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Talk translated to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Domnus of Stridon. --Janezdrilc (talk) 23:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Why are there two "Arian controversy" and "Role of Constantine" sections?

The first one feels entirely redundant and basically just repeats what will later be described in the article. (Discuss 0nshore's contributions!!!) 13:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Bringing up this and several other points has long been on my "To Do" list.

"Arian presentation" is "Procedure" is also redundant to the two "Arian controversy" sections. "3.1 The Nicene Creed", "6.3 The Nicene Creed", and "8 Nicene Creed" are redundant, as are "3.2 Easter" and "9 Separation of Easter computation from Jewish calendar". "3.1 The Nicene Creed" and "3.2 Easter" should not be part of "3 Arian Controversy".

I'll type more later and propose re-organizing. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk)

Proposed re-organization

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}} . )
Agenda
Procedure
Results (or Outcome)
Promulgation of canon law
Effects (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.)
Attendees
Role of Constantine
Disputed matters (much abridged or omitted, as most are included in "Promulgation of canon law" or are out of scope.)

Vincent J. Lipsio (talk)