Talk:Council of Ariminum

NPOV dispute

In general this article is slightly skewed toward the view that the Arian bishops hoodwinked the rest of the bishops. That viewpoint is certainly not the scholarly consensus, although, of course, it is the consensus of the Roman Catholic Church which is the source listed. Specific concerns:

• In this context it is inappropriate to use the term "orthodox bishop". It cannot really be said in a NPOV fashion that an orthodoxy had been firmly established since the Arian/Trinitarian debate raged throughout the 4th century and that there was a range of emperors and bishops supporting both sides. The fact that the Council of Nicea supported Trinitarianism does not in and of itself settle the matter since the debate still continued so widely after that synod (and indeed several bishops recanted their support for the doctrine; even Constantine himself backed down on his condemnation of the Arians).
• The statement regarding the Pope and the fact that several bishops "repudiated their signatures" needs to be rephrased a little. As written it subtely imples that

1. That the Pope was accorded with more authority at that time that he really was (i.e. although the Bishop of Rome had a lot of political clout he had limited authority outside of Rome, even in the West).
2. That perhaps most of the bishops suddenly realized they were wrong and the results of the council were forgotten immediately. This was not the case.

• "outmaneuvered": To some degree this is true but phrasing it this way makes it sound like the Arians were just a bunch of con artists. Unless the article is going to go into a lot more depth and be much clearer on the facts then terms like this should be avoided since they make the whole article POV.
• The use of "Pope". This is a bit of a loaded term in that, in English, it is normally used to imply recognized leadership of the whole Church. There is little evidence that at that time the Bishop of Rome was thought of by anyone (other than perhaps himself) as the leader of the whole Church. It would be less POV to refer to the Pope of that era as the "Bishop of Rome".
• The list of bishops is a little odd. There were hundreds of bishops who were reported to attend. Since the list is not qualified it tends to imply that hardly anybody showed up.

I am not suggesting that the article should instead be pro-Arian but rather that it should just try to present the two factions in an even light and stick to the facts in a neutral way.

--Mcorazao 21:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree completely. Jacob Haller 05:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Move?

I suggest moving this to Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia (or Councils of Rimini and Seleucia if we're into anachronistic forms of the names). Jacob Haller 05:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Basically, these were closely linked to each other, and Council of Seleucia is a stub. Jacob Haller 05:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

And it has the double virtue of being unfindable for the Wikipedia reader and demonstrating how clever we are. --Wetman 10:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, this wasn't easy to find either. Jacob Haller 10:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

There's redirects for that. But the page should be at Council of Ariminum. It remains more common generally and leads 2-to-1 at Google Scholar. — LlywelynII 12:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Copyright review.

The article is substantially similar to this site. However, that wikipage was started in March of 2009, while our article was well-established by that date See this earlier version

Looks like they copied from us.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Council of Ariminum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050618073621/http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1995/9503ltrs.asp to http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1995/9503ltrs.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)