Talk:Council of Florence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Christianity / Eastern (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy (marked as High-importance).
WikiProject Middle Ages (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

At Goths, what is the actuality behind this, if any?

"This claim of Gothic origins led to a clash with the Swedish delegation at the Council of Basel, 1434, during which the Swedish delegation argued with the Spanish about who among them were the true Goths. The Spaniards argued that it was better to be descended from the heroic Visigoths than from stay-at-homers."

Can anyone with a brief quote perhaps make good history out of this text at Goths? --00:16, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure why this is listed as the council of Basel. It is far more commonly known as the Coucil of Florence. Also, the second half of the Council of Basel was in schism, excommunicated and elected an anti-pope. This is why Basel is not used, but rather, Florence. Also, all of the most important events of the council took place in Florence. --Vaquero100 15:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should have two articles, one on the Council of Basel, including the schismatic stuff, and another on the Council of Florence. Basel is certainly how the thing is best known in history textbooks that I'm familiar with. john k 00:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
That would be even stranger. --Wetman 08:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The "Council of Basel" is a famous thing, and we ought to have an article entitled that. If we don't have two articles, we ought to move this back to Council of Basel. john k 12:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
But having two separate articles is what the Catholic encyclopedia did back in whenever it was written. It might make sense just to have separate articles for Council of Basel, Council of Ferrara, and Council of Florence. But, at any rate, it doesn't make sense to have a discussion of the schismatic part of the Council of Basel here at Council of Florence. john k 12:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
It is also not true that all of the most important events of the council took place in Florence. The discussions with the Hussites and the debates over the orthodoxy of St. Bridget's immensely influential visions took place at Basel. Oh yeah, and the pope was deposed. Ichnography (talk) 00:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

No Talk on the Russian Orthodox Church[edit]

On the council of Florence, it only discusses of the Orthodox Church and the Catholic and the hopes of reunification, from the schism, however it makes no mention of how the Russian Orthodox rejected the idea and thought it wan attempt to convert the eastern orthodox. This soon led to the Creation of the Russian Orthodox Church, and the source of the division of the Vativan and the Russian Orthodox Church. Mn04 03:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Style and POV of the article[edit]

This article is written in an unencyclopedic manner (e.g. "From Italy, France and Germany the fathers came late to Basel") and shows clear bias throughout both in content (e.g. the council is continually described as "intransigent") and in language (e.g. unnamed (!) condottieri are said to have acted "shamelessly"). Badly in need of cleanup. Salim555 11:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

We have User:Vaquero100 to thank for this obscure POV title for the Council of Basel. Very tiresome attitudinizing. A glance at the titles in the bibliography will show the ordinary name for this council, as used by historians and the literate in general. We may note the little quotation marks at "Deposition of Eugene IV" because the RCs are told that a council couldn't "really" depose a pope. But that's applying later doctrine to the Council of Basel, isn't it. --Wetman 03:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it should clearly be at Council of Basel. Nobody ever calls it the Council of Florence. john k 08:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, what can we do about the naming of this article, afgter all these months? --Wetman 09:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I suppose a requested move is the way to go. john k 14:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I beg to differ - it's a minor council for those who don't deal regularly with matters to do with the Eastern Churches, but for those of us involved in scholarship to do with the Eastern Churches, this council is regularly referred to as the Council of Florence. That's hardly 'nobody'. InfernoXV 16:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
My apologies. I would rather submit that the stuff that happened at Basel, particularly after the papally-acceptable council was moved to Italy, is certainly never referred to as the "Council of Florence", and that it's entirely odd to refer to it as such. john k 21:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I think it's standard among historians to consider the Council of Basel and the Council of Florence to be distinct entities (obviously with a relationship between them). Couldn't this be resolved by having two different pages, with largely distinct content, in which reference is made to differences of opinion about whether Florence is a continuation of Basel? Ichnography (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
The Church itself considers there to have been a single council successively meeting at Basel, Ferrara, Florence & Rome. This can be verified from numerous reference books. To treat some other view as factual, if permitted at all under WP policy, would presumably require pretty strong proof of your statement. Peter jackson (talk) 15:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
That was off the cuff. More precise thought now. What we have here is a council in Basel that split up into 2 councils, each claiming to be the true continuation of the original. It wouldn't be in accordance with NPOV for WP to take sides by treating 1 or other view as correct. Thus it would violate NPOV to have an article on the Council of Basel covering both phases. NPOV requires
  1. either a single article on the nth ecumenical council (I forget what n is)
  2. or @ least 3 articles:
    1. original Basel
    2. continuation Basel
    3. Ferrara/Florence/Rome (or this could be 3 articles itself
Decision between these options would presumably be based on amounts of material. Peter jackson (talk) 10:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure why there can't just be two. It should be possible to keep NPOV in the treatment of Basel. (Esp since, as was mentioned above, the Catholic Encyclopedia itself had separate articles!) If there can be one article for "Palestine," can't there be one article for "Council of Basel"? Ichnography (talk) 00:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Fifteen months later, the tag is still there. How can we reach an agreement to remove it? I agree with two articles. José Luiz disc 11:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that only one article is needed. I am fairly well informed, but have only today discovered that there even was a Council of Florence (Basel, who cares?). It is no longer important (if it ever was ...). Sorry, that's definitely a POV comment! Seriously though, Constance was important (murder of Hus - now you know where I am coming from) and Trent was obviously important. Just put in a redirect to Florence from Basel.

What is important is what is said in the article. The attitude of the Orthodox is really important (I have just put a link to Florence from the article on Biblical Apocrypha) since it confirms the agreement of both Roman and Eastern churches on the canon (even though Florence does not mention "canonical" explicitly). Provided the article content is not POV I think the title is secondary. Provided all the appropriate redirects are in place.

C.jeynes (talk) 10:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I just point out that Peter Jackson (15:56, 6 June 2009) made a strong argument for one article which has not been refuted. C.jeynes (talk) 10:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Agnus Dei by Jan Van Eyck[edit]

Jan Van Eyck made his great work of art, the Agnus Dei in Ghent as a probation to recon ciliate by stating that every party has to recognise the same object of worship namely the Eucharistic of the Holy Lamb. He probably was a member of a delegation coming from Burgundy but did not have enough weight in the Council itself where he probably was not even allowed to speak. But his work of art is one of the greatest expressions of a reconciliating mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Print layout problem[edit]

The layout of the page is not printer friendly. The first page, aside from the article title, is blank, among other layout problems on the print preview no matter the size adjustment, e.g., 100% or 70%, etc.

Yo YoMenashe (talk) 15:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Disputed Tag - Purgatory[edit]

I added a disputed and dubious tag until I get a chance to fix the statement on purgatory, and other errors. The false statement that caught my eye was: "...reaching agreements on such matters as papal primacy, the insertion of the phrase "Filioque" to the Creed and purgatory, a novelty only recently a part of the Latin-speaking theological lexicon...". I'm not sure if this term 'novelty' is referring to the filioque or to purgatory, but either way it's wrong. --ChristianHistory (talk) 22:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

That (surely purgatory was meant) has gone so I've removed the tag. Johnbod (talk) 01:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessaryily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

    Triggered by \bhalshs\.archives-ouvertes\.fr on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 15:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 07:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)