|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on August 3, 2005, August 3, 2006, August 3, 2007, August 3, 2008, August 3, 2009, and August 3, 2010.|
I removed the icon of Nestorius because, according to the Greek inscription, it is actually an icon of Saint Gregory the Wonder-Worker of Neocaesarea.
I removed the following text because of the copyright notice at the bottom:
Nestorius (c 381 - c 451) became the patriarch of Constantinople in 428 with the help of Emperor Theodosius II (401-450). He believed that there were two persons in Jesus Christ, one human and the other divine. Furthermore, he argued that Mary gave birth to the human person only--though she was the passive recipient of the divine person--and could not, therefore, be called Theotokos (Mother of God). His views were based in Antiochene theology and originated in thinkers such as Diodore of Tarsus (d c 390) and Theodore of Mopsuestia (c 350-428). Although he argued zealously against Arianism and Pelagianism, his views caused him trouble with the Church. The Council of Ephesus (431), led by his adversary, Cyril of Alexandria (412-444), condemned him as a heretic, thus ending his patriarchate. Very few of his writings exist today because in 435 Theodosius II ordered them to be burnt. In 436 Nestorius was exiled to Egypt and remained there until his death around 451. During the same year, the Council of Chalcedon formulated the doctrine that Jesus Christ has two natures, human and divine, united in one person, thereby affirming that Mary should be called Theotokos. Even so, Nestorius' supporters spread his beliefs to the east, and during the fifth century, they formed their own independent body. Ibas, bishop of Edessa (435-457), helped the Nestorians establish a school, an ecclesiastical center and a patriarchal see. Nestorianism survives today in parts of Iraq, Iran, and Syria.
Elise M. Bender
Copyright © 1995, Elise M. Bender. This file (all the above) may be copied on the condition that the entire contents, including the header and this copyright notice, remain intact.
Notice the copyright notice at the bottom. A fair argument could probably be made that the links alone make the text no longer intact, assuming those are the only changes made to it from Elise's original text. More importantly, there is nothing to prevent anyone from drastically altering the text and leaving Elise Bender's name associated with it, or simply deleting the copyright notice. Either of these would place Wikipedia in violation of the copyright conditions. This is why Wikipedia only accepts contributions that are in the public domain. Wesley
My understanding is that Elise still owns the copyright, but has agreed to license it irrevocably under the GFDL. When she clicked on the "Save" button she agreed to the terms of the GFDL (as per the notice above the button), which I understand does not allow any other restrictions. I belive that her comments here then have no contractural force, providing that other users obey the terms of the GFDL licence in their re-use of the material. But, hey!, I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Suggestion: We should have a copy of the GFDL on a protected page, and link to it from the boilerplate above the button. -- Anon.
Clarification to what I wrote previously (written before I saw what Anon wrote) IANAL: Most of what wikipedia accepts is in fact copyrighted and not in the public domain. By hitting save we all agree to license our unique contributions under the GNU FDL even though each and every contributor still owns the copyright to what they themselfs wrote. Public domain stuff can be copied by anybody, however any modifications that are made to the public domain material are copyrighted and owned by whoever made the modifications (lists, OCR errors and corrections ect. have dubious copyrightability though). --maveric149
Ok, I just looked at Wikipedia:Copyrights. That confirms what maveric149 says about everything being under the GFDL, but also says there can be no invariant sections (which the GFDL allows in general). Elise's copyright notice appears to make the entire text invariant, because it says it has to remain intact. It also doesn't mention the GFDL at all; did Elise post it here, or did someone copy it here from elsewhere? I'm also concerned that the copyright notice says that the "file's" header information has to remain, although I don't see anything resembling a header in the above text.
Is there any way to confirm that Elise's text is licensed under the GFDL in the first place? Any way to get permission to use it? Or perhaps we should just expand the current article to cover a comparable amount of material without using the questionable text, just to stay in the clear. Mind you, I like the content and writing of the text, I just want to make sure it's ok to both use and edit it. -- Wesley
There is a lot of debate in our time as to whether Nestorius was really guilty as charged. Why no mention of this?--Niceguy2all 04:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
There is mention of it now. But the mention was inserted without editing/correcting the earlier assertion, leaving the article contradicting itself.
Indeed: I am no proponent or supporter of Nestorius or Nestorianism; yet I find the coverage of Nestorius and his relation to Nestorianism disappointingly limited and unfair. No, he did _not_ create Nestorianism. His name was _attached_ to the movement for reasons that may have been somewhat unfair.
A fairer portrait would emerge if the authors of this page would take into account the newer and more impartial (than previous Western authors) of Leo Donald Davis in his excellent book on the Ecumenical Councils.
This fairer portrait would take into account, for example, the fact that it was Nestorius who conned the Emperor into persecuting Arians and Monophysites, yet it was this same Nestorius who, in exile in a secret location in Egypt, rejoiced at the Council of Ephesus, considering himself totally vindicated by this Council.
My source for both of these assertions is Kartashev's "The Seven Ecumenical Councils". 126.96.36.199 22:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Add to the references the best current summing-up. --Wetman 06:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Bazaar of Heracleides
From the article: "Nestorius's earlier surviving writings, however, including his letter written in response to Cyril's charges against him, contain material that seems to support charges that he held that Christ had two persons. Thus, whether Nestorius was actually a Nestorian is still a matter of debate."
Since most Christian churches do not venerate Nestorius as a saint, I find it bizarre that the infobox describes him as one. For the purposes of a Wikipedia article likely to be read by others besides Assyrians, it is sufficient to state further down in the article that the Assyrian Church of the East considers him to be a saint. I have therefore removed the contentious term 'saint' from the infobox.
'Mar' is a conventional term of respect in Syriac given to bishops, patriarchs and other supposedly-holy men. It does not necessarily imply sainthood. I have therefore also removed the erroneous statement that 'Mar Nestorios' means 'Saint Nestorius'.
Icon Removed Again
I removed the icon of Saint Gregory for the same reason as the previous person removed it. It is NOT Mar Nestorius. Please stop adding it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2014 (UTC)