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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece 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.
This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
First Council of Nicaea was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
just a simple question, if Jesus was god , why never in the bible i could find a statement where he says "Warship me" ?? always we read that he was warshipping god and doing good deeds , so if he was god why never he told us to warship him??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweilems (talk • contribs) 20:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Because Christ is the Son of God in the Holy Trinity, not a water-going battle craft. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 11:36, 20 May 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)
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 ☪talkproject 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.
What's with all the whitewash and propaganda in this article? Why do so many people want to conceal the truth at Nicaea, the fights, cursing, the language that today would fit well streaming from a Nazi's mouth- the fact that a vote less fair than something we can get out of an American inner city set the stage for the next thousand years or so of Christian thought? Are there any among you concerned to live your remaining years in some semblance of truth and awareness? 18.104.22.168 (talk) 01:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
My suggestion is to find reliable sources and add to the article using those sources as references. What's in the article is what contributors have put in so far; if you can expand it, please do, in my humble opinion. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 10:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Of course, I know that these are misconceptions about the Council, as I am sure are the editors who wrote the section, but of the three subsections only one actually explains what the misconception is. It's not really enough to say "The council of Nicaea dealt primarily with the issue of the deity of Christ" -- we should clarify that "There is a misconception that the council of Nicaea dealt in some depth with the doctrine of the Trinity" as well.
The section on the biblical canon addresses this adequately, but ... I can't shake the feeling that this whole section was written specifically to address a certain 21st-century pop culture phenomenon but by not mentioning it inline (only in the bibliography where a book about said phenomenon is cited, however) we are in fact doing our readers a disservice. I have no doubt in my mind that "not mentioning The Da Vinci Code" was done in a good-faith attempt not to give undue weight to a work of fiction and its bogus info on this topic, but by writing a section all about thr misconceptions in the work and assuming prior knowledge of these misconceptions, we are causing the opposite effect and making a portion of this article not make internal sense without prior knowledge of The Da Vinci Code. The article's first mention of Constantine rightly introduces him as "the Roman Emperor" -- we are essentially assuming no prior knowledge of Constantine on the part of our readers, but extensive knowledge of Dan Brown and his negative effect on popular understanding of history.