Talk:First Council of Nicaea

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article 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.
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
WikiProject icon A version of this article was copy edited by Diannaa, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on March 14, 2010. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to help in the drive to improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please direct them to our talk page.
 

Community reassessment[edit]

First Council of Nicaea[edit]

DELISTED:

Per consensus, article is delisted. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

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) · WatchWatch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: delistBlueMoonset (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 (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.

"God from God"[edit]

The section "Nicene Creed" includes the following:

Jesus Christ is described as "God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God", proclaiming his divinity.

The Greek text of the Nicene Creed of 325 and that of its amendment do not use the words "God from God" as a complete phrase. Here are the corresponding sections of the two creeds for comparison:

First Council of Nicaea (325) First Council of Constantinople (381)
Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα Κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, γεννηθέντα ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς μονογενῆ, τοὐτέστιν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Πατρός, Θεὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ, γεννηθέντα, οὐ ποιηθέντα, ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί Καὶ εἰς ἕνα Κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ, τὸν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθέντα πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων, φῶς ἐκ φωτός, Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ, γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα, ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί·

The basis for including the "God from God" phrase in English translations (e.g. the 1975 ecumenical version (ICET)) is apparently "Θεὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ" (God from God true (lit)) in the 325 Creed, which was substituted in the 381 Creed with "Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ" (God true from God true (lit)).

The sentence of the article which was mentioned above includes both "God from God" and "true God from true God" as if the Creed said both. The best in this case is to quote from the 325 Creed only, and replace these phrases with "God from true God". Nxavar (talk) 07:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I chose the conservative option of removing "God from God". Nxavar (talk) 12:24, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
"Conservative option"? Please explain. I fail to see why removing a piece of a direct quote, even if it is admittedly redundant, can be justified as "conservative". Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 14:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
It is conservative in the sense that the choice is about using the phrase of the 381 creed that is closer to what the 325 creed says. The most accurate choice would be the phrase "God from true God" as I mentioned above. The idea here is that we are doing better in terms of accuracy but are we are not going all the way, with complete accuracy. Nxavar (talk) 12:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

"Arian controversy"[edit]

Most of the controversy covered in the main Arian controversy isn't covered or even mentioned in the summary here. Is there a reason for this? Endercase (talk) 22:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on First Council of Nicaea. 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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)