Talk:First Council of Nicaea#Edit War: Holy Spirit in Trinity Section

{{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/First Council of Nicaea/1}}

The article claimed, uncited, that Macarius of Jerusalem was among the foremost attendees and named him "patriarch". This is incorrect. Jerusalem (still known by its Roman name of Aelia) was probably a dependency of either Caesarea or Antioch at the time, so not even self-governing let alone a patriarchate. It was not until this council rendered its canons, in fact, that Jerusalem gained a measure of independence. It would actually be another century before Jerusalem gained full recognition as one of the chief sees. While Macarius was certainly influential at the council, and was a prominent spokesman for the eventual winning side, he was not by any means a "patriarch". See http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.vi.x.html and http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.vi.xi.html 192.91.171.36 (talk) 23:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Domnus of Stridon as one of only five attendants of the council from Western part of the empire, has most likely never existed. In Gelzer's book [https://ia802702.us.archive.org/16/items/patrumnicaenoru00cuntgoog/patrumnicaenoru00cuntgoog.pdf Patrum Nicaenorum nomina] the index of council fathers lists only Budius of Stobi (probably missread as Strobi and Stribon; see pages XLIV, 56 and 247) and Domnus of Pannonia, listed directly after him. In one of the list Domnus is also mentioned as metropolitamis (of metropolis). It seems that the name of Domnus of Stridon was coined by mistake from names of these two bishops. This error was pointed out by Frane Bulić in his article [https://archive.org/stream/stridongrahovopo00buli/stridongrahovopo00buli_djvu.txt Stridon] (page 13) as early as 1920. --Janezdrilc (talk) 11:06, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

: Talk translated to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Domnus of Stridon. --Janezdrilc (talk) 23:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The first one feels entirely redundant and basically just repeats what will later be described in the article. (Discuss 0nshore's contributions!!!) 13:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

: Bringing up this and several other points has long been on my "To Do" list.

: "Arian presentation" is "Procedure" is also redundant to the two "Arian controversy" sections. "3.1 The Nicene Creed", "6.3 The Nicene Creed", and "8 Nicene Creed" are redundant, as are "3.2 Easter" and "9 Separation of Easter computation from Jewish calendar". "3.1 The Nicene Creed" and "3.2 Easter" should not be part of "3 Arian Controversy".

: I'll type more later and propose re-organizing. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk)

Sections "5 Agenda", "6 Procedure", and "x. Results" should all have the same sub-sections.

Perhaps these:

.1 Arian Controversy

.2 The Melitian schism

.3 Date of Easter

But, let me note, the latter two sort of melt into the promulgation of canon law and, methinks, are difficult to distinguish from other matters; however, at least as a starting point, I'd opt for these three sets of sub-sections.

Next in my priorities would be the order and length and the main sections:

Ecumenical Council (a bit shorter with a {{Main|Ecumenical council}} or {{See also|Ecumenical council}} . )

Agenda

Procedure

Results (or Outcome)

Promulgation of canon law

Effects (some of the above, e.g., "Exiled", belong here.)

Misconceptions (some of the data on the date of Easter, including the recently edited-out "Zonaras proviso", belong here.)

Attendees

Role of Constantine

Disputed matters (much abridged or omitted, as most are included in "Promulgation of canon law" or are out of scope.)

Vincent J. Lipsio (talk)

Following on the discussion from above, in addition to organization (which is certainly choppy and repetitive), the article seems to need some source work. The extensive Cambridge Companion (2021) is not used at all, and Ayres' and Anatolios' monographs seem to be underused. There seems to be an overuse of primary sources. I'm working through the Cambridge Companion, and re-reading Hanson, Ayres, and Anatolios to reacquaint myself. In line with the notice at the top of the page and the proposal by Vincent J. Lipsio, I'd suggest a simpler structure with four main headings (basically following the structure of the Cambridge Companion):

• Background
• Arian Controversy (or Alexandrian controversey, which may now be preferred in literature) - origin of the controversey in Alexandria and the attempts to resolve it within the Church, including the Council at Antioch
• Meletian schism (prominent enough to warrant its own section)
• Constantine and calling of the Council - background on Constantine's and the Empire's relationship to the Church, and his decision to move the Council to from Ancyra to Nicaea and invite all the bishops of the ecumene
• Proceedings
• Attendance and logistics
• Debates - basically the current top sections "Procedure" and "Arian controversey"
• Role of Constantine - relevant material from sections 4 and 13
• Outcomes
• Formulation of the Nicene Creed - current section 8
• Canon law
• Computation of Easter
• Misconceptions
• Reception and Legacy
• Ecumenical councils - beginning of the "idea" of ecumenical councils and the use of Nicaea in future councils
• Catholic Church
• Orthodox Church
• Protestants - material from "disputed matters

I'm going to do some sandbox drafting as I read. Any further thoughts on structure?

Also, would anyone be opposed to using a short footnote reference style in the article? It's very easy to use and helps better link citations to the bibliography (currently the two don't match up). Seltaeb Eht (talk) 19:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)