Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-15 Christianity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Mediation Case: 2006-05-15 Christianity 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Mediator response 1.3 Compromise offers 1.3.1 1st Compromise Offer 1.3.2 2nd Compromise Offer 1.3.3 3rd Compromise Offer 1.4 Comments by others 1.5 Discussion 1.5.1 Request to Explain Problem with Opposing Version 2 Some Replies 3 Additional Sources 3.1 Collier's Encyclopedia 4 Str's Wikibreak 5 Notes

[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-05-15 Christianity

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: KV 17:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

On the page Christianity and the talk page Talk:Christianity. Though the debate is typical of any debate on the page, it is currently at Christianity#History_and_origins. The argument is over the third paragraph in that section.

On the talk pages, the issue first popped up with Talk:Christianity/Archive_27#Heresy_coming_from_Orthodoxy_or_vice_versa. I first made a grammatical change on the 22nd of March 2006[1] that I felt made it easier to read by not changing subjects of the sentence, but then found out that there is a change in meaning under the lines. I began to believe that the wording available at that time was meant to make the casual reader believe that the mainstream church was in opposition to false teachings, heresy. My suggestion to replace heresy with a neutral term was denied.

I brought it up again in Talk:Christianity#Orthodoxy_and_Heresy on April 30th, after reading more on the subject in a book that the Christians do not find credible at all, The Hiram Key. After debating that the source is still better than no source, I decided that it would be easier to simply find sources that are undeniably reputable and use them.

So I brought up the issue a third time with Talk:Christianity#New_version_of_orthodoxy_and_heresy on May 9th. I had purchased one book that was considered an authoritive source on Catholic history, which would include Early Church history, though did not cover the specific issue in depth and did have a slight pro-Christian bias. I figured it would be found acceptable since I was arguing with Christians who would find a source slightly biased in their favor acceptable for citations. However, most of the citations came from a college textbook written by two PhDs, one in history and the other in archaeology.

Who's involved?

Myself is foremost involved, Str1977 is foremost involved on the other side. Two Wikipedia administrators, AnnH and Tom Harrison are also involved, though considerably less. We also have involvement from pretty much all of the Christian contributors to that page, Wesley, Storm Rider, and Myopic Bookworm are among those.

What's going on?

I have made several attempts from March until April to improve a section on the Christianity page named above. More or less, with more Christians editing the page, my first change did not realize the message between the words, and was rejected by group consensus. I made my second attempt at the end of April, having a source which was deemed not a reputable source and they agreed that WP:V did not apply in such an occaision while they have no verifiable citations. My third attempt happened on May 9th, when I added in sources that can not be reasonably called non-reputable. I have constructed a full picture, that is NPOV and verifiable, in my own opinion.

It has been attacked on several fronts by Str1977: That it is too large to be included, uses the PC term CE against some Wikipedia policy he has failed to provide a link to, that the source with credentials is wrong (no counter-source provided) and I was accused of using weasel words such as "officially".

There are three versions of this paragraph. The original, mine, and Str's conservative version.

Original - Theological disputes about the correct interpretation of Christian teaching led to internal conflicts; Church authorities (bishops and local synods) condemned some theologians as heretics, the most notable being Christian Gnostics, and defined orthodoxy in contrast to heresy. Other early sects deemed heretical included Simonianism, Marcionism, Ebionitism and Montanism. Such disputes, especially in the field of Christology, intensified after the religion's legalization, leading to internal strife and to clearer dogmatic definitions through ecumenical councils, beginning with the Council of Nicaea in 325.

Mine - Theological disputes about the correct interpretation of Christian teaching led to internal conflicts; the various churches of Early Christianity shared a common creed, but actual beliefs varied widely^[1]. By the third century CE, councils were regularly held in provincial capitals to distinguish between orthodox (which literally translates to "right worship") and heretical (or wrong) views^[2]. On May 20th, 325 CE, the newly converted Roman Emperor Constantine I convened the First Council of Nicaea which saw the beginnings of a single doctrine through debate and discussion by 220 Bishops and Constantine ^[3]. Prior to Nicaea, the Western churches did not simply obey Rome and its interpretations, which the Eastern churches still did not ^[4]. Constantine continued to authoritively control church policy until the day he died ^[5], creating a new sense of unity amongst the various churches. After Arianism, the primary target at Nicaea^[6], was declared heretical (despite Arius's attendence), other sects began to be declared heretical. These include Gnosticism, Simonianism, Marcionism, Ebionitism and Montanism. Such disputes, especially in the field of Christology, intensified after the religion's legalization.

Str's Conservative Version - Theological disputes about the correct interpretation of Christian teaching led to internal conflicts^[7]; Church authorities (bishops and local synods) condemned some theologians as heretics^[8], the most notable being Christian Gnostics, and defined orthodoxy in contrast to heresy. Other early sects deemed heretical included Simonianism, Marcionism, Ebionitism and Montanism. Such disputes, especially in the field of Christology, intensified after the religion's legalization, leading to internal strife and to clearer dogmatic definitions through ecumenical councils, beginning with the Council of Nicaea in 325, which condemned Arianism^[9].

Str changed my work immediately to his conservative version, which conserves the viewpoint of prior, removing the facts that make those early versions of Christianity that died out seem equal, not inferior, to mainstream Christianity. It is a campaign, in my opinion, of subtly playing down the Gnostics, Arians, as well as other modern non-mainstream Christian groups so that the reader will necessarily think lowly of them, but it is not overt enough to deny. Str's version turned 6 citations into 3, and misapplied two of them, one being the application of my first citation to the original lead sentence, which is a very vague conclusion to draw, and completely misleading to say that the authors stated such when the rest of the rewriting is taken into account. They did not support the view of the conflict that Str writes. The second citation did not state that the Church authorities declared theologians as heretics, but rather stated that there were debates over what was heresy and what was orthodoxy, defining them in context of the conflict. I originally misplaced what this citation was falsely citing on the talk page, seeing as I was tired when I entered the debate at that moment.

This version removes any verifiable light, and merely attempts to make the old version with it's narrow view seem sourced, when it is not. It is an attempt to keep the view presented by verifiable facts out of the discussion because it looks neutrally upon those who the Christian editors see as ideological opponents who should be viewed with a negative, dismissing light.

Since then, Str has started using the original version in his reverts, and Ann H has done the same. They are under the impression that things such as editor consensus and their own whims override the Wikipedia policies of WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. On that note, all three pages state clearly, "The three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus."

What would you like to change about that?

I see this as the first step in what will probably end up in arbitration eventually anyways. I would like for the three Wikipedia policies to be respected, and for my version to either stand, or be reworded without having the inconvenient facts removed. This is part of a larger struggle where Christians have practically claimed ownership over this and related articles and moved to have critics banned, generally via AnnH.

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

There is no need to work discreetly.

Would you be willing to be a mediator yourself, and accept a mediation assignment in a different case?

I would have no problem with that, though I would like to do that AFTER this situation is solved

[edit] Mediator response

This case doesn't seem to have benefitted from mediation. I'm not sure if it's do to the complexity of the case, the lack of my familiarity with the material or other factors. I will close this case unless the parties or someone watching this case can propose a way forward. -- Joebeone (Talk) 21:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Yah, I can "take" this "case" if the parties are still interested. I'll add it to my watchlist and see what happens. --Keitei (talk) 22:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the case moving in any direction and don't think a prolongation of the mediation to be of any merit, least of all under a new mediator. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no point without any actual merit compromise being offered by Str.

KV(Talk) 15:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'd say the first thing it'd be good to do, mediation or not, is figure out why no compromise has been reached, and see if fixing those reasons would make a new/old/different compromise work. I'm sure this has been discussed to death though, and if you're willing to keep whatever's up there, I don't think there's any pressing need to prolong the discussion. However, this case won't be "closed" until you want it such. --Keitei (talk) 21:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

With a closer reading of the form thing filled out when the case was presented, you (KV) state that you believe this will end up in arbitration. I have to ask if you think that this particular incident will go that far or if issues with Christian editors will go that far. I personally don't think this particular incident is so dividing as to end up under arbitration; it appears to me that with a declared purpose of the paragraph (i.e. don't talk about such and such, the paragraph only serves to [blank]), and some appropriate (required) sourcing, this could be solved. However, this isn't the first time I've encountered complaints about Christian editors/editing and it wouldn't be a stretch of the imagination to see that going before ArbCom, once all the complaints and evidence are consolidated at least. So I'm just wondering which you mean, and maybe how you see this ending. I would like to avoid this particular case going to ArbCom though; that seems a touch heavy-handed for the issue. --Keitei (talk) 22:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I haven't read all of what is presented. However, with what I have read, it is clear that:

1. You need another article for this topic. If you can speak such volumes on this page, it deserves more than a paragraph. Perhaps "Heresy in the early Christian church" (not sure of capitalization); or something of the sort. If 'heresy' is too loaded, one can either debate it in the first paragraph or reword it. Or perhaps this is more about disagreeing than heresy, I don't know.
2. The paragraph in Christianity should summarize, not debate, but it should be sourced and NPOV nonetheless.
3. With an article such as Christianity, every questionable sentence needs a source. If anyone disagrees, source it. If people still disagree, find more sources :]. The evidence can settle debates and while I respect everyone's opinions, sources speak louder than words.

--Keitei (talk) 23:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise offers

[edit] 1st Compromise Offer

We can change

"Theological disputes about the correct interpretation of Christian teaching led to internal conflicts; the various churches of Early Christianity shared a common creed, but actual beliefs varied widely"

to

"Theological disputes about the correct interpretation of Christian teaching led to internal conflicts; the various churches of Early Christianity shared a common set of stated beliefs, but actual interpretation of these beliefs varied widely"

Str, that is in tune with the source and should solve your dillema with the misinterpretation of "creed" as "official creed". It clarifies without removing any facts.

KV 16:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2nd Compromise Offer

Here is an offer at compromise language from KV that incorporates both views. Str, when you get back from wikibreak, could you use this as a starting point to offer your own compromise to KV?

"Theological disputes about the correct interpretation of Christian teaching led to internal conflicts; the various churches of Early Christianity shared a common set of stated beliefs, but actual interpretation of these beliefs varied widely^[10]. However, some believe that Christianity was always the same^{[citation needed]}. By the third century CE, councils were regularly held in provincial capitals to distinguish between orthodox (which literally translates to "right worship") and heretical (or wrong) views^[11]. Though, some say that the Church orthodoxy was formed in opposition to heretical beliefs^{[citation needed]}. On May 20th, 325 CE, the newly converted Roman Emperor Constantine I convened the First Council of Nicaea which saw the beginnings of a single doctrine through debate and discussion by 220 Bishops and Constantine ^[12]. Prior to Nicaea, the Western churches did not simply obey Rome and its interpretations, which the Eastern churches still did not ^[13]. Constantine continued to authoritively control church policy until the day he died ^[14], though some disagree^{[citation needed]}, creating a new sense of unity amongst the various churches. After Arianism, the primary target at Nicaea^[15], was declared heretical (despite Arius's attendence), other sects began to be declared heretical. These include Gnosticism, Simonianism, Marcionism, Ebionitism and Montanism. Such disputes, especially in the field of Christology, intensified after the religion's legalization.

-- Joebeone (Talk) 18:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

KV has asked for my critique User talk:Jbolden1517#Christianity_mediation.

1. However, some believe that Christianity was always the same. Does anyone actually believe that in a scholarly sense? This may be a straw man. If not a statement like "The belief that Christianity was always the same appear to be contradicted by historical methods, though they are asserted by faith. This article being historical will not address such beliefs they are addressed in _______"
2. Though, some say that the Church orthodoxy was formed in opposition to heretical beliefs^{[citation needed]}. I'd get rid of the weasel word and make it more evolutionary. Something like "Most Churches assert that the Church orthodoxy was formed in opposition to heretical beliefs^{[citation needed]}. As heresy arose...
3. Is there any evidence of persecution for either Simonianism or Ebionities? I know the church fathers said not nice things about them but the passage seems to indicate more formal sanction.

jbolden1517^Talk 17:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, everything I have added to compromise with Str in this section, may be a straw man, only because he hasn't made it clear what his beliefs on the matter are. That's why I didn't want to have to just make a version for compromise without him coming up with some sources stating definative comments.

KV 14:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I have commented below on such a "compromise version". My beliefs are quite clear: Wiki-wise, I believe an article that is a factually accurate, NPOV (which is not the same as PC or glossing over the facts including decisions) and stylistically acceptable (including the avoidance of repetitions) section - in this sequence. And these three, are my objections to KV's version. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3rd Compromise Offer

The following is a suggested preliminary compromise version, based on "my" structure:

(1. Christianity began within the Jewish religion among the followers of Jesus of Nazareth. Under the leadership of the Apostles Peter and Paul, it welcomed Gentiles, and gradually separated from Pharisaic Judaism. Some Jewish Christians rejected this approach and developed into various sects of their own, while others were joined with Gentile Christians in the development of the church; within both groups there existed great diversity of belief. Professor Bentley Layton writes, "the lack of uniformity in ancient Christian scripture in the early period is very striking, and it points to the substantial diversity within the Christian religion." A church hierarchy seems to have developed by the time of the Pastoral Epistles (1 Tim 3, Titus 1) and was certainly formalized by the 4th century ^[16].)

...

3. Theological diversity led to disputes about the correct interpretation of Christian teaching and to conflict within and between the local churches. Church authorities (bishops and local synods) condemned some theologians as heretics and defined orthodoxy (Greek: the right view)' in contrast to heresy (wrong views). The most notable heretics were Christian Gnostics. Other early sects deemed heretical included Marcionism, Ebionitism and Montanism. Such disputes, especially in the field of Christology, intensified after the religion's legalization, leading to internal strife and to clearer dogmatic definitions through ecumenical councils, beginning with the Council of Nicaea in 325. (The last sentence about the Council may be expanded.)

(4. Early in the 4th century, the Emperor Constantine the Great legalized Christianity, giving the church a privileged place in society, and in 391 Theodosius I established Nicene Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire. From Constantine onwards, the history of Christianity becomes difficult to untangle from the history of Europe (see also Christendom). The Church took over many of the political and cultural roles of the pagan Roman institutions, especially in Europe. The Emperors, seeking unity through the new religion, frequently took part in Church matters, sometimes in concord with the bishops but also against them. Imperial authorities acted to suppress the old pagan cults and groups deemed heretical by the Church, most notably, Arians. The Catholic Encyclopedia notes that "various penal laws were enacted by the Christian emperors against heretics as being guilty of crime against the State. In both the Theodosian and Justinian codes they were styled infamous persons ... In some particularly aggravated cases sentence of death was pronounced upon heretics, though seldom executed in the time of the Christian emperors of Rome." [2])

The bolded parts are the ones I deem important for our attempt at a compromise. The bit about Constantine and others' interference is in the the fourth paragraph as it fits there better. Take care about the time overlap between the end of the 3rd paragraph and the start of the 4th paragraph.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by others

I'm an active member of the cabal who usually takes the religion cases. I happen to know a lot about heresy debates so I couldn't take this one. OTOH for whoever does end up mediating I'm willing to be an assist as a 3rd party / fact person. Just let me know on my talk page and I'll pop over. jbolden1517^Talk 02:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

As a frequent participant in the Christianity article and associated talk page, I'm not sure where I should be leaving my comments.

Substantively, KV's version strikes me as an improvement, in that it is more interesting and more informative. I also agree with him that the competing version appears designed to downplay and effectively decide the "heresies" debate. As for the cites, I've not read them, but for now I'll take his word that they've been misleadingly (abeit, I'll gather, in good faith) deployed in the new old version.

I may add more to this commentary if and when other participants make a showing on this page.Timothy Usher 16:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I've just come to the page fresh. Since I teach this subject for a university owned and operated by the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod, I shouldn't mediate. I can say, though, that I do not find any of the versions above substantially inacurate. Could both sides describe why the other versions are hard for them to accept? --CTSWyneken 19:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I would second this request by CTSWyneken. It would help us draw out exactly what this dispute is about. -- Joebeone (Talk) 17:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

____

Joebeone had asked me to break out the points. This page is getting long so I've created another page page2 to contain the points. jbolden1517^Talk 20:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

As per request by Timothy Usher, I will lay out what the citations and sources are..... in order:

^ (Cannistraro and Reich p. 217)

^ (Cannistraro and Reich p. 219)

^ (Bokkenkotter p. 41)

^ (Cannistraro and Reich p. 218)

^ (Cannistraro and Reich pp. 220-1)

^ (Cannistraro and Reich p. 241)

Cannistraro, Philip V. and Reich, John J. (1999). The Western Perespective: A History of Civilization in the West - Volume A To 1500. New York: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

Bokenkotter, Thomas (2004). A Concise History of the Catholic Church. New York: Doubleday.

That should allow people to see what is cited and how to check up on it.

KV 19:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Str, please comment down here. You are not part of others, which are those uninvolved.

KV 17:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I am moving my comment down here, as requested: I am KV's chief opponent in this. IMHO his edit is not an improvement, both in terms of language and in terms of content. It also violates the structure of the section by repeating stuff belonging (and actually included) in other paragraphs and the intended topic of the paragraph, both regarding scope (what is this passage about?) and detail (how deep shall we delve?). The previous version was the result of many editors contributing and working together over various months, while KV didn't seek any compromise for his restructuring and rewording. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Despite being thoroughly cited, KV's version has some serious factual problems. First, his paragraph claims that there was a common creed prior to Nicaea, whereas the Nicene Creed is widely recognized as being the first text of a creed that was universally adopted and used... and in practice it didn't become truly universal until 381 and the Second Ecumenical Council. On the Talk page, he explained that they all believed mostly the same general things; this isn't the same thing. Second, Constantine is believed by many historians to have favored the Arians, and chose to be baptized by an Arian bishop shortly before his death. This being the case, it's unlikely that he dictated the outcome of the 325 council which opposed the Arians. Wesley 04:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I have provided a citation to state exactly that they held one creed (which I am not sure what the actual creed is, though one part can be that Jesus is the Messiah, which different groups understood differently) and no one said it is official. But you simply claiming that it is not true would not be justification for removing it when it is taken from an academic source, written by two PhDs. If they said something wrong (I can get the text and type it out for you in that section) then it needs to be proven with an equally reputable text, not hearsay.

And the paragraph does not say that Constantine dictated it, it merely states that he held the council (I have sources which suggest it was for political reasons anyways), and participated in the debates. He wanted one creed, not necessarily his creed. That information was also taken from the historical account of the Catholic Church, which is the one with the slight pro-Christian bias. Specifically because Str despised the idea that Constantine participated in the debates when I cited that from The Hiram Key I wanted a pro-Christian source to admit that fact, which I found. However, the academic source goes on to claim that he ran things with an iron fist. Now, if he was pro-Arian, which needs citation, and he wasn't foremost concerned with politics, his actions would not be rational, for sure. But there is no claim even made that Constantine is rational, and if the facts show that he wasn't, then let us not assume that he was. We are not charging him of a crime so that you can defend him that he is a sane person who obviously would not do both. To the historian's eye, he may have done both. Hitler oppressed and even killed Catholics and then got married by a Catholic priest right before he and Eva Braun killed themselves (worst honeymoon ever).

KV 14:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

KV, I believe that you are honestly stating this but still it is wrong: Hitler wasn't married by a Catholic priest at all. His marriage was a civil ceremony, chaired by a Standesbeamter.

As for the rest, Constantine was present at the council and participated in the debate, though he was "briefed" for this by bishop Hosius of Cordoba, his theological advisor. Constantine was no expert on theology and did the right thing: he trusted the experts: the bishops. I never denied that he participated in the debates - I only objected to using crap sources like the Hiram Key.

Constantine was never pro-Arian. He wan't peace and unity, if possible including Arius and his followers. The two bishops Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicaea managed to get recalled from exile by signing equivocal statements of faith and were restored to their sees. Arius did the same thing and was about to set sail for his native city when he died. Athanasius did not trust in the truthfullness of these statements and opposed them (history proved him right) - Constantine saw this as strive-mongering (does that word exist?) and had Athansius exiled by the council of Tyrus. Constantine was baptized by Eusebius of Nicomedia but the bishop wasn't openly Arian at that time.

I don't know what you mean by "rational" in regard of the issue, but the assumption is for any man or woman to be rational until proven otherwise. (I also assume that you know what the word means.)

Finally, the problem with creed is that it can be used specifically (Nicene Creed) or colloquially (a set of beliefs). Now, KV uses it colloquially and I advised him not to, as it will undoubtedly cause confusion. Also, the second part of the sentence immediately contradicts the claim about one creed. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

First, I would like to point out that Wesley and Str disagree on whether or not Constantine was pro-Arian, and that is specifically why we trust the cited souces rather than someone's background knowledge. Everything I've added to that paragraph, I have cited where I got the information from.

Str, in Talk:Christianity#Orthodoxy_and_Heresy you stated "The Emperor was present but he wasn't a part of the Council - only bishops can be parts of a council." and "Constantine was present to make sure a decision was reached. He didn't dictate the outcome."

Though, you may not have been saying that he didnt' take place in the debates, the words you chose gave the strong impression that you were saying that. Certainly, you were giving the image that Constantine was merely an observer. You must choose your words more carefully, especially since you are not a native English speaker and are more prone to say things you don't mean without realizing it.

You've also objected to academic sources, such as a college textbook written by two PhDs in the area. Your objections are stated in Talk:Christianity#New_version_of_orthodoxy_and_heresy that what it has said is "is sheer and utter nonsense" and "again nonsense" and similar words. You state that what they say is false, though they are accredited scholars, and you have not given a single source that contradicts them, let alone one as reputable.

Being pro-Arian then putting down Arians with state power of your own volition, that is irrational. Wesley stated that Constantine wouldn't have done that because he was pro-Arian. You disagree with him on that issue and I had heard nothing of it. But I only stated that doing so would not be rational, but if he did act irrationally, he did act irrationally, and the fact stands that he did those actions, regardless of his personal beliefs, as cited. My argument was pointing out that Wesley cannot decide what historically Constantine did, based on Constantine's biases. If it is stated he did those things, then he did them, and we have no obligation to portray him as a rational being if he happened to have a pro-Arian bias. Don't turn it against me.

Finally, the source said creed. If you want to change it to a wordier statement of the same thing, then feel free. I do not recall this being your argument before. What you said was: "There was no common creed until the 4th century (Nicene Creed), though baptismal creed basically were similar in their structure. If there was one creed, how can actual beliefs vary widely." in Talk:Christianity#New_version_of_orthodoxy_and_heresy.

I'll make a suggested change in the appropriate section.

KV 16:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

KV, indeed I meant that he was present, didn't dictate the outcome and was not the prime participant of the discussion, mostly listening or questioning. But when he suggested, of course, his imperial dignity did not hurt.

My disagreement (if there is one) with Wesley is indeed beside the point. But so is your reflections on what is rational or not. Indeed my explanation of Constantine's behaviour is thoroughly rational with no need to assume a change of mind in the Emperor: he wanted unity in the Empire and he wanted unity in the Church, he left the solution to the conflict to the bishops (hence: council) and helped to implement it. Still he wanted to heal the wounds remaining from the council (four bishops and Arius excommunicated and banished) and bring them back into the fold (actually, the council tried the same when it invited those siding with Arius to accept the Nicene creed as well). In this attempt he was more lenient, while Athanasius strictly insisted on the Nicene Creed. Some of the people involved were double-dealing (Theognis, Eusebius of Nik.) or involved in intrigues (Eusebius of C.). Constantine had the power to enforce his leniency, while history proved Athanasius right in the end. Constantine was not baptized by someone who openly confessed heresy but by a double-dealing bishop.

However, this all need not and actually must not be included in our disputed paragraph. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I'm going to keep my comments unindented to highlight that I'm mediating this.

Could I get both of you to state below, in one simple sentence, what you think the current dispute is about. To me, in an initial reading, it seems to be spurred forth by 1) a paucity of (lack of) sources compared to background knowledge (unciteable) and 2) a lack of precision in the language of the text as seen by KV. -- Joebeone (Talk) 18:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe this is about pushing a modern mainstream Christian POV, and my sources, though reputable, do not support that POV in this instance.

KV 18:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Second question to KV: can you find other sources for this? Especially ones that might have a different take but be just as reputatble? (You can do this by going to a bookstore for more recent works or a library, if possible, for older works.) If there's some dispute amongs the sources, we would want to have a "Some sources say, ... others say..." type of construct. -- Joebeone (Talk) 18:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I did find a Christian source on the issue, and it does not make any definitive statements on the matter, more focusing on the legalization of Christianity and why Christianity flourished. I did have The Hiram Key that said the early churches all accused one another of heresy. I did spend $20 on that Christian source, and I made the mistake of putting my two weeks in on my last job prior to the red tape clearing up on the next, so I am currently without work, though I can't really say I don't have an employer.... because I will have work once they verify my SSN at a prior job. However, I really feel that the burden of proof is on them, not me, to find some source for their view. Most books do walk by the concept of early church bickering about heresy, including several history books I have purchased and searched through.

KV 18:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

This confict is actually older, when I and Str1977 were involved in a dispute about using relative language to describe "heresy," i.e. deemed heretical, or defined as such, instead of stating it as a fact. In my arguments, I stated the political nature of the decisions regarding what doctrines were to be given the label, and thus declared illegal, and suppressed. In particular, the political role of Constantine in the process. Str1977 strongly objected. Eventually, I succeeded in getting the language I wanted in a compromise, but Str has a very traditional, orthodox RC view on the matter. As it is summed up in one book I happen to have handy with me now, where I will quote from:(Constanines Sword James Carroll):

"Constantine wanted to unify the empire in every way. His political impact on Christianity is widely recognized, but his role as a shaper of its central religious idea is insufficiently appreciated. Latin Christians, anachronistically, have preferred to keep him, as a ruler, on the secular side of the sacred-profane divide, as if he were an early Charlemagne. In the Eastern Church, he is honored as a saint, but even there his role in shaping a new religious consciousness is down played. But at the same, Constantine was kind of, well Moses. It originates with Eusebius of Caesarea. In his "life of Constantine” is a celebration of the divinely ordained union of the Church and the empire—Constatine as Moses p.173

"Multiplicity of meanings and traditions---became unacceptable—it was more because of a political requirement than a religious one. The aim was E pluribus Unum. Pluribus would be defined not as a principle of coequality but as the expendable means to the self-justifying end that is Unum. p. 188.

"The choice “heresy” to be religiously different became defined as treason, a political crime. But different form whom, and from what? For the first time in its history, the universal Christian Church was seen to need a defined orthodoxy, a word derived from the Greek for “right thinking.” This resulted from what might be called the first law of exclusion: You can’t say who is out unless you can say what it is to be in. It is important to emphasize that this need, which has so dominated Roman Catholicism that even now the Church cannot break free of it, was first defined not by the Lord, a Jew who identified with dissenters; nor by his apostles, who did not hesitate to differ from one another; nor by their successor bishops who defended regional interests; nor by evangelists who produced not one version of the Jesus story but four; nor by theologians who introduced innovative Hellenistic categories into Scripture study; nor by preachers who readily put their eccentric personal stamps on the kerygma---but by an all-conquering emperor for whom one empire came to equal one religion.” p. 189.Giovanni33 07:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment on what Gio said: our conflict was about how to word the theological disputes and heresies. Gio believes that the mere usage of the word "heresy", without a disclaimer, is deciding the issue on who's right and wrong. I disagree. Using the word, albeit with caution, is desrcriptive and factually accurate, narrating on the decisions reached back then, not taking any side. However, constantly disclaiming the word is IMHO inserting a relativist POV that events might be different or that truth doesn't matter.

As for Gio's last pragraph: please it leave it to us what to belief in, even if we do not exclude logic from our definitions. About our Lord Jesus he is certainly mistaken, if I may say so based on my having read the Gospels repeatedly: there's not identifying with dissenters; the same goes for the Apostles, who held a Council themselves. "Multiplicity of meanings" is indeed unacceptable if you care about the truth, or about effective communication. "Political powers" such as Constantine could have lived with such duplicity and after his death, the Arians tried to achieve such unity through duplicity ... and failed miserably. Various Emperors have tried the same course with the same results (Zenon, Justininan, Heraclius). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request to Explain Problem with Opposing Version

As requested above, I will explain what my problem with the other versions are. The problem with the prior versions, as I found out after trying to debate grammar, is that there is a specific attempt to decide what heresies are and what they are not. I thought it was grammatically correct to say that they defined heresy in opposition to orthodoxy (figuring that each word was defined in opposition to the other, neither having any meaning until it's opposite) since heresy was the subject of the sentence. I was told that I completely changed the meaning of the sentence, and it wasn't until a long debate that I realized that the objective of this is the subtle wordplay to make people read it in saying "Mainstream church policy" is defined in opposition to "wrong theology". Wording it the other way wouldn't seem to talk down upon what was later declared heresy.

So, I found that I was outnumbered, and that bias would be in the article until I could prove that heresy was defined in opposition to some sort of church orthodoxy, which I found in The Hiram Key which I thought wasn't perfect, but was better than their own beliefs, for it could be verifiable. They declared that it was better to use uncited, because however biased their statement, it destroys the credibility of Wikipedia as a whole to verify something from The Hiram Key rather than just leave it uncited. I found it easier just to find more reputable sources than to debate it at that point.

So I found a source that explained much more about this subject in an old college textbook. It explains what heresy and orthodoxy mean in the context of this debate (wrong ideas) and ("right thinking"), and shows that both cannot exist without the other. It gave information on the first empire-wide council that decided the difference between the two as well. In his attempt to compromise, he decided to completely revert the text and apply my sources to it without often misapplying the quotes.

In the end, I feel that my version explains the situation vastly better, it is verifiable and not original research (as the prior version is, being uncited), and is neutral and doesn't outright decide, in it's oh so subtle way, that those groups the Church declared heretical were right or wrong. It shows that the declarations of heresy went back and forth, that not everyone agreed on what heresy and orthodoxy were. KV 18:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I am posting my replies as I go, so bear with me, if I seem redundant:

KV, is misunderstanding the objection I and others raised against his change: I, in writing the "orthodoxy defined by heresy" passage, wanted to relate that first there was the appearance of certain teachings (we never specified which ones, so there's no deciding on our part, only a narration of the decision reached back in the days), who secondly were opposed by others and suspected as heresy (this happened on the basis of existing doctrine (explicit) and also of implicit doctrine or implicit orthodoxy), thirdly a decision was reached (either by bishop or by council), usually condemning the heresy (again we are reporting this, not commenting in this or that way whether they were right), fourthly, in conjunction with such a condemnation was issued a definition of doctrine (or dogma) which intentend to combat the heresy just condemned: in the case of Arius this definition was the Nicene creed. The definition transformed the formerly implicit orthodoxy into an explicit one.

My impression is that, in using the term "orthodoxy" KV was and is talking about the implicit O. while I and others are talking about the explicite O.; KV, I think, also does not share the specific definition of "definition" I was using in the passage. I hope once this misunderstaning is cleared up we can work towards a better version ... if my analysis of the problem is right, of course. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

KV, could I get you to draft a new paragraph? This time, try to encompass both views of heresy with in a manner such as, "Some believe that heresy was defined... although others believe..."? I think the only compromise I'll be able to offer is that both of your views be included because it seems that there are no facts that would distinguish on as being accepted and the other as being unaccepted in the literature. -- Joebeone (Talk) 18:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Before we follow that route, I would like to hear Str agree that he would accept such a new paragraph if properly crafted. He has on several occaisions, including in this debate, wanted to invoke WP:AWW to prevent any such watered down versions. It certainly would be interesting to see if he would allow such weasel words to exist if they were backing his side, but he has treated it as more important than WP:NPOV in the past.

KV 19:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

That, of course, depends on the content of the draft. I don't understand entirely what "weasel words" you are talking about. "Heresy" is not one, IMHO. I used it to accurately report on the events and not even to connotate that these teachings were aberrations from the "path of consistency" of Christianity, let alone, that Christianity itself were right. However, some instruments of "watering down" that have been used in the past are IMHO violations of NPOV by sacrificing historical facts for a certain politically correct or relativistic POV. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I encourage you to do it anyway as it could serve as a useful starting point for further discussion. WP:AWW is an "avoid" standard and it appears that this is a good place for them. The other alternative is to leave this out of the page in question entirely. That doesn't sound like a good option, of course. -- Joebeone (Talk) 00:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

If we cannot agree that wold certainly be a possibility. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

1. "Theological disputes about the correct interpretation of Christian teaching led to internal conflicts;
2. the various churches of Early Christianity shared a common set of stated beliefs, but actual interpretation of these beliefs varied widely^[17].
3. However, some believe that Christianity was always the same^{[citation needed]}.
4. By the third century CE, councils were regularly held in provincial capitals to distinguish between orthodox (which literally translates to "right worship") and heretical (or wrong) views^[18].
5. Though, some say that the Church orthodoxy was formed in opposition to heretical beliefs^{[citation needed]}.
6. On May 20th, 325 CE, the newly converted Roman Emperor Constantine I
7. convened the First Council of Nicaea which saw the beginnings of a single doctrine through debate and discussion by 220 Bishops and Constantine ^[19].
8. Prior to Nicaea, the Western churches did not simply obey Rome and its interpretations, which the Eastern churches still did not ^[20].
9. Constantine continued to authoritively control church policy until the day he died ^[21], though some disagree^{[citation needed]},
10. creating a new sense of unity amongst the various churches.
11. After Arianism, the primary target at Nicaea^[22], was declared heretical (despite Arius's attendence), other sects began to be declared heretical. These include Gnosticism, Simonianism, Marcionism, Ebionitism and Montanism.
12. Such disputes, especially in the field of Christology, intensified after the religion's legalization.

But now this is getting out of hand. Not only are we adding in completely unsourced language that came from Str's arguments of "No it's not.", but one of his beefs was that it was already too lengthy. Making it lengthier doesn't seem to help with his qualm and it is clear defiance of WP:V at this point. We need another source that conflicts with mine before more can actually be done.

KV 06:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, if it were simple, it would be much easier to say with a small amount of text. I appreciate you taking the initiative, KV, to write this out. Str is on a wikibreak so won't contribute here for a bit. Let's put this on hold until Str can respond to this proposal (which I will copy up to the compromise section). -- Joebeone (Talk) 18:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience, guys.

I concur with the "length" problem but accuracy has to come first. I would rather have an accurate overview section (which IMHO my version was) than one going into details (needlessly, IMHO) using problematic wordings. Having said that, I will comment on the above version (for which purpose I have divided it into numbered passages - hope you don't mind KV):

0. The first objection is no big deal, namely, the usage of the notation "CE" instead of "AD". From earlier comments I gather that KV has not yet read the WP policy on this: that both notations are acceptable, neither a violation of NPOV policy, and edtiros should retain the original choice of the article or the long-standing consensus. This article is a so-called "AD" article (though I have tried to avoid using any notation where not absolutely necessary) and hence it should be changed to AD. Now for real problems:

1. No problem with that passage: factual and NPOV
2. the word "churches" is ambiguous to us modern readers, as it implies denominations and not mere geographical divisions; I'd like to know what "set of stated beliefs" the version is referring to and how far "actual interpretation" is supposed to be understood. The "widely" is certainly POV in my book. However, the main objection against this passage is that it is out of place: this paragraph was supposed to cover the theological disputes-heresy-orthoxy-definitions issue, while the actual variety within Early Christianity was already covered in an earlier pararaph: "Some Jewish Christians rejected this approach and developed into various sects of their own, while others were joined with Gentile Christians in the development of the church; within both groups there existed great diversity of belief." - the exact wording of this was controversial between myself and Giovanni, but not the actual placing of this info here. Removing doubles is the first (and easiest step) towards avoiding bloating.
3. This a weasely statement claiming to give an opposing view: the preceding passage is not prefaced by a POV indicator, so the sequence becomes fact but POV. This implies that the second passage is false or even ignorant (knowledge vs. belief). Finally, it is worded in an imprecise way ("was always the same" is hardly precise) and in an extreme way, which really makes it false and is probably not held by anyone notable.
4. Only minor objections: CE (see above), "orthodox" doesn't mean right worship but rather correct opinion or view (thinking is ambiguous), heresy is etymologically derived from "to chose" and "a part of", in this case that a heresy picks a part of the truth and elevates it beyond its proper place in the whole fabric of doctrine. I know it is hard to explain, so maybe we shouldn't try to on this page (both terms are wiki-linked)
5. Again, a weasely inclusion of a supposedly opposing view. I consider this a misunderstanding and have commented on this above.
6. Minor objections: CE, "newly converted", as Constantine converted in 312, 13 years before the council. For my whole take on the inclusion of Nicea see below.
7. no objection against "convened", despite possibly false associations; "saw the beginnings of a single doctrine" is dubious - it was the first Ecumenical council (encompassing the whole (Roman) world) but not the first council using this method. "220 Bishops" - the actual number is debated between historians, but the traditional number given is 318. We should either use this number (which often stands in for the council) or drop it alltogether.
8. Absolute opposition to this: it is clumsily worded and implicitely raises expectations for conditions that bever existed and which make only sense in a very narrow Roman Catholic field (which WP is not). Also, in this field "Rome" would not be ambiguous, as it is in the current setting. A reader with no knowledge must grammatically assume that Rome means Constantine. Also "Prior to Nicea" is nonsensical since there is not difference between before and after in this. But even if it said "Pope" it'd still be out of place.
9. I have already voiced my objections against "authoritively", which connotates legitimacy and competence. KV is probably meaning "in a authoritarian manner". However, IMHO this better dealt with in the paragraphy dealing with the elevation of Christianity to state religion (and the objectives of the Imperial government in that, see the sentence beginning "seeking unity...") - "though some disagree" is again a pseudo-balancing act".
10. This might be understood in various ways and some of this are worth including (but not here). The same objections regarding "churches" applies as above.
11. The penultimate passage is just factually incorrect: Arianism is chronologically preceded by all the mentioned heresies, of which some are very obsucre (Simonianism, as opposed to Simony) and were declared heretical long before. Also, the phrase "declared heretical (despite Arius's attendence)" is a mystery to me. "despite" implies a contradiction, but I can't see one. A council can judge a doctrine even if the "originator" is not present; it is not supposed to condemn the man himself without having heard his defence (and having given him the opportunity to recant and/or assent to the reached defintion), but in our case this is irrelevant since Arius was present and was given all these opportunities.
12. Finally, no objections against the last passage,. However, a reading of the whole text (KV version) shows this to be out of place, after the Nicene Council has been covered in that much detail. Originally this was the sentence which "made the switch" over to the Constantinian era (with Nicea and Arianism as the first example). Before that "my" version had explained the method with which theological disputes and heresies were dealt with, since the method originated with the pre-Constantinian church. The legalisation only led to a greater "openness" (and hence more conflicts) and the conversion of Emperors to the introduction of coercion (though not necessariy on the side of orthodoxy, as is clearly visible in the Arian troubles, see Constantius II and Valens).

As I said, I want to state my whole take on the inclusion of Nicea: IMHO the history section should give an overview on the entire history of the Christian religion. Hence, we cannot dwell to long on single event, even events as important as the First Ecumenical Council. The paragraph should give an outline on how theological disputes, if they lead to the charge of heresy, were dealt with in the Early Church (both pre- and post-Constantine, as he didn't change that) and how they are still dealt with in principle in the RCC and the Eastern Orthodox Churches. IMHO "my" version did this very neatly. The paragaph should not give details about events like the Nicene Council, since we then should also include other events of similar importance and also we can never do justice to the topic in the context of such an overview.

Having referenced repeatedly to "my" version (always noting that it was not my work alone but a collaboration of many editors of quite conflicting POVs, "my" here means "the one which I argue for"), I will include it here. Comments are welcome.

(Christianity began within the Jewish religion among the followers of Jesus of Nazareth. Under the leadership of the Apostles Peter and Paul, it welcomed Gentiles, and gradually separated from Pharisaic Judaism. Some Jewish Christians rejected this approach and developed into various sects of their own, while others were joined with Gentile Christians in the development of the church; within both groups there existed great diversity of belief. Professor Bentley Layton writes, "the lack of uniformity in ancient Christian scripture in the early period is very striking, and it points to the substantial diversity within the Christian religion." A church hierarchy seems to have developed by the time of the Pastoral Epistles (1 Tim 3, Titus 1) and was certainly formalized by the 4th century ^[23].)

...

Theological disputes about the correct interpretation of Christian teaching led to internal conflicts; Church authorities (bishops and local synods) condemned some theologians as heretics, the most notable being Christian Gnostics, and defined orthodoxy in contrast to heresy. Other early sects deemed heretical included Simonianism, Marcionism, Ebionitism and Montanism. Such disputes, especially in the field of Christology, intensified after the religion's legalization, leading to internal strife and to clearer dogmatic definitions through ecumenical councils, beginning with the Council of Nicaea in 325.

(Early in the 4th century, the Emperor Constantine the Great legalized Christianity, giving the church a privileged place in society, and in 391 Theodosius I established Nicene Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire. From Constantine onwards, the history of Christianity becomes difficult to untangle from the history of Europe (see also Christendom). The Church took over many of the political and cultural roles of the pagan Roman institutions, especially in Europe. The Emperors, seeking unity through the new religion, frequently took part in Church matters, sometimes in concord with the bishops but also against them. Imperial authorities acted to suppress the old pagan cults and groups deemed heretical by the Church, most notably, Arians. The Catholic Encyclopedia notes that "various penal laws were enacted by the Christian emperors against heretics as being guilty of crime against the State. In both the Theodosian and Justinian codes they were styled infamous persons ... In some particularly aggravated cases sentence of death was pronounced upon heretics, though seldom executed in the time of the Christian emperors of Rome." [3])

I have added a two more paragraphs in brackets to show how info KV wants to include into the paragraph in question are already included, IMHO in a better way. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Str, can I ask you to do the same that KV has done: post a compromise version (with cites) in the Compromise section of this page. Note that your original wording wouldn't be a compromise as that's clearly at one end of the dispute. Try to construct a passage that takes into account both your and KV's point of view. If we can agree on one of these as a starting point, we can refine that one later to meet other requirements. -- Joebeone (Talk) 16:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Joe, for sorting out the numbering. I hope your don't mind my moving your comment down here in order to respond to it.

As I have said, the linguistic gulf and time constraints prevent me from pulling out citations (and I never doubted that as far as references go KV's version is superiour). That is why I used KV's references where there seem to say the same. Appearently I was wrong, since he objected. However, KV may very well comment on where my version is inaccurate or in his opinion badly worded or what is missing (aside from our disagreement over whether to include such a broad narration of the Nicene Council). Structure, style and NPOV don't require a reference. I also would like to point out that KV's compromise version actually wasn't a compromise version much. There were a couple of "pseudo-balancing acts" (which I pointed out) and an inclusion of the first and the last sentence (the latter without regard to structure) - I have already done as much when I included the note (linked) about the Nicene Council at the end of the paragraph (it wasn't there earlier).

Sorry about that. (PS. Of course I am willing to look for a compromise and wonder what KV will respond to what I deem a misunderstanding (the orthodoxy-defined-by-heresy issue) - there is certainly room for misunderstanding (if among editors, then also among readers) and improvement there.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to go with this, guys. I think I finally understand some of the finer points of the dispute, but this is far from the garden-variety of disputes that we get around here in the cabal. KV, it seems as if Str has pointed out that the content you'd like included is covered elsewhere in the same article or in other articles entirely. I'm definitely sympathetic to including detail where needed (in the appropriate place) but also would like articles to be as accessible (in the encyclopedic sense) as possible to new readers. I'm starting to think that Str's version (the version that he is arguing for) does this and also represents a close consensus (minus you, KV) of the editors of the page. So, where do we go from here? -- Joebeone (Talk) 18:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to dispute Str's claims. (KV)

And I would like to dispute KV's claims. See below: (STR)

On sentence 2, the discussions of the various churches (which did not agree, and were not one church by today's standards at all, but rather disagreed widely) are absolutely necessary to understand heresy and orthodoxy. The actual place where this is "discussed" is stating: (KV)

So you say. But which denominations are you talking about at the time. I grant you that by the year 320 there were the Catholic Church, the Marcionite church, the Novatian church, the Donatist church, the [[Meletius of Lycopolis|Melitian Church (the last three all regional versions of rigorist thinking flaring up after a persecution, so no actual theological dispute here). There were also Jewish-Christian sects, and various Gnostic sects. The former are already covered and both can hardly be described as different churches, as they were really divided among each other as well. All these groups however only split from the Catholic Church after the dispute had flared up. So, we don't have dispute between different churches but dispute within these churches which lead to the condemnation and break-away of those deemed heretical. All in all, your description is inaccurate. (STR)

Not only do I say, but PhD's say. There was the Church of Rome, the Church of Alexandria, the Church of Jerusalem, the Church of Constantiople, and so on. Don't pretend that the PhDs aren't reputable. KV 19:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Not only PhDs say so, but I say so too. That was my objection. The different churches were the local branches of the one Church. Some of the had different emphases in their respective tradition, especially the Alexandrian and the Antioch schools of theology, which in the end brought forth Monophysitism and Nestorianism respectively. But these are not different denominations in the time we are talking about. I would be glad if you actually read my objections carefully. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Your uncited objections. I am telling you what the source said, and if you disagree with it, you need to actually give a citation. You cannot replace verified information with unverified, that's a main WP Policy! "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources." Even if you have the truth, it is not verifiable at current.

Early in the 4th century, the Emperor Constantine the Great legalized Christianity, giving the church a privileged place in society, and in 391 Theodosius I established Nicene Christianity as the official, and except for Judaism, the only legal religion of the Roman Empire

That is not at all discussing Nicaea in depth.

No, it is not "discussing Nicaea in depth". I don't think we should discuss Nicaea in depth. But I am open to be convinced and, if you can convince me, I don't object to including an accurate, NPOV and stylistically good coverage of Nicaea in the place where I referenced Nicaea. (STR)

There is an accurate, NPOV, and stylistically good coverage of Nicaea there. And it is an issue that needs to be covered in depth KV 19:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

This is were we disagree. We don't discuss the East-West divide in depth, or the Reformation, or the Crusades, or the spread of christianity, or the charasmatic movement etc etc etc. This is the overview article on History of Christianity, after all. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying to give it its own section, but a few sentences, that's called for.

"Some Jewish Christians rejected this approach and developed into various sects of their own, while others were joined with Gentile Christians in the development of the church; within both groups there existed great diversity of belief."

should be either restated or removed, since I have the sentence that is actually cited, and deals specifically with the disagreement. The statement there takes the issue from the victors POV, and only deals with the Jewish Christians who followed James, not the other groups that were considered officially heretical after the Council of Nicaea. (KV)

The above passage is not taking the victors POV at all. It describes what actually happened, if I may quote Ranke. The "Some Jewish Christians" are not those of James but exactly those that split from the rest of (Gentile Christianity) to form sects like the Ebionites. Groups springing up later (rather Judaizers than actual Jews) are better subsumed under heresies in general. (STR)

It is specifically stating that the Jewish church broke off of the Gentile Church, whereas I had seen it stated several times, though in sources you would not find reputable, that it was the other way around. You should cite that. But then, that's not what's at hand. The point stands that it doesn't deal with the same thing. KV 19:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

KV, you must be reading a different text. "My" version doesn't state that, least of all speficially. It says: Christianity began within the Jewish religion ... welcomed Gentiles, and gradually separated from Pharisaic Judaism. This is a movement away from Judaism and not the other way around. Only then does the article say: Some Jewish Christians rejected this approach and developed into various sects of their own - these JCs are the ones that were neither killed in persecutions and wars (by Romans and non-Christian Jews) nor entered the fold of the Church. The developed into sects like the Ebionites. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The full quote, with nothing taken out, is:"Christianity[11] began within the Jewish religion among the followers of Jesus of Nazareth. Under the leadership of the Apostles Peter and Paul, it welcomed Gentiles, and gradually separated from Pharisaic Judaism.[12] Some Jewish Christians rejected this approach and developed into various sects of their own, while others were joined with Gentile Christians in the development of the church; within both groups there existed great diversity of belief."

That is specifically stating what I said.

KV 18:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I am speaking of diversity in a different time, he is talking about a split on whether Christianity should be an exclusive club for Jews. It is highly misleading to say that this applies to the diversity I am referring to. The actual full paragraph so you can see this is:

Christianity began within the Jewish religion among the followers of Jesus of Nazareth. Under the leadership of the Apostles Peter and Paul, it welcomed Gentiles, and gradually separated from Pharisaic Judaism. Some Jewish Christians rejected this approach and developed into various sects of their own, while others were joined with Gentile Christians in the development of the church; within both groups there existed great diversity of belief. Professor Bentley Layton writes, "the lack of uniformity in ancient Christian scripture in the early period is very striking, and it points to the substantial diversity within the Christian religion." A church hierarchy seems to have developed by the time of the Pastoral Epistles (1 Tim 3, Titus 1) and was certainly formalized by the 4th century [15]. (KV)

It is not misleading at all, KV - you are reading the wrong sentence. I was referring to "within both groups there existed great diversity of belief", which covers gentile Christianity. This is what we are talking about. (STR)

That hardly does the topic justice. The diversity is vital in explaining the conflict between orthodoxy and heresy, so it is in the proper place. KV 19:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Orthodoxy and Heresy stem from theological disputes. And this is what we say. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

That is completely uninformative and misleading even. KV 17:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it is completely encyclopedic and accurate. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Orthodoxy is right-thinking, heresy is wrong beliefs, that we have a citation in order to prove, taking the information straight from the source. Both existed prior to disputes, both had always existed, unless you take the quantum mechanical view which would say that it was decided what beliefs were right and wrong the first time someone observed the truth. With the central role of heresy and orthodoxy in Christianity, you cannot simply dismiss it with such few words. KV 18:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Orthodoxy should better be translated as right or correct beliefs, to avoid ambiguities, heresy. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

On section 3, I agree that it is far from perfect, that's why I needed your input. I stated that I felt unable to display your POV on that. Feel free to suggest an alternative, I was hoping for that from you. Joebeone wanted me to post it before you came back.

ON section 4, I had right-thinking, which the source said. Another Christian editor whose name is Drsomething..... I don't recall the whole part, pointed out that dox had to do with worship, and so I allowed it in good faith. If you want to reword that to explain orthodoxy better, I have no problem, so long as we can agree on it beforehand. Heresy meant that, as I have cited. I demand a citation if you want to declare that that is what was meant by heresy. The scholars stated that that is what heresy meant in that context. (KV)

I did not blame you for the wrong etymology of "orthodox" (it was Wesley who included it and I have already discussed this with him) - "heresy" is not etymologically linked to "wrong" in any kind, though of course it denotes that in our context (that's however no reason not to use it) and can serve as an explanation. (STR)

Ok, then it was Wesley, I thought it was a different editor, but I am not gathering your argument? You just want to turn it back to the way I originally had it? KV 19:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I never objected to this part of "your" version. Please don't complain that we don't disagree here. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

On section 5, That is my understanding through prior debate of what you mean by "orthodoxy was defined in opposition to heresy". If you mean something else, please vocalize it, but as far as I can tell, I stated exactly what you stated in the original.

On section 6, CE I feel is necessary, it is considered poltically correct, but I'm willing to let that go. I use CE, but if you want to use AD that's fine. There's no need to throw good water out with the bad. One point is no reason to revert an entire section. And if you believe that Constantine was long converted, please state a source. You cannot simply say that a verifiable and reputable source should be outweighed by facts you simply proclaim. It would be a violation of WP:V, which is much more important that WP:AWW which is only a guideline, and not a policy or a overriding policy like WP:V. (KV)

The consensus of this article is AD. You have no case in arguing for CE (just as I had no case for AD, if the consensus were CE). This is the rule here on WP to avoid edit wars over such trifles. The source for Constantine's conversion are Lactancius and Eusebius, as well as any historical treatment of the man. He converted before the Battle at the Milvian Bridge against Maxentius, in 312. After that, he and Licinius issued the so-called Edict of Milan, legalizing Christianity. That is basic knowledge, man. 325 - 312 = 13, which is hardly freshly converted. The actual reason why the Council happened in 325 is that Constantine had just conquered his former ally Licinius and reunited the Empire; only then did he come into contact with the Arian dispute (situated in Alexandria and Syria). However, these details have no place in this overview article. Including it, IMHO, would be a violation of topicality, the really really really fundamental principle of any encyclopedia. (STR)

Beating a dead horse, I gave you the point on AD, I don't care. For Constantine, you have not given an actual source, it's like I said that Noam Chomsky and Abraham Lincoln state that Jesus ate babies. You'd want a citation for where they said that, what version, what page. I have always read that he converted after the battle's victory, sure..... except when it is stated that he didn't really convert. He did, after all, still have his sun cult thriving. Whichever religion he did truely believe, it is certain that he played the other religion for politics. And again, Nicaea is a vital piece of Christianity, it's like the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1789 and 90. KV 19:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Str, you'll have to cite sources here. One wikipedian's "basic knowledge" is another's "where's that cite?". -- Joebeone (Talk) 17:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Why mention it when the horse is dead, KV.

As for a reference. Do you really need a reference for the fact that Constantine converted to Christianity in 312 (and before or after the battle is really a issue of complementing each other). I don't have English literature on this (or would have to dig) but any basic history book will tell you that. Please understand this, Joe.

KV, you are definitely overestimating the importance of Nicaea here. The events you mention created the US of A, while Nicaea did not create Christianity. The Christian equivalent would be Pentecost or, if you need a council, the Apostles' council. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The Constitution did not create the USA, it was only a major event. Technically, the Declaration of Independence created the USA. Nicaea was a widely important event. KV 17:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Appearently you don't know American history very well. The US was founded in 1787, with George Washington becoming President in 1789. In 1776 the 13 colonies declared their independence. They then had to defend this against the British in the war of Indepence, then they formed a confederacy, which however didn't work out very well. Hence they decided to create a better form of government, which they even said in the preamble of the US constitution.

No one denies that Nicaea was important. Just not as important as you make it out to be. And not the only event worth talking about. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm quite aware of history, I've taken American History no less than 6 times throughout my life, from 1st grade through my bachelor's degree. The Declaration of Independence was the founding document, the first time the name was used. In fact, http://www.gutenberg.org/files/16780/16780-h/16780-h.html shows the actual text of the document, entitled The Declaration of Independence Of the United States Of America, Yes, the term was used back in '76'. The government under the Articles of Confederation indeed failed, and a constitutional convention was created to fix a few bugs, and the delegates decided to start from scratch and feared Benjamin Franklin from getting too drunk and telling everyone their plans, and so had to be watched 24/7. The US however, was created by the Declaration of Independence.

And then, proving that I indeed know my allegorical historical references, a few sentences are needed on Nicaea, there is more than enough room.

KV 18:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

On section 7, here you are demanding that we accept your word, once again, over cited source (a well-accepted modern Catholic history is the citation we are using right now btw, I know you are Catholic). If you have a citation to support your views and numbers, we can talk. But I am not ripping out my statement because you feel you would like to do OR. (KV)

Best to leave it out alltogether. Again, if you had read the sources you would be familiar with the number 318. (STR)

I had read sources, I pulled it directly out of the sources. Nothing is harmed by mentioning the number, which the only source I have seen for it is you. KV 19:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

But we could say "220 or 250 or just 200 and traditionally 318 but some lists contains 360 (but also contain those bishops who signed only later)", giving an accurate assessment of the figures. Or we could leave it. BTW, "sources" also contain the contemporary records and histories, e.g. the Acts of Nicaea, Eusebius, Theoderet, Socrates Scholasticus, Sozomenus, Athanasius etc. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, find different sources and we can talk. But I'm not going to deny the truth in a statement because you say there is this disagreement. KV 17:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You are boring me to death. You have read three books, one of which being The Hiram Key, and now you think you know a lot. Well you don't. You should read one of the actual sources or some more serious historical works. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I have read many, many books on many subjects. But as far as Wikipedia is concerned, I have a reliable source, you have no source reliable or not. So either find a source or accept it.

KV 18:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

On section 8, I am fully willing to clarify as the Bishop of Rome or the Church of Rome. But I have a cited, verifiable, reputable source that disagrees with you. You want to downplay Nicaea which no source ever fully downplays, it was a huge historical moment for the Church. At that moment, representatives from all the Churches in the Roman world got together and discussed what is true and what is false, and came to defining definitions that made any dissenters officially heretics. This is verified. Once again I have to stress that your word is not better than two PhDs. (KV)

And once again I remind you of topicality and relevance. There are millions of referenced statements, but only a few are relevant,. (STR)

What is irrelevant? Rome took control of the entire Church for 700 years, and the entire western church for 1200 years after this event! It is highly relevant. KV 19:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that "Rome" assumed power at the council of Nicaea. You, mean "Rome" which was represented by two deacons. As much of a Papist I am I have to quote the Iron Lady: "No, No, No, No, No!" Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying anything. Two PhDs said that the other churches began to fully accept Rome as the greater Church. They hadnt' blindly obeyed Rome before Nicaea..... find another source if you disagree, your feelings don't count. KV 17:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

How can you say you're not saying anything without saying anything. Of course you are saying something, e.g. "Rome took control" and "it is highly relevant". Don't hide behind two poor scholars that cannot prevent your misusing them. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

They're not poor scholars, they're PhDs, which says loudly that they're not a poor scholars. You have given no sources, and just alude to other beliefs without telling us where they are. You cannot fight verifiable and reputable scholarship with hearsay and conjecture.

On section 9, I agree. I probably meant authoritatively. I'll check to make sure. (KV)

Please, reread my objection. (STR)

On section 10, anything may be understood in various ways..... it is clear and apparent in my mind that it is stating that after the first empire-wide council that they all had a sense that they were one Church for the most part. But feel free to elaborate on how it would be different. (KV)

The problem is that it implies that this feeling of unity was something new, when it wasn't. Don't bother me with the disputes, as they existed before and after 325. (STR)

The extent was certainly new. KV 19:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Certainly not. But who can argue with one who is that certain of things after having read two books? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have more information than that, but I used two books, which is two more than you have used. So, it is hard to argue with someone who cites PhDs without citing a thing.KV 17:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

On section 11, I added that Arius was present as an interesting fact, it can be removed if it causes that much trouble. But everything there is factually correct, and I have proven it with citations from a verifiable and reputable source. You have not proven your point to be factually correct at all. (KV)

Interesting but totally irrelevant to this overview article. Needless bloating. The bit about the heresies tackled "after" Arianism is factually incorrect. There's no denying it. Read the entries on the various heresies and learn. (STR)

It is not factually incorrect, you have done no proving of this. You cannot consider yourself the most authoritative source on this, do you have a master's in theology or history or theological history to argue yourself as a reputable source? We can let the Arius being there go, but the rest has to stay if you have no source to prove it wrong. KV 19:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not a theologian, I am a historian.

I am glad that you seem to agree about Arius, but let me restate the two reason for my stance: 1) unnecessary detail, 2) "despite" implies a contradiction where is none.

Now, to your heresy list I will reply in a parable:

"After the United States had vanquished both German Nazism and Japanes Imperialism, it turned to internal problems and outlawed slavery. The Southern States seceded and had to be reconquered in the Civil War. Reunited, the US broke away from their British motherland and extended its dominance in Latin America by kicking out Spain."

You see, all this information is accurate and could be referenced at any given time. However, the chronology is twisted. See:

Gnosticism thrived in the 2nd and 3rd centuries; Simon Magus was a contemporary of the Apostles; Marcionism Marcion was kicked out in Rome around 160, Ebionitism is one of these Jewish Christian sects, Montanism spread from 170 to 200. The some Gnostics, the Marcionites and the Ebionites were still around in the 4th century but their condemnation was long past. There were no Montanists around any more (as Apocalypse was supposed to have occured around 200) and Simonianism has more fame than substance. So if all these were past issues even before Arius first appeared, why place them after Arianism?

And, lest you forget, I am arguing for the removal of this heresy list but for its includsion in its proper place. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, make an alternate suggestion then. If we have to reorganize more than that paragraph, then so be it. Try to work with me here. KV 17:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

In the case of the heresy list the alternate suggestion is already there: in "my" version. The gist is that the list cannot be put after Nicaea or linked in such a way that suggest a temporal position after Nicaea. Is that really that hard to understand? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Show me how the text would work.

On section 12, that was there before I edited, and wasn't my actual addition. We can see who did add it so they can defend it. (KV)

Of course it was there before. I can tell you who added it: it was me. As I said, I don't object to the sentence (could you read my objections before replying?). I explained the original rationale behind that sentence, how it linked the issue of "theological disputes" to the issue of the "Constantinian turn" by fore-shadowing how the latter influenced the former. However, your integrating the sentence into "your" version renders it totally meaningless, as you have already talked about Constantine and Nicaea. (STR)

Joebeone.... not much of it is covered elsewhere, and it would be an indirect statement that I pointed out. Check the full paragraph, it is not about the same thing. I also argue under WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR that these policies overrule editor consensus as they clearly state, all three of which I have noted violations of, including Str's insistence that he need not get sources to define things, and that because it isn't what he knows, it is factually incorrect despite a verifiable source. As a mediator you should know this. I should also note that two separate editors have gone out of their way to voice themselves here in support of my version. Giovanni, and then Timothy Usher who is a mainstream Christian if I am right, and who usually is on the side of Str and the others in debates. I am not the only one who prefers my version, and I'm sure that I could find more with probing. This certainly is not a garden-variety dispute though, very rarely are there any such on that page. KV 00:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

KV, the essence of your version is either irrelevant or covered elsewhere. The exception is the treatment of Nicaea, where the dispute between me and you is first and foremost on whether to include only a reference to the article on the Council or to include a detailed narrative. I am open to be convinced but, please, let you arguments be good. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It most certainly is not covered elsewhere. The quote you took to show my information being elsewhere turned up to be a red herring. To have a few sentences in the main article on Nicaea is perfectly fine since it was such a major event in Christianity... it would be like only linking America's Constitutional Convention in it's history, or only linking the Camp David Accords in an article on Israeli-Palestinian Diplomacy. I am bending, but you are unwilling to bend in the least. This isn't going to work if only I am making concessions. KV 17:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I can help you two. I've tried to parse the facts and the rhetoric, but to no avail. I'm going to bring in another mediator who might know more about the topic at hand. In the end though, all we do is facilitate, you two will have to decide at what point a compromise can be reached. -- Joebeone (Talk) 18:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I had to go back to comment, I didn't realize Str intersparsed his comments. KV 19:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The main issue right now seems to be the organisation and structure of the text. KV's version seriously violates this and chronology of events. It also introduces a silly amount of details (220 bishops - despite various disagreement, the exact date of Nicaea) and irrelevant and even anachronistic stuff ("Rome" etc.) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The main issue is still you trying to censor what you do not want known about the Catholic Church, as you want to hide that Hitler was Catholic, or at least that it is often claimed. You have an agenda.

KV 17:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

So now we hit the ground with bad faith assumptions and your alignment with the smearing tactics of others. Disgusting. I defend historical truth over there and I do the same here (though, to say something positive: your version is at least not as far beyond the pale of reason than the stunt over at the Hitler page). I have an agenda? Yes, I do: protect historical accuracy, NPOV and the stylistic quality of this and other articles. Hugh I have spoken. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You are not defending historical truth, you have no sources whatsoever. I began with good faith, but your constant insistence that your word is better than verifiable scholars and your desire to censor everything which makes Christianity look imperfect, and even your claim that there was a NPOV problem when there was a relativist point of view, (i.e. one that treated all sides as equally valid).... which you stated on many separate occaisions on the Christianity talk page.... it all drove me away from seeing your edits as good faith attempts. You have been asked to make a compromise version, and you basically said that you wanted your original version, and that's it. You have offered no compromise. Why should I see you as acting in good faith when you have failed to compromise while I have offered numerous concessions. After so much to describe about your actions, I am in my full right to describe your actions as bad faith, with long term experience and specific examples, as long as I am commenting on your actions and not you yourself. Yes, you are trying to censor, you have a long history of this. KV 18:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Turn around is fair play, KV. You haven't provided an actual compromise version either, insisting on your disimprovement of the article, especially in regard to structure and language. Your proposal above is no compromise at all but your version all the way with a view pseudo-balancing phrases.

You also misrepresent my take on the "relativist POV", which is to treat all sides as equally true even if that means obscuring or denying historical reality

Also you have failed to reply to some of my objections or even flip-flopped on one (first the "churches" are denominatons, then they are local branches, then denominations again).

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I have made compromises, you have not. The compromise version is flawed, yes, I said it would be because I'm not sure how you would want to balance it out. I asked for you to word those balancing phrases, since you would know what you think they should be balanced with. Please try.

And I am in no way misrepresenting your comments on a relativist POV, because there are different views of the historical past, which must be treated neutrally. Wikipedia doesn't decide if Historian A is correct, or Historian B is. It mentions both if both are verified.

And where have I failed to comment to your objections? Show me. That's why I don't like interparsing in the first place, it's hard to see if you've answered everything, that's why I like long lists. And both of I did not use either of those words, and I do not see where I flip flopped, if you want to make that accusation, please point out where and how I flip-flopped.

KV 15:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

KV, unfortunately I cannot see where you made actual compromises. You have reposted your version intersparsed with a few "but some disagree". That's not a compromise at all.

Yes, you are misrepresenting my point. I don't disagree with what you wrote on this in your last point (assuming that the views in queston are seriously scholarly, so please no Hiram Key). What I objected to under the term "relativist POV" was PC opposition ot terms like heresy (which can and is used properly by historians) and a denial of actual decisions reached back than etc.

I meant reply or address. Of course, you have not failed to comment but how much did you address what I said? You ask where you flip-flopped. Look up my first objection (which is also an example of your failure to address my point): I said "churches" needs to be used cautiosly since it might denote "denomination" to the modern reader when there actually were, in our case, local churches (e.g. of Rome, of Alexandria, of Antioch ...). You answered this by disagreeing, by stating that there were denominations. I replied more fully, mentioning the only "sort of denominations" that existed in the day, to which you replied "There was the Church of Rome, the Church of Alexandria, the Church of Jerusalem, the Church of Constantiople, and so on", so local churches after all. What I said in the beginning but you disagreed.

One issue you have definitely failed to comment is the one about our "misunderstanding" (as I presume it is). Search for that word on this talk page and you will find it.Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I made many compromises,

1. On section 6, CE I feel is necessary, it is considered poltically correct, but I'm willing to let that go. I use CE, but if you want to use AD that's fine.

2. On section 8, I am fully willing to clarify as the Bishop of Rome or the Church of Rome

3. On section 11, I added that Arius was present as an interesting fact, it can be removed if it causes that much trouble

4. Well, make an alternate suggestion then. If we have to reorganize more than that paragraph, then so be it. Try to work with me here.

5. Show me how the text would work.

6. I should note that you continued debating me on points 6 and 11 after I conceded them for the sake of working with you.

None of this has been worked into a compromise discussion yet, sure. But I already wrote one, which I admitted I needed more information to work with to make. I have made many concessions, and you still have not made the compromise that you were asked to.

As for section 9, I suppose I did misread it..... I have a citation for that, from a reputable source. You have the burden of evidence now.

You also misrepresent my take on the "relativist POV", which is to treat all sides as equally true even if that means obscuring or denying historical reality

How exactly am I misrepresenting your point, I am perfectly representing what you said. Explain how it is obscuring or denying historical reality, if it doesn't mean that it isn't taking your side.

You are taking the church issue out of context to conote "flip-flopping". You asked me which denominations I was talking about, you replied that there were many sects, and I was pointing out that beyond those sects, there were great variations within the Catholic Church as well, if it was already called that, you noted that there was internal strife. Yes, that's my point. Where did I even say they were separate churches?! How would you reword it to make it better? I'd like to actually see something.

KV 03:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me first address alleged compromises:

1. Is no compromise at all. Wiki-rules require you to use AD.

2. Is no real compromise as it is only removing the most blatant weakness. I will not accept any version of this anachronistic sentence.

3. I grant you that you withdrew this detail.

4., 5. I don't think "calling for me to compromise" equals "providing a compromise version". I have done as much myself.

6. It didn't seem like you were conceding these points to me. If you do so, good.

However, the big compromise version you posted (and I was referring to that) I cannot see as a real compromise version. At best it's calling for a compromise.

I am not completely sure what point 9 you are talking about. Judging on the above I think it is Constantine and "authoritatively": I have said repeatedly that the problem is the wrong word "authoritatively" means "with authority" and not "in an authoritarian manner". Constantine had neither intellectual nor spiritual authority in this matter. Regarding the sentence on the whole: I never objected to it and in fact included the info into "my" version - only it went into the next paragraph where it is better suited. Ah, and I didn't mention Constantine by name, as his son Constantius did far worse in this regard. Also, Emperors Valens, Theodosius II, Marcian, Zeno, Justinian, Heraclius etc. did the same.

Yes, you were misrepresenting me, but maybe excusably, as you were only echoing Gio. I objected to avoidance of the two terms Orthodoxy and Heresy for the sake of obscuring decisions that were taken then. No more, no less. Using these terms, if with caution, is not taking sides.

Re the flip-flop. Please express yourself clearly next time and say what you are talking about from the beginning. You again misrepresent me - I didn't say there were many sects. I said that there were a few groupings comparable to the modern phenomenon of denominations and I listed them all. That is one kind of diversity - another kind is the different local branches that however are not theologically opposed to each other. (And before you ask: mentioning the churches in this context implies this, as this section is about dispute and heresy). The two should not be mixed. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, and please could you finally comment on whether I am right in assuming a misunderstanting (search this page for that word) or not. A simple answer might suffice. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The following is a suggested preliminary compromise version, based on "my" structure:

(1. Christianity began within the Jewish religion among the followers of Jesus of Nazareth. Under the leadership of the Apostles Peter and Paul, it welcomed Gentiles, and gradually separated from Pharisaic Judaism. Some Jewish Christians rejected this approach and developed into various sects of their own, while others were joined with Gentile Christians in the development of the church; within both groups there existed great diversity of belief. Professor Bentley Layton writes, "the lack of uniformity in ancient Christian scripture in the early period is very striking, and it points to the substantial diversity within the Christian religion." A church hierarchy seems to have developed by the time of the Pastoral Epistles (1 Tim 3, Titus 1) and was certainly formalized by the 4th century ^[24].)

...

3. Theological diversity led to disputes about the correct interpretation of Christian teaching and to conflict within and between the local churches. Church authorities (bishops and local synods) condemned some theologians as heretics and defined orthodoxy (Greek: the right view)' in contrast to heresy (wrong views). The most notable heretics were Christian Gnostics. Other early sects deemed heretical included Marcionism, Ebionitism and Montanism. Such disputes, especially in the field of Christology, intensified after the religion's legalization, leading to internal strife and to clearer dogmatic definitions through ecumenical councils, beginning with the Council of Nicaea in 325. (The last sentence about the Council may be expanded.)

(4. Early in the 4th century, the Emperor Constantine the Great legalized Christianity, giving the church a privileged place in society, and in 391 Theodosius I established Nicene Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire. From Constantine onwards, the history of Christianity becomes difficult to untangle from the history of Europe (see also Christendom). The Church took over many of the political and cultural roles of the pagan Roman institutions, especially in Europe. The Emperors, seeking unity through the new religion, frequently took part in Church matters, sometimes in concord with the bishops but also against them. Imperial authorities acted to suppress the old pagan cults and groups deemed heretical by the Church, most notably, Arians. The Catholic Encyclopedia notes that "various penal laws were enacted by the Christian emperors against heretics as being guilty of crime against the State. In both the Theodosian and Justinian codes they were styled infamous persons ... In some particularly aggravated cases sentence of death was pronounced upon heretics, though seldom executed in the time of the Christian emperors of Rome." [4])

The bolded parts are the ones I deem important for our attempt at a compromise. The bit about Constantine and others' interference is in the the fourth paragraph as it fits there better. Take care about the time overlap between the end of the 3rd paragraph and the start of the 4th paragraph.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I apologize; I've been away on business for a week and unable to participate. I've mirrored this compromise offer above in the compromise offers section. KV, it would be great to get your feedback on this compromise offer (please comment on it in the compromise offer section as this section is getting gigantic). -- Joebeone (Talk) 15:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some Replies

As I was asked, let me state:

• I am not unwilling to make any compromises. However, I want to make the best of the article/section, hence my concerns for structure. See my proposal above.
• When I used the term "weasel" I did in no way intend to hurt or attack KV. I merely tried describe the recurring phenomenon in his compromise text, e.g. "However, some believe that Christianity was always the same^{[citation needed]}" (which is problematic for more than one reason). So, while I stick by my analysis I do apologize for hurting KV by my wording.
• Finally, Yes, I think that KV in good faith believes in his material points, but I am afraid he is making things to easy for him. Considering the Hiram Key as reference didn't help his credibility in my book.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

One more thing:

"He also makes false claims about policy, as he did in saying that I'm required to use AD by wikipedia policy ..."

It is WP policy that both styles are acceptable and none is POV. However, to avoid senseless edit wars over dating styles, WP rules state that the one originally chosen for an article should be retained, unless there is really convincing reason to change it, see Wikipedia:Dates#Eras. This article is an "AD article" and since it is about Christianity there is not reason to avoid AD either. KV's insistence on CE early on did indeed sour the atmosphere. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Additional Sources

As we find more sources, let's put the information here so we can draw a conclusion. For copyright reasons, we can delete them after mediation is finished. (though this easily falls under fair use, using only the pertinent parts and for shared discussion in the creation of a new work).

[edit] Collier's Encyclopedia

Latourette, Kenneth Scott. "Christianity" incl. in Collier's Encyclopedia - 6: Charny to Colonie. New York: Macmillan Educational Company, 1990.

"In the Greek word Logos, which had wide currency in contemporary philosophy and which is loosely translated as "word," they found a term which seemed to be usable, and they sought to give it a content which would be consistent with what they believed about Christ. But thought became known as Arianism from a leading exponent, Arius (256-336), a priest in the church of Alexandria. Arianism held that the Father had created the Son and that there had been a time when the Son had not existed, and that he was the subordinate to the Father. So acute did the controversy become that Constantine feared that the division within the Church might jeopardize the uneasy unity of the Empire which he had achieved. To resolve the issue, he called a council of hte Church in 325 at Nicaea, not far from Constantinople. It became the first of what the Christian Church has regarded as "ecumenical councils," that is, representative of the entire chruch. After a stormy debate it condemned Arianism. The creed which is today called Nicene embodies the findings of the council." ... "Arianism, however, continued to be influential for several denturies; it was endorsed by some later emerors and was the form of Christianity to which several of the Germanic peoples were converted." (p. 396)

"The Catholic Church was organized by 'dioceses,' a name derived from territorial divisions of the state. At the head of each diocese was a bishop, and the bishops of the larger cities were looked upon as leaders of the Church." (pp. 394-5)

"During the second century there was a strong possibility that Gnosticism would triumph over Christianity. Gnosticism was a highly diverse religious and philosophical movement which was widespread in the Mediterranean wourld into which Christianity came. It emphasized a sharp contrast between spirit, which it regarded as good, and matter, which it declared to be evil. This evil matter had one of its manifestations in the human body. Gnosticism taught salvation is emancipation from the flesh into the realm of pure spirit. Some Gnostics sought to fit Christ into their systems, but in so doing gave him a subordinate place and seemed to deny that he had ever had historical existence." (p. 395)

"To counter this and other variants, the Catholic Church employed three principle deices to ensure the conservation of the faith in its original purity. The first was the doctrine of "apostolic succession"... "The Catholic church sought to determine, therefore, which lines of bishops could be traced to the Apostles"... "A second device was to determine which writings transmitted the teachings of the Apostles." ... "A third device was to embody in a creed what was believed to be the essence of the Gospel, the most widely used being that known as hte Apostles' Creed." (p. 395)

[edit] Str's Wikibreak

Special:Contributions/Str1977 would be his contributions

Though we think he is on Wikibreak, he has been active since. On the 23rd, you told me he was on Wikibreak. Indeed, he said so [5]. On the 24th, he indeed didnt' post a thing. On the 25th, he fittingly made 25 edits. He made another edit on the 26th. Officially, he came off wikibreak on the 25th, [6] He has only made three edits on this page (one which he deleted), and the others who were involved (namely the administrator, AnnH, and Myopic Bookworm who commented on the current version not being up to par) have not made a showing at all despite me publicly announcing it.

This issue has been discussed heavily on Christianity over the past 2 months, and giovanni says he had this discussion before, (perhaps before I stumbled on the Christianity page). There was a willingness for them to revert my latest version, because they disagreed with it. So, I brought this to mediation, especially since it did not seem we would be coming to an agreement anytime soon. Yet, they have made very little effort to discuss this in mediation, even though there was tons of rapid discussion when it was on the talk page. I am beginning to feel that they don't want to discuss it where they cannot simply use numbers and administrator power to force their view a majority of the time. They desperately wanted to push their view for this paragraph.

From WP:NPOV#ReligionMany adherents of a religion will object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith, claiming that this somehow discriminates against their religious beliefs. They would prefer that the articles describe their faith as they see it, which is often from a non-historical perspective (e.g. the way things are is the way things have always been; any differences are from heretical sects that don't represent the real religion.)

I feel like the second thta they couldn't simply revert, call cited facts to be false because they just don't disagree with them, they just wanted to back out. And I also feel that the second that this dies down, and this mediation is forgotten, they will go back to trying to revert it. The second I mentioned dispute resolution, Myopic Bookworm and AnnH jumped in to back the old version, as if to hide the issue from the general public. We had two statements:

"I agree with Str. The previous version was hammered out by a number of people with quite different approaches, and although not entirely agreed, at least made sense and gave accurate facts. The present text looks as though it has been written by one person who can't spell very well and has just read a very general college history book. While some further discussion may be needed, I don't see why such a relatively superficial piece of writing should stand in the article meanwhile. Myopic Bookworm 12:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)"

"I fully agree with Str and Bookworm, and I regret that I have been so busy in the last few days that I didn't get more involved in this. AnnH ♫ 12:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)"

Neither of the two have bothered to actually comment on the mediation, though AnnH decided to revert my version, accusing it of being nonencylopedic. [7] It seems odd that there was so much insistence upon their version, and now no one wants to comment and participate at all. If there is anything, Joebeone, that you can do to get them to actually participate and help us work out an actual compromise (me working by myself isn't going to be very effective, and so far the compromise has violated three of their strongest points AGAINST my version. It's not reputable enough (missing citations), it's too long (we made it longer), and weasel words (which we use)) please do that.

KV 17:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Mediation only works if everyone wants an impartial mediator to walk them through the issues that are causing the dispute. If Str doesn't contribute, then there's nothing I can do to to make him or her come here and participate. You might try getting a third opinion (WP:3O). -- Joebeone (Talk) 20:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking more along the lines of arbitration if anything is changed after this dies out. Mediation is a step before arbitration for a reason.

KV 21:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

There are other steps before arbitration for a reason... as there is not really a discernible dispute here that hinges on Wikipedia policy (to my eyes), I would think arbitration would be hard to get. If anything, it appears that some stuff is citeable, and some is not and one party only wants part of that material (the unciteable, at that) up on the article page. -- Joebeone (Talk) 21:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we cannot force these people into mediation, but their very refusal shows bad faith and undermines any claim they might have to working towards a consensus. In the end, this may become a matter of 3RR violation enforcement. Al 00:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I am surprised at the immediate assumption of bad faith. I was ony wiki-break for two days until Ascension Day. Then I had to catch up reading Wiki discussions (this is not the only one) and posted one by one. I couldn't get on-line during the weekend but I immediately commented today. It is not as if the end of the world is at end (and if it were, I wouldn't bother commenting here). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notes

1. ^ (Cannistraro and Reich p. 217)
   
2. ^ (Cannistraro and Reich p. 219)
   
3. ^ (Bokkenkotter p. 41)
   
4. ^ (Cannistraro and Reich p. 218)
   
5. ^ (Cannistraro and Reich pp. 220-1)
   
6. ^ (Cannistraro and Reich p. 241)
   
7. ^ Cannistraro and Reich, p. 217
   
8. ^ Cannistraro and Reich, p. 219
   
9. ^ Cannistraro and Reich p. 241; Bokkenkotter p. 41
   
10. ^ (Cannistraro and Reich p. 217)
    
11. ^ (Cannistraro and Reich p. 219)
    
12. ^ (Bokkenkotter p. 41)
    
13. ^ (Cannistraro and Reich p. 218)
    
14. ^ (Cannistraro and Reich pp. 220-1)
    
15. ^ (Cannistraro and Reich p. 241)
    
16. ^ See the canons of the Council of Nicaea, especially canon 6.
17. ^ (Cannistraro and Reich p. 217)
    
18. ^ (Cannistraro and Reich p. 219)
    
19. ^ (Bokkenkotter p. 41)
    
20. ^ (Cannistraro and Reich p. 218)
    
21. ^ (Cannistraro and Reich pp. 220-1)
    
22. ^ (Cannistraro and Reich p. 241)
    
23. ^ See the canons of the Council of Nicaea, especially canon 6.
24. ^ See the canons of the Council of Nicaea, especially canon 6.