Talk:Second Council of Ephesus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This page is within the scope of WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on the Oriental Orthodox Church on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] POV title

Astonishingly "POV" title! --Wetman 21:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

So I moved it --Henrygb 22:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Astonishingly "POV" article

[edit] Neutrality?

Uses only Catholic/Western sources. Could benefit from use of Orthodox/Eastern sources for a more balanced perspective. Haphazardmind 21:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a pretty vague ground for tagging the whole article as disputed. The policy for adding the "disputed" tag states

The above label is meant to indicate that a discussion is ongoing, and hence that the article contents are disputed and volatile. If you add the above code to an article which seems to be biased to you, but there is no prior discussion of the bias, you need to at least leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article. The note should address the problem with enough specificity to allow constructive discussion towards a resolution, such as identifying specific passages, elements, or phrasings that are problematic.

Here I see no dispute. You have an idea for making the article better; that's great. If you get a chance, go ahead and do it. I don't see a dispute. So, removing the tag. Mrhsj 17:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

-I actually agree that it is a huge problem to use the Catholic Encyclopedia as your only source. Only a non-scholar or Catholic would not see this problem (think - it has an inherent bias built in AND its pretty dated "scholarship"). It may be vague (a better criticism would be general), but it is far from unfounded. There must be hundreds of scholarly, peer-reviewed articles on this council or at least thousands on the history, dogma, and culture of the early Christian Church. I mean, what if we asked a 16th century pope for his opinion on Martin Luther? These early councils had huge ramifications that continue to resonate today, and they should be described and analyzed in "objective" terms for an encyclopedia. 24.179.180.180 21:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)lostinminnesota

I'm well aware of the problems of relying on Catholic Encyclopedia (and can do without the ad hominem criticism). In fact one of my very first substantial wikipedia edits was a rewrite of a very biased article from the same source. But that has nothing to do with the "disputed" tag. This article simply is not "disputed" according to the Wikipedia policy cited above. Mrhsj 21:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

That was quite a good point, though. The perspective is far too unbalanced. It should use other sources too. May be it requires a source with a Coptic (Oriental Orthodox) P.O.V. to balance with the Catholic opinion to get both sides of the story?

I agree entirely. As a Copt, I can certainly tell that this article is completely biased (and that is not fit for an encyclopedia as it is against the rules). Mhrjs said that Wikipedia says specifically "'you need to at least leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article'". Even if there wasn't a dispute beforehand (which there wasn't), the "note" explained that there is too much bias. If you want to make a Coptic, Greek, or Catholic POV, fine. But if it's neutral, then it has to have different viewpoints. So, putting the tag up on where it belongs...--~ Troy 17:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

There is still is no DISPUTE. If you think there is, please show where any editor has denied that the article has a POV problem, or reverted an attempt to fix a POV problem. What we have here is not a dispute, but a case of "everyone thinks the article is biased but no one wants to do anything about it." There doesn't seem to be a standard template for that, so I'm putting some others in that point at the problem. Mrhsj 18:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trying to fix neutrality

I made an edit that removes some (but not all) of the obviously biased phraseology. I attempted to not alter the factual content; I am not competent to judge the factual accuracy here. Take a look. Mrhsj 21:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Mrhjs, that does help. Now that we have the proper tags for this article, I think we can say that what we need now is the proper sources. I'm not one at finding sources, but I do have 1. Look at this page [1] (Coptic History Section). I don't really know how to incorporate this view-point into the article, but I think it might be useful. ~ Troy 19:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I have plenty of more links that may also shed some light on the Oriental Orthodox POV right here. Its more about the OO POV on Dioscorus rather than the OO POV council itself — but I think you will find it useful. Again, it's going to take a lot of work if you plan on merging it with the current article view-points for it to be neutral. Even so, it can be useful. If you have read any of these links, feel free to give me any suggestions. ~ Troy 15:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)