Talk:Christianity as the Roman state religion/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Proposal: Stick to sources

Folks,

We have strayed very far from Wikipedia's policies for dispute resolution. I propose that we go in the opposite direction. Let's stick to sources. If you have a dispute on a citation/source please state the source. If a particular statement in the article needs an immediate citation please mark it. If there is evidence in reliable sources of a scholarly consensus against a particular premise in the article please provide them. But there is no value in continuing to debate the truth.

--Mcorazao (talk) 15:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you would indicate what sources there are for the claim in your article that the church in Rome, on becoming free of the civil power of the Constantinopolitan emperor, was still part of that emperor's state church; that in the west, for centuries after it had ceased to be part of the emperor's domains, its "only" link with Roman culture and civilization was the "imperial church", that for the much more limited church that was in fact connected with the emperor in Constantinople the contentious names of "state church of the Roman Empire" and "Roman imperial church" (or, worse still, "Roman Imperial Church") are more suitable than, say, "Byzantine imperial church". Esoglou (talk) 16:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

First, I think we focusing way too much on the partriarchate of Rome. Even if we were to say that Rome was officially removed from the Empire in 476 it would not invalidate the article as a whole. Rome did not by itself define the state's church (though it claimed to do so). Second, you need to clarify what you mean by "free of the civil power of the Constantinopolitan emperor". That is a complicated topic.

Nevertheless let me look up some references that perhaps might help.

--Mcorazao (talk) 16:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is one source that may be helpful:

• Nichols, Aidan; Nichols, Op. Rome and the Eastern Churches. pp. 211–212.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) ([1])

It discusses Justinian's designations of roles in the imperial church among Rome and Constinople in the 6th century.

--Mcorazao (talk) 17:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

But of course the church in Rome was under Justinian's thumb, although not as firmly as was the church in Constantinople (with its bishop whom some have likened to a court bishop). I would say that it already had the exercise of considerable freedom when its bishops felt they no longer needed to get the Byzantine emperor's approval of their election, and that it was certainly free when the Ravenna exarchate came to an end in the middle of the eighth century. And of course it made its independence of the Byzantine Empire quite clear with the coronation of Charlemagne on almost the very last day of that century. It didn't have to wait for the East-West Schism or anywhere near it to cease to be part of the Byzantine imperial church. Esoglou (talk) 17:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

What is your point? Is anybody disagreeing with your facts? --Mcorazao (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

My point is that your article that purports to be about that state church devotes one of its longest sections to an account of the western church in the period when it was certainly not part of that state church, that it uses "Roman Church" as a name for the state church, thus making the state church and the Church of Rome synonymous, that it uses "Roman Church" for the state church in the context of the threat that Islam would "eventually" be for what appears to be the state church, in other words that it fails to recognize that the church outside the state was not the state church. It is not I who am giving excessive attention to what you call the Roman patriarchate: it is the article that is treating the church in the west (and not only in Rome) as part of the Byzantine imperial church, when it no longer was part of it. Esoglou (talk) 18:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The article does not devote any section to the western church. I assume your concern is the section that addresses Charlemagne's ascension. It discusses almost nothing after Rome re-aligned itself under the Frankish empire. In any event, if the discussion on Charlemagne is too detailed it can be abbreviated (certainly not the most important part of the article).

Regarding the naming ... you're making excuses. If you have a concern about using the abbreviated phrase Roman church that can certainly be changed. I don't know what to say about Islam. The Muslim rulers took over half the empire and the Romans rapidly converted to Islam (both orthodox and non-orthodox).

You have not explained your original point. You are diverging onto nitpicks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 18:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The long section to which you refer deals with Rome's "realignment" at the very start, and from then on, in my understanding, says quite a lot about the western church, in particular about Charlemagne's forcible conversion of Frankish subjects (from Arianism and paganism - you surely didn't want to insinuate that it was from the Byzantine imperial church that he forced them to convert). Unless you consider the Christians of the west as in some way still part of the imperial church, it makes little sense to discuss that matter in an article on that church. I notice now that in that section you have used "Roman Church" in its normal sense, as a reference to the Church of Rome, although elsewhere you do use "Roman Church" to mean instead the imperial church. You seem attached to that identification of "Roman Church" with "imperial church": immediately above here you use "the Romans" in a sense in which few would use the word in the age we are living in: there you have said that "the Romans" rapidly converted to Islam. It is certainly not the general usage today to speak of the inhabitants of Egypt and Syria of that period as "Romans", whatever may have been the usage at that time. In the article too, you have also put "East Romans" into the section about developments in the west after what you call the alignment of the church in Rome with the Franks. "East Romans", though insisted on by a very few Eastern Orthodox writers, is certainly not general usage today, and I doubt if it was usage even then. Your attachment to using "Roman" in this unusual sense may explain your insistence on "Roman Empire" rather than "Byzantine Empire". Esoglou (talk) 19:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome is the proper place for the debates you are getting at. --Mcorazao (talk) 20:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Firstly they do not deal with the period he is talking about at all, and secondly this is indeed one of the key issues with the article. You will really struggle to reference usage of the term "Romans" for 7th century Copt or Anatolian populations! Johnbod (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

And this is the proper place for the debate that is unfortunately being avoided on the choice of an unambiguous and POV-free title for the article. Esoglou (talk) 20:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle Ages is another page that may be appropriate to discuss. --Mcorazao (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Guys, guys! We are the ones pushing an agenda. We are being unreasonable. All of our disagreements on this topic are wholly due to our inability to understand basic concepts, or to use words such as "Roman" properly. This is not the place to debate the merits of this article, especially the name. Furthermore, if we would only agree that we are wrong, then all of our cognitive defects would be resolved. In any case, we have no basis for argument whatever, we are all exceptionally ignorant of the topic which has been masterfully propounded here to the point of eclipsing all debate. In fact, the fact of our debate or criticism only proves our error. Really the only way to move forward is to take whatever misgivings or doubts we have remaining (though they have been refuted point by point) and move them to another, more appropriate location. In fact, I insist upon it. Revcasy (talk) 21:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I am voluntarily striking the above comments in the interest of civility. My frustration got the better of me, my apologies. Revcasy (talk) 23:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The burden of proof in an AfD lies upon those wishing to delete. I repeat. The burden of proof in an AfD lies upon those wishing to delete. Mcorazao had no burden to prove his case. The article was not shown to be unnotable, unreferenced, actually redundant or actually biased. The reasons offered for deletion ranged from disappointment wit the lack of respect one editor showed for another editor's personal opinions, to the shocking assertion that one editor might be an E-vil-gelical Protestant, to the fact that its name had been changed after a consensus was reached to do so, to unspecified accusations of POV, to the wish that there existed an article with a different title and a different subject matter, namely, a different article. None of this carries any weight, rail at the injustice of this as we may.μηδείς (talk) 22:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The debate is not over yet! This summary is a pure nonsense, as anyone whoi reads the Afd nom & debate can see. Johnbod (talk) 22:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• Teja (2006) is used in the very first reference to support the statement, "The Imperial Church continued until its devolution into its successor churches in the early Middle Ages." I have just read this paper and it says no such thing. The translated title is The Imperial Church: Constantine's myth and the Roman papacy. The thrust of the article is that the eastern and western churches used the myth of Constantine's conversion in different ways in an attempt to take upon themselves imperial power and legitimacy. It does not really deal with the question of the relationship between state and church, and certainly does not say that the "imperial church" as defined by this article lasted into the early Middle Ages, as the article claims. Revcasy (talk) 01:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Teja does not support that particular statement. The lead has gotten reworked a few different times and the references have not gotten reworked accordingly. Teja backs up the fact that there was a recognized imperial church. The work overall discusses some interesting controversy regarding the imperial church including power plays and how much power the church really had in the empire. At the moment the article doesn't try to delve into all of those deeper controversies.

--Mcorazao (talk) 03:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Teja does back up the fact that there was a recognized imperial church under Constantine, to be clear. But I don't think the word "imperial" in the title is meant in that way. One key sentence, "Al finales de siglo IV, especialmente al partir del papa Damaso (366-384), los obispos de Roma, que gracias a los privilegos constantinianos concedidos a la iglesia aparecian a los ojos de muchos como artistocratos romanos, comienzan a mostrar sus aspiraciones a convertirse tambien en la maxima autoridad religiosa, en cuanto herederos de los emperadores romanos, aprovechando del vacio dejado por la debilidad y posterior disaparicion del poder politico imperial." (At the end of the 4th century, especially on the part of the Pope Damascus (366-384), the archbishops of Rome, who thanks to the constantinian privileges conceded to the church appear to the eyes of many as Roman aristocrats, begin to show their aspirations to become the highest religious authority as well, inasmuch as they were heirs to the Roman emperors, taking advantage of the vacuum left by the weakness and later disappearance of imperial political power.) I believe the author means the "imperial" of the title not as "official church of the empire" but as "having the power and majesty appropriate to an emperor", i.e. the church and the popes were taking on the characteristics of the emperors. FWIW. Revcasy (talk) 12:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is some truth in which you are saying but ultimately you are reaching to try to put words in Teja's mouth (ultimately one cannot know what he really thinks but I'm simply saying the text does not really lead to the conclusion you are implying). Certainly it is true that many church leaders tried to inflate the perceived power and prestige of the church, or their part of it, by twisting history to their purposes, which is what he is discussing. Teja does not say that the church was not recognized by the state, only that as power vacuums emerged the church amended the history of its role in the state to legitimize its filling the void. To me one interesting aspect of this topic (which this article does not really go into in depth) is the degree to which it could be debated what the official church was at any point in time (just as discussing who was really the emperor or who was really a Roman citizen at any point and time could be fuzzy). In mathematical terms one could say the imperial church had somewhat of a probability distribution. At many points there wasn't any single definition that could be said to define it well in all contexts. There were simply people and congregations that were more definitively part of the imperial church (e.g. the churchs and bishops the emperors dealt with, funded, etc.) and parts that were less definitively part of the church (e.g. Roman congregations that did not receive funding or influence but claimed communion with the emperor's church), depending on what aspect you were looking at. --Mcorazao (talk) 22:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

If the article simply made it explicit that it was presenting the view that you just stated, all of my objections would be gone. Revcasy (talk) 00:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Same here, just about (although I'm pretty sure the "probability distribution" is close to zero for Charlemagne). My motivation for suggesting a name change was to bring the article closer to the view that you just stated. -- Radagast3 (talk) 04:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

So be clear that it is not clear? :-) It is difficult to say such things in an NPOV way. Probably the best thing that could be done in that regard would be to find a quote from a notable author that says such a thing (that may be extremely difficult to find). --Mcorazao (talk) 15:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The article seems to have widespread WP:SYNTH problems, taking sources that apply to Constantine's time, or to the Byzantine Empire, and applying them to an imaginary unified "State Church." -- Radagast3 (talk) 03:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

More vague, inspecific statements. There is no point in trying to address "widespread" issues. The only way to make progress is to take issues one at a time based on the sources. But that even presumes that all parties are willing to actually read the sources in an honest fashion. --Mcorazao (talk) 03:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I've asked a lot of specific questions, here and on the AfD page. -- Radagast3 (talk) 08:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Restart

Folks, now that we are past the Afd I would like to see the article move forward. Unfortunately we seem to be all over the place as far as opinions on how to do that. I am hesitant about editing at this point, even adding more references, since there is so much disagreement as to the basic content.

If anybody has any thoughts as to a good way to proceed, please feel free to share. I am honestly disheartened by the acrimony even though it does not surprise me (taking a line from a West Wing episode "Is it possible to be shocked and yet not be surprised?").

--Mcorazao (talk) 15:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Apostolic succession of church from church

I have moved the following from the article page, because of its length. I did not mean to start a discussion there but to draw attention to what I (wrongly?) thought was in clear need of correction. The statement questioned was "the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church both view themselves as its apostolic successors", where "its" referred to "the state church of the Roman Empire".

(Esoglou:) Maybe they do make that claim, but I can think of no document of the RCC that voices a claim that the RCC is the "apostolic successor" (whatever that means) of a state church of the Roman Empire rather than of the church that existed before ever the Roman Empire gave support to any church. Doesn't "apostolic succession" mean succession of bishops from the apostles, not that they or the church they belong to are successors of some state church?

Medeis:The objection indicates an ignorance of the meaning of succession. Oxford: "a number of people or things sharing a specified characteristic and following one after the other." It is not a question of succession from the state church rather than from some other church but merely a recognition that under the Edict of Thessalonica, the bishops of Rome and Alexandria, who are, according to the Church, part of the apostolic succession, were established as the authorities of the state church. The objection here amounts to a willful ignorance of what apostolic succession is and an intentional misreading of the claim as if it were being said that the fact that the church was established somehow accomplished the succession, rather than what the claim does mean, simply that the bishops of Rome and Alexandria, who were in the apostolic succession, were also at some point established by the empire. To ask for a ~document~ of succession is patently absurd. Succession is achieved by the direct laying on of hands in the sacrament of Holy Orders, not by some bureaucratic issuance of paperwork. - Medeis}}

It still seems to me that the statement in the article needs to be modified. The statement is not satisfied with saying that the RCC and the EOC each views itself as the successor of the state church of the Roman Empire (although that is questionable in the case of the RCC, which was already clearly distinct from that state church while the state church (at least in one interpretation of "Roman Empire") was still in existence): it says they both claim to be the apostolic successors of the state church of the Roman Empire. Medeis has tried to explain what one church being the apostolic successor of another church means. I am sorry that I fail to understand the explanation. I am certainly not asking for a "document of succession", only for a citation from a reliable source, that RRC and EOC claim to be the apostolic successors of the state church of the Roman Empire. Perhaps Medeis is saying that the Pope of Rome claims apostolic succession from Saint Peter through the Bishop of Rome mentioned in the Edict of Thessalonica. True, but it seems a rather contorted argument - and and Original-Research one as well - to say that therefore the RCC claims to be a/the apostolic successor of the state church of the Roman Empire. And it is even more contorted to argue that the EOC (rather than, say, the Coptic Church) claims to be a/the apostolic successor of the state church of the Roman Empire, on the basis that the Edict of Thessalonica mentions as the official religion of the empire the religion of one particular Bishop of Alexandria (not Constantinople). What we need is a reliable source that says that RCC and EOC both claim to be apostolic successors of the state church of the Roman Empire. (By the way, the edict did not attribute any particular position in the official religion of the state to the successors of the two bishops it mentioned.) Esoglou (talk) 17:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

First, agreed that more citations are needed in general. Also I have no objection to trying to find better phrasing. Let me respond, though, more specifically in two ways:

• The original intent of the statement was that the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church both see the Church sanctioned by the Empire as being one and the same as that established by Christ and/or the Apostles (depending on how you read the statements). And as such they see themselves as a continuation of that same Church. That was the basic idea.
• We need to be careful about trying to be so precise in every detail that we dilute the meaning or comprehensibility of the article (a common problem when discussing historical issues). We need to recognize that ultimately even if the article were 1000 pages long there would still be details that were arguably distorted because the article did not fully describe them. Ultimately the goal should be to make the article as generally reflective of scholarly conensus as possible in a comprehensible way, accepting that this means that some things are a little vague or open to some interpretation simply because we cannot go into all the details.

--Mcorazao (talk) 16:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Will you yourself arrange the better phrasing? If the idea is that of a church claiming to be the continuation of an earlier form of the same church, that should be easy to express. Insisting on saying instead that a church claims to be the apostolic successor of a church distinct from itself seems to diminish seriously the comprehensibility of the article, as well as reflecting no scholarly consensus. Esoglou (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The whole lead needs to be rewritten. Medeis and I had a disagreement about some aspects of that which is part of the reason I had dragged my feet on doing any rewriting. Let me start a new section discussing how to rewrite the lead (this issue is a sub-topic of that larger issue). --Mcorazao (talk) 15:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree on the need for a general rewrite of the lead. As is obvious from the tags that have been added, this "apostolic successor" idea is only one of the problems. Esoglou (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Badly composed refs

This is pretty bad, but the article is only a month old and is full of malformed and basically useless refs, many are just a name and a year and sometimes a page number, but provide no other information. I've seen this ref style on old Nupedia articles, but this style shouldn't be being used in new articles. They either need to be fixed, by including title, publisher, hopefully quotes, or removed. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Kendrick7, please educate yourself regarding referencing standards for Wikipedia. Though there are a one or two references that are problematic all of the rest conform to Wikipedia standards. --Mcorazao (talk) 21:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

No, there are 22 refs that are merely last names, years, and page numbers. Why did whoever wrote this article leave out the actual titles of the works? -- Kendrick7^talk 22:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not my job to educate you on Wikipedia standards and this is not the place for it. Please do your homework. If you disagree with the standards propose changes on the policy pages but this is not the place for that discussion. --Mcorazao (talk) 04:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

No, no. You've been with the project for a whole 11 months, while I've been with it for far, far longer, so, right you are, it clearly isn't your job to educate me. I am the one trying to educate you. I am quite happy to mention this discussion over at the references standards page, and will do so expediently! -- Kendrick7^talk 04:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I have to admit I was dumbfounded when refs I added (which may have been sloppy, but had the title and even a link to the relevant quote at google books) were edited down to a mere page number and last name sans link or even title. There is a bizarre minimalist aesthetic here that overrides everything, including facts, links and any concrete details. This is an encyclopedia, with its own comprehensize and utilitarian goals, not a personal essay where aesthetics takes the lead.μηδείς (talk) 05:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I fear that this discussion has grown somewhat heated. I suggest that we leave it until we have decided on the text of the lead. We are much more likely to make progress if we concentrate on the least possible number of points at the same time. The part of the lead under discussion at the moment is the third paragraph. Esoglou (talk) 06:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It's been commented on over at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources, but it's definitely worth repeating here. Last name, year and page number is a standard way of referencing works among academics for something like a century. It's neither bizarre nor minimalist, but exactly what's needed to identify a specific reference. It's also a lot easier to read than numerous repetitions of full refs.

As for our own practices, shortened notes has been used in two of the last four featured articles (including today's) and has been in our reference repertoire for as long as I've been editing (early 2005). It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Peter. This discussion is closed. We follow Wikipedia standards, period. This talk page is not the place to debate those standards. --Mcorazao (talk) 14:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Peter, you mean they don't mention the title of the work anywhere in the article at all? -- Kendrick7^talk 18:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh nevermind. I didn't realize the titles appear further down in the external references section. I admit I've never seen it done that way, but that's perfectly acceptable. Sorry for my confusion! -- Kendrick7^talk 18:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

This article is about . . .

Kendrick7 could you explain in more detail the reason for you recent edit to: "This article is about the Church during Late Antiquity. For the Church based in Rome, see Roman Catholic Church. For the Church traditionally based in Constantinople, see Eastern Orthodox Church." μηδείς (talk) 05:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we can say the article is about "the Church" during Late Antiquity. Which Church? It is about one particular or local Church, a part of the Church in the wide sense. Esoglou (talk) 06:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what you want to call it. Whatever the institution was called prior to the Great Schism. Possibly the Church in Rome? -- Kendrick7^talk 18:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

As the hat note again says, the article is about "the historical church of the Roman Empire". The article is not about "the Church during Late Antiquity". Nor is it about "the Church in Rome". Esoglou (talk) 18:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

But it's all the same organization. We wouldn't have a separate article on "the BMW of Nazi Germany" and pretend it isn't the same entity as BMW at all other points in time. Shouldn't Occam's razor apply here? -- Kendrick7^talk 20:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but neither would we say at the top of the BMW article "This article is about the German auto industry during WWII." That is a mischaracterization on two counts. --Mcorazao (talk) 21:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't completely follow, but if you are saying we should remove the hat completely, I'd concur. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

(Undent) Well, I think your confusion about the topic demonstrates why the disambiguation is needed. In general the About template is intended to redirect readers to articles that they might confuse with the current topic. Granted there is a whole list of topics that could be confused with this one but the two listed are the big ones. --Mcorazao (talk) 22:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

That does make sense, but it might be better to just have generic see also links and let readers draw their own conclusions about the linkage among the topics. Otherwise, I fear, you'll run into and endless stream of theological quibblers. That seems to be how things are done on the other history of Christianity subtopics. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguations have nothing to do with what topics are related or not related (e.g. see the disambig at cricket). The only issue is whether readers might confuse the title with something else. Since the RCC and EOC are commonly associated with the Roman Empire this is simply explaining the we are not talking about these entities (though in this case we are talking about something related). --Mcorazao (talk) 01:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

But, we are talking about those entities. The Roman Catholic Church is the last surviving vestige of the Roman Empire; the Eastern Orthodox Church was simply the state church of the Byzantine Empire and the split between the Roman Patriarch and the Constantine Patriarch was purely the result of a power struggle, with the filoque issue thrown in as a theological CYA maneuver. Again, you are multiplying entities beyond their necessity.

Dab's and hat's also serve the purpose of pointing readers off to articles which covey a similar but perhaps incompatible POV, i.e. on articles whose subject may represent just one contentious POV, e.g. the dab on Anti-Judaism, and many many other historical-religious articles where topics overlap (because they represent different, strongly held POVs). You can't just compare this matter to the dab on cricket and insist this dab reflect in its wording one particular POV on that basis. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

(undent) That is not the purpose of a DAB (see Wikipedia:Disambiguation). Perhaps some authors have misused DABs in some articles but this is not what they are for. The only purpose of a DAB is to point to different topics that might be associated with particular wording. See also lists at the end of the article (or See alsos within sub-sections) are for directing to related topics, regardless of how or why they might be related. None of that, though, has anything to do with any particular point of view. --Mcorazao (talk) 03:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, I'd just get rid of the dab and expand the see also hat to include the more general "history of" the Catholic and Orthodox churches. Then the whole matter of what is "historical" or "modern", and whether they are the same or different, gets swept under the rug, and, I suspect, everyone would be happy. I know what the policy says, and, though I avoid the history of Xtianity articles as much as I'm able, this is the example other articles on this contentious topic have set, AFIACT. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I honestly have trouble believing there is this much discussion on disambiguation.

See also sections do not serve the purpose of disambiguation. They cannot as they are at the end of the article. I think we have proven that the topic and the name have enough potential for confusion that heading off confusion is important (were it not so important for this particular topic, honestly I would have just stripped off the DAB to avoid continuing this discussion).

If there is something contentious about the wording then let's find better wording. But you have not even offered any explanation as to what you find contentious (other than seeming to imply that the concept of a DAB is contentious in and of itself). --Mcorazao (talk) 04:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's drop the note entirely. The opening words of the article should be enough to indicate what the article is about, and I doubt that anybody reading for the first time about "the state church of the Roman Empire" would assume that it was/is identical with RCC or EOC; certainly, nobody looking for information on EOC or RCC would come first to this article. Whether one thinks they are right or wrong, both EOC and RCC do claim never to have been limited to that state church and to be the continuation of the church outside the Roman Empire also. Esoglou (talk) 05:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

It's going to be difficult to find opening words that clarify that sufficiently for all readers (as Kendrick7 points out, the topics are not independent; the purpose of the opening sentence is to say what the topic is, whereas the DAB says what the topic is not). The article will need a disambig before it is done.

I think it is problematic to go too far down the road of making changes simply to indulge this or that person's viewpoint. But granted the article has deeper issues of confusion at this point. For the moment I won't object to removing the DAB but let's not make a habit of solving disagreements in this manner. --Mcorazao (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

First Council of Nicaea

I think the anonymous editor from Nevada is right: the only canon of the First Council of Nicaea that I can find concerning admission to the catholic church concerns not Gentiles but Paulicians (canon 19). I have corrected the text in line with what is in the article on the Council, which cites the same source. But is the reference to the apostolic Council of Jerusalem at all helpful? Esoglou (talk) 11:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Off the top of my head I don't recall the specifics. I know that Jerusalem was the first to formally allow Gentiles in. There were some agreements made at Nicaea about this but there is nothing controversial about the edits, regardless. --Mcorazao (talk) 14:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

By the time of the Council of Nicaea, the Christian church was composed almost exclusively of Gentiles, not Jews. One could perhaps imagine Nicaea making rules for the admittance of Jews (it didn't), but certainly not of Gentiles. The Nevada editor correctly wrote: "highly dubious". Esoglou (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Yup, that's the issue exactly. By the time of First Nicaea, the Jewish Christians were a minority. They may have been addressed indirectly by the Easter controversy, but if so that was to exclude them, not include them. The bishop of Jerusalem at the time was Macarius of Jerusalem, a gentile. See also Constantine I and Judaism. 75.15.198.210 (talk) 18:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Folks, I'm not objecting. There is no controversy here. --Mcorazao (talk) 19:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Redundancy

This article is redundant; it should be merged with the "Roman Catholic Church" article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.200.152.62 (talk) 18:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

No, the church in this article is mostly about the Christian Church in what we would call the Byzantine Empire, which was not subject to the Bishop of Rome alone as the Roman Catholic Church is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.114.111 (talk) 21:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Not true, the Byzantine churches, which became known as the Eastern Orthodox, broke communion with the Roman Bishop (Pope) in the 11th century.71.200.152.62 (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The final break of the Eastern and Western churches did take place in the 11th century, but the notion of Papal supremacy developed over time. In Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages there was a dominance of local regional churches, which appealed to Rome (or to Councils) to resolve matters of dispute.

This article is in need of revision, as its very title presumes the disputed concept that a state church existed in the Roman empire, a point of view that is not widely accepted (or even considered) by the Church Historians I have read. As I see it, this article should be merged into a more balanced article; perhaps the History of late ancient Christianity would be appropriate. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed it should - see the archives, at length. Johnbod (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. But it seems that others don't. Esoglou (talk) 21:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Can we have a source that says their was no such thing as a church (orthodoxy and hierarchy) endorsed by the imperial regimes? Remember this article was originally entitled Roman imperial church.

And no, since it deals specifically with the interaction of the church and empire it should most definitely not be merged with History of late ancient Christianity which presumably covers such things as the church before Constantine and the Church in Ireland and Ethiopia--although a hatnote would, of course, be appropriate. μηδείς (talk) 21:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Medeis and Medeis's sources see the church within the empire in the late ancient Christianity period as a distinct church, somewhat on the lines of the Church of England. Those of us who disagree with Medeis, we and our sources, see the church of late ancient Christianity as interacting with the empire but in no way identified with or limited to the empire; we see it as endorsed (and interfered with) not only by the Roman/Byzantine Empire, but also by other civil powers, both in the east and the west, in no way part of the empire. There seems to be no way out of this impasse. Esoglou (talk) 06:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

That is only one of the problems; the article originally covered up to 1453, & still (though the end date is fudged) seems to take the "State Church" in the West beyond Charlemagne. That was one of the proponents' arguments for not merging with other late antique articles, of which we already have rather too many. Looking at the article again, there seems to be some (new?) very misleading use of quotes in the "legacy" section. The article still mostly just gives a potted history of the Christian world, with very little analysis of the actual interaction between church and state - perhaps that's just as well. But I notice the original suthor, User:Mcorazao has made only 2 edits in 2011, & only Medeis seems to be defending the article much. It might be time for another AFD/merge debate, or at least a determined attempt here to reduce the sprawling scope of the article. Johnbod (talk) 10:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Here, I had thought that this article dealt with the "interaction of the church and empire." But it turns out I was wrong. Esoglou and his sources instead see "Christianity as interacting with the empire". I am greatful for the correction.

I am not quite sure where this idea comes from that the article argues that Catholicism was the established church of the empire in just the same exact way as the Church of England. If there are innacurate claims they should be corrected - that doesn't make the article as a whole in some way evil. If changing the title of the article to something like the church and the Roman empire would alleviate your fears, that could be done, let's hear some suggestions.

And, of course, that brings up one of the nice things about Wikipedia. If you are interested in such things as the interaction with various churches of "other civil powers, both in the east and the west, in no way part of the empire", then you are free to work on such articles to your heart's content. No one is forced to edit this article against his will. μηδείς (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

To say that the civil powers independent of the empire were interacting with "various churches" perhaps implies that there was no thought then of the Christian church, but only of a variety of churches, each of them somewhat (not "in just the same exact way") like the geographically and regnally circumscribed Church of England. Moving to "something like the church and the Roman empire" (or merging with Caesaropapism) would instead make room for the view that there existed indeed the Christian church. By the way, I don't grasp the distinction between "interaction between A and B" and "A interacting with B": I thought that the "inter-" prefix implied mutuality. Esoglou (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite lead

There have been various efforts to tweak the lead and I think we all at least agree that the lead in its present form is not very good (though there is no apparent agreement on how to fix it). Maybe the best place to start is to outline what should be said and then debate what the proper wording is for each thing we want to say (since it seems a lot of our disagreements have to do with precise wording). I want to be clear on my expectations on two points:

• The lead is a brief summary. It should not attempt to discuss every detail.
• For major issues, the lead should be generally balanced in its discussion (it is more important to do this in the lead than the rest of the article). If the lead gives attention to a particular sub-topic then similar attention should be given to other sub-topics of similar importance (or else they should all be summarized together not explicitly singling out any particular one).

Here is a proposal for a general outline (please don't nitpick on phrasing in the outline; this is not the text for the article; we can argue about phrasing once we agree on the outline):

• First paragraph (overview):
  • First sentence gives relatively complete description of the topic without details. Mention that
    • The church is was "Christian"
    • It was formalized in the 4th century, and
    • It was the sole church body recognized by the Empire.
  • Rest of paragraph mentions
    • Constantine established imperial involvement
    • Theodosius permanently established the church as the only legal religion
    • Church continued as an key part of the Roman state and its identity throughout the Middle Ages
• Second paragraph (history part I):
  • Constantine established tolerance for Christians
  • Constantine began process of legally defining orthodoxy (in effect beginning separating official Christianity from the heresies)
  • Discord and schisms of the 4th and 5th centuries (Donatism, Arian controversy, Nestorianism, Miaphysitism)
  • Thedosius formally and permanenly establishes state religion
  • Justinian establishes the Pentarchy
• Third paragraph (history part II):
  • Even as western provinces crumble the church continues in the west as a state institution supported by Constantinople
  • Rome separates from state church in the 7th/8th centuries.
  • Muslim conquests separate state church in Egypt, Syria, etc. (i.e. even though Christianity continued there the state church lost its influence)
  • State church remained a defining institution until empire's demise in the late Middle Ages
• Fourth paragraph (names and legacy):
  • Other names by which church has been known:
    • Catholic Church
    • Orthodox Church
    • Imperial Church
    • Roman Church
  • Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church have both claimed to be unique continuations
  • Other denominations have claimed to be successors although not uniquely so

Note that there are items in the current version of the lead that are omitted here. If you want to propose including some of those details that may mean that other details also have to be included to balance the discussion (which might make the lead really long).

--Mcorazao (talk) 15:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

My comments:

• "Church continued as an key part of the Roman state and its identity throughout the Middle Ages" - works for the Greek church; does not work in the Latin West at all; there was no "Roman state".
• "Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church have both claimed to be unique continuations" - you might locate such claims, but the statement is misleading; generally both accept a schism occured, and that the other is also a continuation. "unique" is therefore wrong.

Johnbod (talk) 15:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Replies:

• "works for the Greek church; does not work in the Latin West at all; there was no 'Roman state'"
  • Not sure I understand your point. In the early Middle Ages the "Latin" church was still part of the state church although its ties became ever more tenuous. We can debate the degree to which the "Roman state" existed in the west during this earlier period but, even if one went so far as to say the Roman state did not exist at all (which is an overstatement), saying the "Latin" church was not affiliated with the state is like saying the Chinese embassy in Paris is not affiliated with China. In the later Middle Ages, though, it is most certainly true that the "Latin" church had separated itself from the Roman state even though for part of this period it remained, at least theoretically, in communion with the state church. At that point the state church was limited to Anatolia, Thrace, the Balkans, etc.
    • I'm not going to bother continuing to debate the issue, though it's complete misunderstanding of medieval history is what makes the article untenable. Johnbod (talk) 16:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
      • So how am I supposed to reply to that? --Mcorazao (talk) 16:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
    • How 'bout for the purposes of the lead we simply avoid getting into "when" Rome separated from the state church and leave it more as Rome separated during the early Middle Ages? That is actually closer to the truth than narrowing it down to any specific century anyway. --Mcorazao (talk) 18:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
      • As everybody is aware by now, this is the crux of the issue that some editors have raised with the article. It is the hinge (so to speak) on which the debate has turned. I believe it is possible to reach consensus on this key point, however hard it may be, and I respect the good-faith efforts that Mcorazao is making. That said, my take on the standpoint of those that defend this position is as follows (please correct if necessary, I am not attempting to construct a straw man, on my honor): "The church in the west, which gradually came to be lead by the Roman bishops, and the church in the east, which gradually came to be lead by the patriarch of Constantinople, both originated from the same place. Both groups were absolutely united early on (i.e before Arianism to choose one arbitrary point) and both continued to communicate with one another, share institutions, and to even believe themselves all part of the same overarching church until possibly as late as the Great Schism."

I have no problem with any of that, believe it or not. The problem (for me at least) is that while emphasis on the continuity of the church makes sense, placing it within the framework of the continuity of the empire means that you are combining two models of continuity (which are useful and even admirable precisely because they are contrary to the general trend), and giving the impression that a situation existed when it did not. To put it another way, the church while in the process of splitting acted in many ways as a continuity (I am creating a terminology here), and the Empire while gradually shrinking and disintegrating acted in many ways as a continuity also, but the complex ways in which those two processes interacted makes it too facile, even misleading to say that "the state church of the roman empire lasted into the early middle ages" when you are talking about both the eastern and western church and both the eastern and western parts of what had once been a single empire.

Furthermore, the simultaneous building up of parallel administrations in the west and the east is one of the fundamental ways in which the churches split from one another. So that by the time it makes sense to talk about a Papacy, it no longer makes sense to talk about a united church in the same sense that the egalitarian church of the 3rd century (for instance) was a united church. Revcasy (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• • • • • I appreciate the acknowledgement. I don't think I disagree with anything you have said. One point we should be clear about is that the West did not uniformly separate from the East all at one time. Yes, there was the division of the Empire after Theodosius but even that split was not 100% and that state of affairs was only temporary. After the triumphs of the Goths, Saxons, etc. Italy technically rejoined the East (though more in theory than practice) whereas many other parts of the West were permanently cut off. The orthodox church in Italy was still tied to the east, though, and certainly after Justinian's conquests Italy was pulled closer again. So we should be careful about trying to generalize too much about the West in the early Middle Ages. What we are really discussing is the relationship of Italy to the East. At times in the early Middle Ages the see of Rome was almost independent from (albeit in communion with) the eastern sees and the eastern emperor, whereas at times it was more closely linked (politically and theologically). At the same time the see of Rome maintained nominal influence over many regions in the West which were not part of the empire at all (there were political parallels in Roman influence over other rulers). By the time Charlemagne came onto the scene, though, the political ties between the church in Rome and eastern emperor were gone and Rome's political influence in the east was gone as well. My point is that this splitting in the state church was a process that ran from approx the 4th century to approx the 8th century (which was at the core of the splitting of the larger Chalcedonian communion). There were a lot of ups and downs along the way. --Mcorazao (talk) 14:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• "you might locate such claims, but the statement is misleading; generally both accept a schism occured, and that the other is also a continuation. 'unique' is therefore wrong"
  • I'm amenable to toning down the statement in the lead to avoid controversy (the body of the article is a different matter but let's not go there for now). How about we just say in some fashion that these church see themselves as continuations.

--Mcorazao (talk) 15:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)That would be better, but they, and at the least the Anglicans, Church of Scotland, Lutherans (and Copts), plainly are continuations - "see themselves" casts an unnecessary doubt on the matter. Johnbod (talk) 16:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, at this point we are debating phrasing (which is irrelevant to the outline). Phrasing aside, I think we agree on what generally should be conveyed in this bullet item, right? --Mcorazao (talk) 16:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

"Have both claimed to be unique continuations" should simply be changed to "had both claimed" and the fact that they only just reversed their mutual anathemas should be added. They did each indeed claim the other's invalidity and hence there own unique uniqueness. μηδείς (talk) 16:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you ok, though, with just avoiding those details in the lead and getting into that in more detail in the body of the article? Those details, while important, are only peripherally on-topic so, for the sake of consensus on the lead, perhaps it is best to just avoid getting into that until later. --Mcorazao (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea to start with the first two paragraphs, which to my mind seem likely to be non-controversial (provided questions like the pentarchy are treated objectively)? Questions are more likely to be raised about elements of the later paragraphs. "The church (in the west) continues as a state institution supported by Constantinople" - the empire no doubt considered the church in the west to be a state institution, but did the church in the west consider itself to be a Roman/Byzantine-Empire institution, was the church in the west actually a Roman/Byzantine-Empire institution, was the church in e.g. Ireland a Roman/Byzantine-Empire institution? "Names by which the Church was known: catholic and orthodox" - in contrast to heretical groups, not in contrast to the Irish church, the Saxon church in Britain, the Frankish church (of the "catholic", i.e. non-Arian, Franks), which were never part of the state church of the Roman Empire, but, being part of the Chalcedonian Church, they were in full communion with the state church of the empire, which did not deny them the descriptions "catholic" and "orthodox". "Imperial Church", "Roman Church" - have you read the articles Imperial church and Roman Church? "Roman Catholic Church ... unique continuation" - of the Chalcedonian Church, of which it was part until, say, 1034, but not of the state church of the Roman/Byzantine Empire, of which it had ceased to be part some centuries earlier, but which continued to exist parallel to and distinct from the Church of Rome (or Roman Church). "Other denominations have claimed to be successors" - again, of the Chalcedonian Church, not of the state church of the Roman Empire. Esoglou (talk) 20:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

First, it is good that you are making the distinctions between the Chalcedonian/catholic/orthodox church and the imperial church. This is an important distinction, even though at times the distinction was blurry (and to my understanding intentionally so at times). I'm a little unclear on what you are proposing, though:

• "start with the first two paragraphs" - Are you suggesting limiting the current discussion to these or refocusing the scope of the article?
• "in contrast to heretical groups, not in contrast to the Irish church, the Saxon church" - Yes and no but more "yes". At times the Roman Christians tended to view themselves as the only real Christians and looked with disdain upon other churches with which they were theoretically in communion. Additionally in some contexts authors will use catholic and orthodox to refer to the Roman congregations in contrast to other congregations that they were in communion with. So these terms are sometimes used to refer to this entity by scholars. However, there is merit to arguing that this usage is wrong (hence these are inappropriate titles for the article). But it is not wrong to say sometimes this entity is referred to in these ways.
• "of the Chalcedonian Church, not of the state church of the Roman Empire" - You are making a valid point. However, I believe the point I am trying to make is important, even though perhaps I am not phrasing it properly (again, though, phrasing is not relevant to the outline). The reality was the orthodox Christianity and Romanness were very intertwined concepts in the Middle Ages, not only in the Roman Empire and but in many areas that were influenced by it. Though today most Christian sects would largely disdain a political affiliation with a particular nation, during the Middle Ages the predecessors of those sects often looked at being associated with Romanness as making their faith more legitimate (at the same time there were groups that abhorred any association with Roman orthodoxy). To put it another way the imperial church held an important symbolic role in Chalcedonian orthodoxy even outside the technical realm of the Empire (a role the emperors encouraged and took advantage of). Even today, though, many sects directly or indirectly trace their legitimacy back to the imperial sees in Rome and Constantinople.
• "have you read the articles Imperial church and Roman Church" - Yes, why?

--Mcorazao (talk) 22:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

What do I mean by "start with the first two paragraphs"? I propose that you insert now a revised version of the first two paragraphs and see whether there is consensus first for that part of your new text. Then add a third paragraph and see what is the reaction. Then a fourth ... What do I mean by my other observations? I mean them as danger signals about possible obstacles ahead on the road that you have proposed taking. I do not think it appropriate to discuss them seriously at this stage. When we get to a paragraph in which you wish to insert any of those ideas, that will be the time to discuss them. Esoglou (talk) 06:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, so we are agreed on the outline for the first two paragraphs at least? --Mcorazao (talk) 14:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

As an outline, and as far as concerns me, yes. Others, and perhaps I too, might have something to say on a concrete text of the two paragraphs. But I am not without hope that the two paragraphs will be accepted without objection. Esoglou (talk) 15:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

First paragraphs

Draft of the first two paragraphs:

The state church of the Roman Empire was a Christian institution organized within the Roman Empire during the 4th century that came to represent the Empire's sole authorized religion. This church emerged as Roman Emperor Constantine established tolerance for Christianity during his reign and established a precedent of imperial involvement in matters of the Christian faith. By the end of the 4th century Emperor Theodosius had established a single Christian doctrine as the state's official religion. The officially sanctioned church would go on to become a key part of the empire and its identity throughout the Middle Ages. The emperor himself came to be seen as the church's defender and leader, along with the bishops.

The Christian religion, which emerged in the 1st century, had become a target of persecution in the Roman Empire during its early history. Emperors Galerius and Constantine permanently ended the persecution in the early 4th century. As a result of the Donatist controversy Constantine began a process of convening councils of Christian bishops to define an orthodox, or correct, Christian faith. Numerous councils were held during the 4th and 5th centuries leading to rifts and schisms including the Arian schism, the Nestorian schism, and the Miaphysite schism. Throughout this process emperors became increasingly involved in the church, funding construction of church buildings, presiding over church councils, and even becoming involved in the appointment of bishops. In 380 Emperor Theodosius issued the Edict of Thessalonica, which formally established the Christian doctrine established at the Council of Nicaea as the the Empire's sole recognized religion. The church hierarchy in the Empire would continue to evolve until Emperor Justinian established the bishops of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem as the leadership of the imperial church. This would remain the church's official structure for centuries onward.

Comments?

--Mcorazao (talk) 20:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer to await remarks by others, but I can't resist commenting immediately on one point. While I agree that one can defend the statement that it was as a result of the Donatist controversy that Constantine began convening councils, I think the statement, with no particular stress on "began", and even if the word "began" were stressed, gives a false picture of the background to councils like the foundational more-or-less empire-wide 325 Council of Nicaea. I am of course open to correction. Esoglou (talk) 21:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm ok with rephrasing that. My point was not to suggest that this was the beginning of Christian councils, but that this controversy led to Constantine's involvement, and hence imperial involvement. --Mcorazao (talk) 21:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Perhaps you could indicate that the Donatist problem was at that stage (I think, I haven't checked) only a local matter (and indeed one that was linked up perhaps from the start with what we would now call nationalist sentiment in northern Africa, but there is no need to mention that here). Dealing with it did not directly concern what was to become the state church: it was only a prelude to the councils that concerned the empire as a whole. Esoglou (talk) 06:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, the Donatist heresy was and was not a local issue. Certainly Donatism was largely confined to the Africa province (at least as far as I understand) but Rome saw it as a serious enough issue to be discussed at the Council of Rome in 313. And that led to Constantine's calling the Council of Arles in 314. So the whole issue was the driver behind Constantine's involvement. It was not, however, as big an issue as Arianism (which was a big motivator in the calling of the Council of Nicaea). --Mcorazao (talk) 14:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The last two sentences make me a little uncomfortable, but I don't immediately see an actual problem. The only other suggestion I have would be to mention something about the emperor's traditional role as pontifex maximus to help explain Constantine's intervention in church affairs, but perhaps that would better be saved for the body of the article. Revcasy (talk) 22:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I assume you mean the last two sentences of the first paragraph. Mentioning the title "pontifex maximus" is ok but, since the average reader would not know what that means, having to explain it seems counter-productive in terms of a concise lead (again, not saying it can't be mentioned; just playing devil's advocate). It is true that the emperor's role was in some ways murky, changed over time, and wasn't uniformly interpreted in the same way by all bishops. At the same time, though, the emperors did play a substantial role in the church both in terms of actual influence and in terms of symbolism, and it seems to me that needs to be mentioned in some fashion (though I'm open to rephrasing). --Mcorazao (talk) 22:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it would not be helpful to mention the Pontifex Maximus role in the opening paragraphs. Esoglou (talk) 06:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I meant the last two sentences of the second paragraph. I am sorry, I should have been clearer. On those sentences see Esoglou's comments below. Revcasy (talk) 12:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I hope others will contribute now and not raise objections only later. For my part, I think we should rephrase the last sentence, "This would remain the church's official structure for centuries onward", which suggests that the Pentarchy was accepted by the church as a whole. From the point of view of the emperors, the Pentarchy was of course the official structure, but the Roman church never accepted it, and we can't say that Rome's exit (on the level of fact - I say nothing of the emperors' view of the de jure situation) from the state church occurred as early as Justinian.

Indeed, now I come to think of it, the preceding sentence also needs rephrasing. Church hierarchy did not cease to evolve with Justinian (the present text says "continued to evolve until"). After Justinian, Rome's claims continued to become more explicit, all-embracing and effective. So did Constantinople's. And Alexandria and Antioch (I mean the patriarchs recognized as belonging to the state church) were reduced more and more to dependencies of Constantinople, as shown also by their adoption of the liturgy of Constantinople. Esoglou (talk) 06:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm, are you suggesting stripping discussion of the pentarchy in the lead or are you suggesting different phrasing (if so what do you recommend)?

My understanding is that it was Constantinople's position that Rome objected to (which, granted, was at the core of Justinian's pentarchy) but not the idea of the patriarchate system as a whole. Even so, though, it's not like Rome pulled out of future councils or in any other substantial ways severed itself from the emperor at that time. In other words, it is certainly true that there were many violent disagreements, some of which led to temporary schisms, but to my understanding Justinian's system, even if not everybody liked it, became a practical reality (one that indeed helped fuel the fire that pushed Rome further and further away).

--Mcorazao (talk) 14:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Take a look, for example, at Kasper, p. 144. He indicates that while Rome objected to the system it in effect accepted it. --Mcorazao (talk) 16:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

In the interest of keeping the discussion moving here is a tweaked version that perhaps addresses some of the concerns:

The state church of the Roman Empire was a Christian institution organized within the Roman Empire during the 4th century that came to represent the Empire's sole authorized religion. This church emerged as Roman Emperor Constantine established tolerance for Christianity during his reign and established a precedent of imperial involvement in matters of the Christian faith. By the end of the 4th century Emperor Theodosius had established a single Christian doctrine as the state's official religion. The officially sanctioned church would go on to become a key part of the empire and its identity throughout the Middle Ages. The emperor himself came to be seen as the church's defender and leader, along with the bishops.

The Christian religion, which emerged in the 1st century, had become a target of persecution in the Roman Empire during its early history. Emperors Galerius and Constantine permanently ended the general persecution in the early 4th century. As a result of the Donatist controversy Constantine convened councils of Christian bishops to define an orthodox, or correct, Christian faith, expanding on earlier Christian synods. Numerous councils were held during the 4th and 5th centuries leading to rifts and schisms including the Arian schism, the Nestorian schism, and the Miaphysite schism. Throughout this process emperors became increasingly involved in the church, funding construction of church buildings, presiding over church councils, and even becoming involved in the appointment of bishops. In 380 Emperor Theodosius issued the Edict of Thessalonica, which formally established the Christian doctrine established at the Council of Nicaea as the the Empire's sole recognized religion. The church hierarchy in the Empire would continue to evolve throughout its history. In the 6th century Emperor Justinian established the bishops of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem as the leadership of the imperial church, a structure that would remain official for centuries onward.

--Mcorazao (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The lack of response from other editors may mean that the first two paragraphs did turn out to be not seriously controversial. I would suggest omitting the last phrase "a structure that would remain official for centuries onward". I have difficulty in understand what canons of what council Kasper is speaking of and what he means by saying that the Roman church did not "in substance" raise objections to them, while yet excluding "those conciliar decrees concerning the so-called anti-Roman canons". Other books seem to speak more clearly about Roman reservations about the pentarchy idea, as here and here and in others of which Google only gives short quotations, not full pages. Meyendorff says pentarchy was not really seen as an essential element of ecclesiology. Esoglou (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I struck the final clause. It is true that scholars don't see the pentarchy as important as Justinian intended it to be. However, even Meyendorff states "it [the pentarchy] became an important factor in the Byzantine understanding of an ecumenical council, which required the presence of the five patriarchs ..." In a sense one could argue that the pentarchy was important to the "state church" but less so to Chalcedonian orthodoxy, to the extent that those were not really the same thing.

--Mcorazao (talk) 19:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I see that I put more stress than you did on the word "Byzantine". Was the Byzantine understanding that of the church as a whole, including the western part? Thanks for striking the phrase. Esoglou (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, ... I'm not sure how to answer because the question presupposes certain things. I interpret "Byzantine" in Meyendorff's statements to refer primarily to the Roman government, and in a secondarily sense to the bishops and Roman society in general. Not to diminish the role of the Pope but, whether or not he accepted this understanding in theory, he had to tolerate it in practice (at least outside of his immediate jurisdiction). To a certain degree the Pope's philosophical objections are irrelevant in the sense that these 5 sees all carried real authority in defining the legally accepted doctrine of the Empire as well as the administrative aspects of the Empire's congregations. One can argue that this was only a temporal reality but did not represent the reality of the true church; but that is a separate matter. --Mcorazao (talk) 20:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that in such clashes between the reality and the ideal, on both the side of the church and the side of the imperial government, and the consequent maneuvering and negotiation (also on both sides) lies the utility—even the possibility—of this article as distinct from the many other articles about the church/es and the empire/s at this time. In the context of a concise lead I refer back to your outline above, perhaps space will not allow for it, but it becomes much easier for me to accept that (as you have it) the "Church continued as an key part of the Roman state and its identity throughout the Middle Ages", when we are speaking about it being a key part in the sense of a protean struggle between the Church (the western church in particular) and the Roman "state". I have perhaps overstated things, but it seems that what the two institutions did to one another, and how they negotiated their sovereignty and their legitimacy—alternately propping one another up, and ripping one another down, dictating and being dictated to—that seems to be the possibility for a great article. The history of the relationship, if we can only be precise enough and clear enough from the outset about the subject here, that history is the way forward. Revcasy (talk) 21:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Well, I definitely think that the political intrigue internal and external to the empire is interesting. I do want to make sure the article stays on topic, though, and covers the whole topic. I worry that we keep zeroing in on the relationship between Rome and the emperor, which is a narrow aspect of it. --Mcorazao (talk) 02:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Whether by "Byzantine" Meyendorff was referring primarily to the Constantinople government, or instead to the Constantinople ecclesiastics (as in the following paragraphs, where he contrasts Byzantines with Latins), it makes no difference to the proposed text of the lead. I think Revcasy's observation has importance for the body of the article, but I don't see it as needing to be reflected in the first two paragraphs of the lead. I think that he too agrees. And although I, like any editor, would prefer some parts to be phrased differently, I think that what you have written is acceptable. Esoglou (talk) 06:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Sorry, I was digressing. Revcasy (talk) 12:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

So if there are no objections we'll call at least this small part of the discussion done? --Mcorazao (talk) 20:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Third paragraph

I'll submit with some trepidation a draft of the third paragraph:

By the 6th century most of the basic doctrines of the church had become well established. Even as the empire struggled through onslaughts and territorial loss during this period the church remained a unifying institution. By the 9th end of the 8th century Rome had permanently separated from the Eastern Roman, or Byzantine, Empire and the state church was confined to the eastern Mediterranean. During the 7th and 8th centuries the conquests of the Muslim rulers further reduced the territory of the Empire and the reach of the church. By the beginning of the second millennium the patriarchate of Constantinople was effectively the only part of the Justinian's formulation that still remained part of the state church. The church would nevertheless remain a defining institution until the Empire's demise in the late Middle Ages.

Feel free to tear it apart.

--Mcorazao (talk) 17:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I like it. But perhaps others will identify defects more serious than the slight mistake, practically a typo, of "the Justinian's formulation", instead of "Justinian's formulation". Esoglou (talk) 17:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I see no problems either. I am probably as surprised as you are Mcorazao. =P Seriously though, you have defined what you are speaking about strictly enough that I feel that it would almost take willful misreading for someone to go off track at this point. Revcasy (talk) 20:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It is certainly a huge improvement. "During the 8th century" would be better than "By the 9th century" - the separation was complete before 750. I think Byzantine iconoclasm is still not mentioned, a crucial phase of the process of separation. The reluctance to use the normal terms "Byzantine" and "Orthodox" (the latter becoming the defining self-identity for the Eastern Church in just this period) are still there, and still liable to puzzle the inexpert, and annoy the expert, but we must be grateful for some progress I suppose. Johnbod (talk) 21:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words and feedback. I am certainly open to discussing proper terminology. The Christian world has used so many terms in so many different and contradictory ways that is often difficult to determine the proper term to use (i.e. terms that are both not confusing and not misleading, often conflicting goals). Regarding the use of Byzantine, it is true that non-scholarly works tend to stick to a strict separation between Byzantine and Roman (not always but more often than not). In scholarly works, however, authors tend to use whatever terminology they feel is most clear, often using Roman, Eastern Roman, Constantinopolitan, as well as Byzantine depending on context or the author's own preferences. Regarding the use of Orthodox this term tends to be used to refer to the overall communion more than this state entity so I have tended to follow this same usage (non-scholarly authors tend to avoid explicitly distinguishing between the state entity and the larger communion, probably to avoid offending the sensibilities of Orthodox Christians).

My attitude in general is to follow common non-scholarly usage (since our audience is not scholars) wherever such usage does not mislead. A higher priority is to attempt to be consistent throughout the article (i.e. even if in one part of the article using a particular term might not be confusing, if it might be confusing in another part of the article I prefer a term that I can use throughout).

WRT iconoclasm I am certainly not opposed to mentioning this in the lead (it certainly should be mentioned in the body of the article since we are extending the discussion to the late Middle Ages). I didn't mention this in the lead simply because -- in my view -- by the time this became a major issue Italy was already all but split away. So by that time it was becoming more an issue in the Chalcedonian communion and less an issue internal to the imperial church. But still it was certainly important.

--Mcorazao (talk) 23:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

With regard to Johnbod's observation (which he does not present as an objection), the phrase "the Eastern Roman, or Byzantine, Empire" is, in my opinion, legitimate, mentioning two alternative names for that empire, the first of which links better with the title of the article. However, I admit that I do not understand why "Byzantine" has to be in italics. I would see meaning in the use of italics, if it indicated that from that point onward the name "Byzantine" would be used. But, in its present state, the article does not adopt the name "Byzantine" from that point onward. (I do think that the use later in the article of "the Eastern Romans" as a name for the rulers or inhabitants of that empire in the ninth century is certainly pushing things too far; but we can deal with that phrase when we come to it.) Esoglou (talk) 08:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, the use of italics is very much a judgement call issue. In the context of the article we are talking about the Romans overall (i.e. the article is not limited to the "Byzantine" period in history). The "or Byzantine" is meant to clarify to the reader that when searching other literature (or other articles) that is the name they will often find for that period. In my mind, since novice readers don't necessarily know all of the history and reasons behind the term "Byzantine" putting it in italics subtly clarifies that this is a name some people use even though it may not be obvious from the current context where that name comes from. To use a hypothetical example, if in some article I said "This type of round-edged, or funiformaic, architecture was widely used" (made-up word) you might be confused by that word and search through the rest of the text to figure out what you missed. If instead I say "This type of round-edged, or funiformaic, architecture was widely used" it becomes more obvious that I am introducing a new word and that you should interpret its meaning based on the current context. But its not that big a deal.

--Mcorazao (talk) 14:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Small digression: I don't know everyone's background but ... I started this article using American English because of my own biases. Arguably since it is discussing a significantly European topic the use of British English could be said to be more appropriate. If anyone feels that is better I have no objection to switching. --Mcorazao (talk) 14:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

If nobody else makes an observation, I certainly will not press my preference for de-italicizing. Nor will I suggest changing to non-US spelling: you got in first. Esoglou (talk) 16:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

So ... regarding iconoclasm and other things, is there a specific proposal on revised text that includes these? --Mcorazao (talk) 20:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

How 'bout this?

By this period most of the basic doctrines of the church had become well established. Even as the empire struggled through onslaughts and territorial loss during this period the church remained a unifying institution. By end of the 8th century Rome had permanently separated from the Eastern Roman, or Byzantine, Empire and the state church was confined to the eastern Mediterranean. During the 7th and 8th centuries the conquests of the Muslim rulers further reduced the territory of the Empire and the reach of the church. By the beginning of the second millennium the patriarchate of Constantinople was effectively the only part of Justinian's formulation that still remained part of the state church. Further debates regarding doctrine such as iconoclasm continued to isolate the church from other Christian communions. The church would nevertheless remain a defining institution until the Empire's demise in the late Middle Ages.

--Mcorazao (talk) 14:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well that would be ok; of course more detail is needed lower down. I suppose iconoclasm was a matter of doctrine, but not of fundamental doctrine in the same way as the Christological issues, and the word is perhaps best avoided. "Debate" is what there was very little of in the iconoclam dispute. Perhaps "The episodes of Byzantine iconoclasm showed the continued subjection of the Eastern church to the views of the emperor of the moment, and also that the Western church was now beyond imperial influence from Constantinople." Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, "episodes" sounds a little strange. I can see a novice reader unfamiliar with iconoclasm becoming confused. Also using "Eastern church" and "Western church" here rather confuses the discussion (i.e. these terms have not previously been used in the intro and the meaning of those two characterizations and why they are being used would not be obvious to a novice in relation to the "Roman Empire").

"periods" could be used. Despite your dislike of the term, it should be Byzantine iconoclasm because it was strictly limited to the Byzantine Empire. We are obviously making different points in these drafts, but I think mine is the more relevant and important. Obviosly, by the end of the episodes East and West had the same position on images, but that does not seem to have done anything much to bring them closer together. Johnbod (talk) 15:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

What about

By this period most of the basic doctrines of the church had become well established. Even as the empire struggled through onslaughts and territorial loss during this period the church remained a unifying institution. By end of the 8th century Rome had permanently separated from the Eastern Roman, or Byzantine, Empire and the state church was confined to the eastern Mediterranean. During the 7th and 8th centuries the conquests of the Muslim rulers further reduced the territory of the Empire and the reach of the church. By the beginning of the second millennium the patriarchate of Constantinople was effectively the only part of Justinian's formulation that still remained part of the state church. Further issues of faith including iconoclasm continued to isolate the church from other Christian communities. The church would nevertheless remain a defining institution until the Empire's demise in the late Middle Ages.

--Mcorazao (talk) 15:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Reply to above: I don't have an issue with the phrase "Byzantine iconoclasm" though it is a little strange to insert the word "Byzantine" in this particular sentence (rather like saying "Arabian Islam" in the midst of discussing Islam in Arabia; its not incorrect but it sounds redundant). But bear in mind iconoclasm was not limited to the Byzantines. It was taking place in the Islamic world at the same time (not coincidentally). It was really part of a larger movement.

Christian iconoclasm was confined to the Byzantine Empire, and most historians are sceptical of the links to Islamic iconoclasm (largely over by then anyway) or any idea of a wider movement. Johnbod (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding "periods" ... it seems (to me) trying to zero in on individual periods here potentially pulls away from NPOV unless we discuss all major periods of conflict (which is too detailed). I was trying to simply say that there were issues that popped up, of which iconoclasm was an example, that occurred throughout the remainder of the Middle Ages. I was also trying to stay away from making this an east/west thing rather than an imperial church versus churches outside the empire (many non-western) thing. --Mcorazao (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't know. The whole article seems desperate to avoid any specifics - I don't think the Filioque controversy is even linked yet anywhere. Your draft is far more POV in my opinion anyway. Johnbod (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Another attempt:

By this period most of the basic doctrines of the church had become well established. Even as the empire struggled through onslaughts and territorial loss during this period the church remained a unifying institution. By end of the 8th century Rome had permanently separated from the Eastern Roman, or Byzantine, Empire and the state church was confined to the eastern Mediterranean. During the 7th and 8th centuries the conquests of the Muslim rulers further reduced the territory of the Empire and the reach of the church. By the beginning of the second millennium the patriarchate of Constantinople was effectively the only part of Justinian's formulation that still remained part of the state church. During various periods in the Middle Ages other issues of faith, including the filioque and iconoclasm, continued to isolate the imperial church from other Christian communities. The church would nevertheless remain a defining institution until the Empire's demise in the late Middle Ages.

--Mcorazao (talk) 16:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry to have to say that I think the addition of "During various periods in the Middle Ages other issues of faith, including the filioque and iconoclasm, continued to isolate the church from other Christian communities." is a disimprovement. These two problems did not isolate the state church "from other Christian communities", but only from the western church. Iconoclasm was a matter of east-west dispute only for a short time: it did not "continue to isolate" the state church. The opposite occurred with the Filioque: while east and west were fully united, the existing teaching of the western Church Fathers, including Pope Leo I (time of the Council of Chalcedon), that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son was not seen as a matter of contention in the east; the quarrel over it arose only after the isolation/separation was already a fact. Mention of these two problems (why these in particular, when much more important for the east-west division was the question of papal primacy?) is, I think, out of place in the lead. If they are to be mentioned at all, it should be in the context of the Rome-state church division, not as now in connection rather with the loss of eastern provinces to expanding Islam. I propose that the whole phrase be removed from the draft of the lead. Esoglou (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, a historical note (a digression really):

• Iconoclasm was not simply an east/west thing. The West was largely non-iconoclastic. The Miaphysite and Nestorian Christians as well as the Muslims were to varying degrees and at various times iconoclastic. Constantinople was in essence bouncing back and forth between pulling closer to Rome or pulling closer to the power centers in the Muslim world (including other Christians). The issue was not simply when the Byzantines accepted iconoclasm but also when they rejected it (i.e. they were always alienating somebody). It is important to remember that, though today we see the world as Christian vs. Muslim, back at that time the dividing line between Christian and Muslim was not so absolute. You were, of course, not truly a Muslim unless you accepted Mohammed but your theological beliefs in other areas could make you more or less sympathetic.

In any even we are confusing political separation of the church and theological separation of the communion, or communions. The "separation" you are bringing up is not what is being discussed in the paragraph. These are different issues. But part of the reason I did not want to get into iconoclasm, etc. in the lead was exactly because I was afraid of this kind of potential confusion.

--Mcorazao (talk) 18:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Can we agree to just remove the discussion of iconoclasm and other doctrinal issues in the later periods from the lead? It seems it is difficult to bring these up without a lot of detail (more detail than is inappropriate in the lead). --Mcorazao (talk) 19:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll take the silence as de facto consensus for now. --Mcorazao (talk) 17:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Objection to third paragraph

I am sorry, but this is simply absurd. You have written a paragraph that makes not one single concrete factual assertion. You assert that there is controversy - over what? The paragraph wasn't tagged or subject to an edit war. Try small reasonable edits if you wish. The wholesale deletion of facts and links in favor of an unlinked, unreferenced, and vague editorial summary which lists not one date, fact, person, or event is unacceptable.μηδείς (talk) 17:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Medeis, it seems you have not been following the discussion here. The "controversy" was about the sentence "During various periods in the Middle Ages other issues of faith, including the filioque and iconoclasm, continued to isolate the imperial church from other Christian communities". "By this period" refers to the period mentioned immediately before, namely that of the Emperor Justinian, in the sixth century.

I propose that we return to Mcorazao's text, which has been discussed and approved by the few editors actively involved here. Esoglou (talk) 19:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The proposed paragraph says nothing. It might as well be deleted entirely. It refers to no fact, has no links, names no persons, events or entities, and makes no referenced claims. In what way is it encyclopedic? It is a perfect act of editorial synthesis, expressing nothing. According to WP:LEAD the purpose of the lead is to summarize the main facts, in more detail. This simply does away with facts entirely.

Nothing said above anywhere expresses any concrete objection to the current wording. No specific claim is criticized as wrong or misleading. There is nothing to participate in above. Tag the sentences with which you have problems, and address each matter individually. Simply to assert that the paragraph as a whole needs a rewrite is an arbitrary claim to which no response can be given other than, "No, it doesn't." μηδείς (talk) 05:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The new text, to which so far only Medeis has objected, is shorter than the old one, which Medeis champions. It says quite a lot. Links are not needed for a lead paragraph that summarizes parts of the body of the article. It is for the body, not the lead, to provide "more detail".

The former text needed improvement. There is the rather obscure statement, "the church (i.e. the state church of the empire) persisted in communion" - it did persist in communion with the church outside the empire (as in Ireland), but this is not what is meant - after the decay of the "Western Empire". One might quibble that, if until the decay of the western there were two empires, there should have been until then two state churches in communion with each other, and that after the decay of the western empire there needed only to be one for the single empire both in the land it actually held and in what was seen as still properly part of it and as likely to be effectively recovered before too long - a quibble, but still an indication of obscurity. Dealing in the lead with the conversion of Germanic peoples who nevertheless did not enter the state church seems to stray too much from the topic of the article. The last part too, on the continuance of the Chalcedonian Church, might seem to stray somewhat from the topic of the article.

I think the new text gives what is essential in more succinct and understandable form, and that it is preferable. Unless support appears for Medeis's choice of the old text, I think we should restore the new text. After that, Medeis could indicate what he would like to see added to the new text. Esoglou (talk) 06:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The third paragraph is fine for a part of the lead. The lack of specifics in this paragraph should not be taken as an indication that the entire article will be similarly vague. I think that more than a few additional details (themselves unnecessary in my view) would detract from the lead's purpose of summary. Revcasy (talk) 12:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I should point out that the current lead is already significantly longer than the lead for Byzantine Empire, which is an FA. Additionally if the level of detail that was has been inserted is to be maintained, then as I've said before, there are many more details that need to be added to balance it out. This would make the lead far too long by any measure. These sorts of details are more appropriate in the body. As my own general rule (I don't know that there is a WP policy that says so) I generally avoid individual years or specific events in historical eras unless they are unusually pivotal (meaning top few events of the whole era or useful examples of a broader statement). If I cannot identify uniquely pivotal years or events then I just avoid mentioning these individual items at all and save those details for the body. --Mcorazao (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Medeis, since it is clear that you are not going to gain consensus for what you are proposing, can you propose an alternative? We need to move this forward. Thanks. --Mcorazao (talk) 22:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that at this stage restoration of the text supported by a number of editors is justified in place of the text championed only by one. Esoglou (talk) 05:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I appeal to Medeis to undo his reverting (without further explanation or alternative proposal here) of the restoration of the text that is supported by all other involved editors. The action seems to be contrary to normal Wikipedia practice. Esoglou (talk) 06:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem creating an alternative text - assuming you can tell me in specific what problems you have with the current one. So far as I see, none has been identified. It is like telling a woman she needs plastic surgery without commenting on any specific organs or their supposed flaws.

I suggest also that you address the fourth paragraph first, given that it is the one to which specific complaints have been made.

Per WP:Lead these paragraphs are supposed to be detailed summaries which mention all the major points, not vague editorial abstractions which mention no specific points.

Let me know specifically what you object to and why, and I can address it. But shortening the paragraph to remove all facts, links, and supported statements to leave a bald text which is nothing other than an editorial synthesis is unacceptable.

Don't simply tell the patient that "we must operate" without saying exactly which organs need to be fixed and how. μηδείς (talk) 16:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Medeis, more than one of us has explained our concerns, concerns to which you have previously responded in part. This is your opportunity to respond to those concerns and suggest alternatives (since you object to the proposed alternatives). --Mcorazao (talk) 18:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

So how do we proceed at this point? I really don't want to call for arbitration on one single paragraph. --Mcorazao (talk) 17:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Medeis would begin by responding to the comments above about a seeming obscurity and a couple of seemingly off-topic items in his version of the third paragraph. Esoglou (talk) 14:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Making changes in Medeis's own text that are unrelated to the above concerns is no response. Would Medeis now say why he considers it correct behaviour to revert repeatedly from a text agreed on by the other editors to a version for which not even one other editor has (so far) expressed support. One would think that the proper procedure would be to use the generally-agreed-on text as the basis for discussion leading to whatever amendments are judged to be necessary or useful. Esoglou (talk) 05:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Since, even after ten days, Medeis, who is active on other pages, has not intervened here to defend his reverting to a version that he alone supports, I think it is time to restore the text that has the support of the other editors. Esoglou (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Last paragraph

To keep the discussion moving let me go ahead and submit a proposal for the last paragraph:

The state church would refer to itself by many names during its history and today authors use many names as well. The church has been variously referred to as the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, the Imperial Church, or simply the Roman Church, though these terms are often used in other ways as well. The modern Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church both trace their origins to this institution and the communion it created, as do the Anglican Church, the Lutheran Church, and many other Christian bodies today.

--Mcorazao (talk) 14:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

For now I mention only one of the problems I see. I think it is misleading to say that RCC, EOC and the rest "trace their origins to this institution", when they would all say they trace their origins to Christ and the apostles. And what is the "communion" that the state church "created"? Esoglou (talk) 17:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm, any recommendations? I think the connection is important to discuss although obviously there are obviously subtleties that are difficult to get around. --Mcorazao (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I can only suggest: Today's Coptic Church, Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church all have a direct historical connection with the state church of the Roman Empire and the communion of which it was part, and Christian bodies such as the Anglican Communion and the Lutheran Church are indirectly connected with it. Esoglou (talk) 18:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess that's better than nothing. But one could say any Christian church has some connection to any other Christian church so its unclear what that really is saying. I was trying to describe a genealogical connection in some fashion since that is the most interesting. But genealogy of organizations can be complex. Hmmmm ... --Mcorazao (talk) 19:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Not just "some connection": a "direct historical connection". This could be interpreted as "broke away from" or "was broken away from". Or, at least in the case of the EOC, as "is really the same, in a new guise". Esoglou (talk) 19:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Yes, but it's difficult to say any of that in a way that won't be debated. Saying the EOC is "the same in a new guise" counters the way this is described by many authors which say that the EOC broke off from the RCC (which is a very biased characterization; but it cannot be explicitly said to be "wrong"). Additionally the EOC was much larger than the imperial church alone at the time the Empire fell so it is more than simply a change of name. One could say that the Ottoman Roman millet and the modern Greek church were more a direct continuation of the imperial church. In my mind, though, all of these entities are more properly seen as descendants of what the imperial church began (and the imperial church was one of the descendants of what the Apostles began). But I don't know how to say that in a way that can be considered NPOV. I guess I'll see if I can find some author to quote. That is probably the best way to stay objective (though it is probably very difficult to find such a quote). --Mcorazao (talk) 20:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

That's why we should not say that any present church is the same, in a new guise, as the state church of the Roman Empire nor, in POV fashion, say either that it broke away from the state church or that the state church broke away from it. But we can say that it has a direct historical connection with the empire's state church.

The Egyptian state is not a descendant of the Roman Empire: it existed before being incorporated into the Roman Empire. The Coptic Church is not a descendant of the state church of the Roman Empire: it existed before being incorporated into the state church of the Roman Empire. The same holds for, say, the church of Rome. EOC, RCC etc. all claim that they did not originate with the state church of the Roman Empire and were never coextensive with that state church. Esoglou (talk) 06:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The proposed paragraph says nothing. It might as well be deleted entirely. It refers to no fact, has no links, names no persons, events or entities, and makes no referenced claims. In what way is it encyclopedic? It is a perfect act of editorial synthesis, expressing nothing. According to WP:LEAD the purpose of the lead is to summarize the main facts, in more detail. This simply does away with facts entirely.

Nothing said above anywhere expresses any concrete objection to the current wording. No specific claim is criticized as wrong or misleading. There is nothing to participate in above. Tag the sentences with which you have problems, and address each matter individually. Simply to assert that the paragraph as a whole needs a rewrite is an arbitrary claim to which no response can be given other than, "No, it doesn't."

The proposed fourth paragraph says several things with which I disagree. The paragraph it is meant to replace has several tags with concrete objections to its current wording. Are you really talking about the fourth paragraph? Esoglou (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Right, they were about the third paragraph, and have been copied above.μηδείς (talk) 05:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

(Continuing the original thread of this subsection)

I haven't been able to identify any useful quote from an authoritative source that might meaningfully convey a relationship between the institutions. How 'bout this as alternative wording (kind of says something and nothing at the same time)?

The state church would refer to itself by many names during its history and today authors use many names as well. The church has been variously referred to as the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, the Imperial Church, or simply the Roman Church, though these terms are often used in other ways as well. The legacy of this institution carries on today, directly and indirectly, in the modern Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church, as well as many others.

This paragraph is intended to wrap up the introduction to the topic. This last statement there is certainly vague but the specifics can be clarified in the body (the proper way to do that is something that will probably require some more debate but let's try to finish off the lead at least).

--Mcorazao (talk) 14:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the last part, as now modified, can pass. I would only suggest that "as well as many others" become "and in others", in order not to raise possible disputes.

On the names used for the state church of the Roman Empire, I think it is necessary to draw a clear distinction between the names used in its own time and those that historians use today. Certainly, in its own time it was unambiguously called "the catholic church" and "the orthodox church". At that time these were descriptive names, not proper nouns, and for that reason they should, I think, be given with lower-case initials. I don't suppose that "the imperial church" was ever used at that time, but you may know better than I do. To me it sounds like a name that only modern historians would apply to it and one they would use only when the context clearly shows that the empire in question is the Roman Empire. As you know, modern writers use "the imperial church" to refer also to other historical churches, again in contexts that indicate what were the empires they were associated with, and this seems to indicate that if "the imperial church" is given as a modern name for the state church of the Roman Empire, "imperial church" should be followed immediately with "(i.e. of the Roman Empire)". "Roman church" is a puzzle. When the state church existed, was it ever really called the Roman church? I find that hard to believe, but again you may know better. Perhaps the term "Roman church" is sometimes used today for the state church of the Roman Empire, but even if you limit use of that term to modern writers, it will surprise many readers and will be challenged. It therefore requires to be backed up immediately with a citation. I also find it hard to believe that "the Roman Church" is in common use even today to designate the state church of the Roman Empire rather than the contemporary church of Rome (not of the Roman Empire): so, even if you do support your statement with a citation, you had perhaps best add that this use is (as I suppose) uncommon. Esoglou (talk) 17:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Honestly I don't have a detailed knowledge of what terms were used by various contemporaries in particular contexts. It is certainly the case that in broad strokes the terms catholic, orthodox, emperor, and Roman were used in reference to the church and in some way or another distinguish the congregations from other groups. But to what extent catholic church, orthodox church, imperial church, or Roman church were used at that time as explicit names for this institution I am not certain. Modern scholars use a variety of terms, often depending on the period they are looking at and what perspective they are coming from. "Roman church" is used sometimes in contexts focusing on the 4th/5th century, sometimes others. "Byzantine church" is commonly used for later periods, of course (probably should mention that as well).

I am hesitant to start getting into "this term was used by this group at this time" and so forth. It opens up a can of worms in terms of debating what any particular group considers the proper term. The purpose of the statement was only to mention that the reader might expect to find these other terms used in different sources (or to put it another way, it was to emphasize that there is no single term that is considered uniquely descriptive).

--Mcorazao (talk) 22:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Then I think the whole passage is misleading, unless you specify that you are talking about terms used in modern books and give a citation for each name. I feel confident that "at that time" (your phrase) "imperial church" and indeed also "Roman church" were not used to refer to the state church of the Roman Empire. I have also come to the conclusion that even "catholic church" and "orthodox church" were not then used to refer specifically to the state church of the empire. These terms were used to exclude heretics, but I do not believe that they were used to exclude also the Christians of Ireland or the pre-Chalcedonian Ethiopian Christians, who were outside the state church of the Roman Empire. Unless you cite reliable sources that say that these terms were used "at that time" specifically for the state church of the Roman Empire, I think you must omit the suggestion that they were thus used. Even with regard to modern usage, you need a citation for each of the four names. Esoglou (talk) 06:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

There are some sources which claim that the "Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church was the Universal (katholikos) Church of the Roman Empire. The Pope was not the ruler of that Church, but one of the Ecumenical Patriarchs, along with the Patriarchs of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople. The Pope was allowed to be primus inter pares, "first among equals," but that was it. Governance of the Church was also shared with the Emperor...", "The single, true, and orthodox Church of the Roman Empire was the "Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church"". Although, today the expression "Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church" probably refers more often to the RCC, I think it should be mentioned that in the past it could refer to the state church of the Roman Empire. Cody7777777 (talk) 13:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into a debate about whether citations are required in the lead. To be clear, Wikipedia's standard, in general, is to focus on what terminology is used in modern English, not contemporary terminology. Strictly speaking it would not be wrong to completely ignore what historical sources called the church. The point is that each of these terms that I've mentioned is used in modernsources to describe the church. Whether or not a given author explicitly excluded other groups is not necessarily relevant either. E.g. a given author discussing strictly the Roman Empire might use orthodox church to refer strictly to the Empire's church though he never mentions the Church of Ireland directly or indirectly. It could be argued that he is not intending to exclude Ireland per se but at the same time he is not talking about the Church of Ireland.

Cody7777777's quote demonstrates some of the modern usage. I'm thinking it is perhaps best not to get into every nuanced term that is used by any particular author (e.g. "Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church", "Universal Church of the Roman Empire", "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church", etc.). I was simply trying to list a handful of the basic terms that readers will find and let them parse the more complex expressions that may use these and other terms.

--Mcorazao (talk) 14:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we agree on the need to indicate clearly that the names in question are names used by modern writers, avoiding any suggestion that they were used of the state church of the Roman Empire in its own time.

I suppose single Internet sources can be found for present-day usage of almost any names you choose, but whatever names you do choose should surely be shown to be verifiable.

If someone applies a particular name to the state church of the Roman Empire while admitting its applicability also to, say, the church in Ireland at the time, I would think he is applying it to the state church of the Roman Empire as part of the Chalcedonian church, and is not treating it as a specific name for the state church of the Roman empire. Does anyone actually apply the name "Catholic Church" to the state church of the Roman Empire to the exclusion of other parts of the Chalcedonian church, as Roman Catholics apply it to their own church to the exclusion of all others (such as the Anglican communion)? Perhaps some writers do apply it in that way to the state church of the Roman Empire. If they do, they should be cited. If they don't, the reader should not be led to believe that they do. Esoglou (talk) 15:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps where the current draft says "...though these terms are often used in other ways as well" we could add: "as well by modern sources, sometimes referring to the entire church both inside and outside the Empire." Revcasy (talk) 15:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm ok with something like that. Here's another attempt:

The state church is referred to in a variety of ways by modern authors. It is sometimes referred to as the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, the Imperial Church, the Byzantine Church, or simply the Roman Church, though these terms may also refer to larger communions that existed outside the Empire. The legacy of this institution carries on today, directly and indirectly, in the modern Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church, as well as many others.

--Mcorazao (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Esoglou, here are some references that might be helpful.

• Latourette (1983), p. 175 - "The Catholic Church was the majority Church of the Roman Empire"
• Schaff (1910), p. 179

--Mcorazao (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer the following: "Modern authors refer to this state church in a variety of ways: as the catholic church, the orthodox church, the imperial church, the Byzantine church, the Roman church, terms used also of wider communions extending outside the Roman Empire. Its legacy carries on, directly or indirectly, in today's Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church and others." However, I don't want my preferences to be an obstacle to progress. So if nobody else speaks up on the same lines, I will stand aside.

For the same reason, I do not insist that you provide citations for the names you mention. But I do think that, sooner or later, someone will justifiably attach a "Citation needed" tag to one or more of them. (I do not have the two books you have cited here on Talk, and Google Books does not provide the text of the pages you refer to, at least in this country.) Esoglou (talk) 19:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm ok with that wording. Regarding the references, those links are visible in Google for me. I'm not sure why they wouldn't be showing up for you. In any event I am not objecting to having references in the lead. There already are some now. In general, though, the idea is supposed to be that the lead is a summary of the article and so references should usually not be necessary. I can add references for this, though, but I doubt there is any scholarly study that says "These are the n most common expressions found in books referring to this topic." The intent is not to state the most commonly used terms but just examples of other terms used by some authors. --Mcorazao (talk) 20:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. It seems we are in full agreement. If the terms used are justified later in the article, there is of course no ground whatever for my observation about citations. Even if they aren't, I don't think it worth insisting on. Esoglou (talk) 05:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I substituted in the text. I added "or even" to make it flow a little better but feel free to remove that if you don't like it. --Mcorazao (talk) 14:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

"Or even" draws special attention to "Roman church" and, to my mind, O'Hara's citation of feminist Fiorenza's "Constantinian imperial Roman Church" doesn't quite support it. But I really have no objection to what you have written, since "Roman church" does not have, at least for me, at all the same overtones as "Roman Church". Thanks. Esoglou (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I actually interpreted "or even" in a different way. To me the "even" indicates "this may sound strange but its sometimes true." The intention was to, in some sense, downplay "Roman church" since that is more commonly used to refer to Rome specifically. In reality when I see "Roman church" referring to the state church I have always seen it using some additional qualifer, e.g. "imperial Roman Church". I thought about adding more qualified versions but that seemed to me being too anal about what is intended to be a very simple point. --Mcorazao (talk) 16:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Even if I didn't say so expressly, my thought too was "this may sound strange". But I didn't follow this thought with "but it is sometimes true". This term is the one that I feel certain will one day be questioned, even with the lower case for "church". I do not think that "imperial Roman Church" (i.e. the church of the Roman Empire) is at all the same as "Roman Church" or even "Roman church" (which to me means "church of Rome" not "of the Roman Empire"). But I leave the raising of objection to whoever will - so I expect - raise it in the future. Due to fatigue? I can't rule out that possibility, but any fatigue I may perhaps feel is only slight. Esoglou (talk) 17:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I changed it to imperial Roman church. I'm a little torn as to whether that seems a little weird in context but for now it's good enough. --Mcorazao (talk) 17:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

This change has drawn my attention to a defect already in the text, but now made more evident: I think we can't say that the terms "imperial church" or "imperial Roman church" or perhaps even "Byzantine church" are used also of a wider communion extending outside the empire, as we can say of "catholic church" and "orthodox church". I have made bold to alter the text in the article. You may well wish to retouch my edit. Esoglou (talk) 18:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Is not some mention of the claim of the CoE to trace its authority independently from Rome to the Empire important? Didn't Henry argue that the Bishop of Rome's claim of authority over the Church in England was a usurpation?μηδείς (talk) 17:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly not unimportant. In general the RCC and EOC are the entities that are commonly seen as being the major successors. I have no objection, per se, to mentioning the CoE though there is the potential for opening a can of worms, first in terms of including every entity that has ever been considered a successor by anyone, and then in terms of people arguing which ones are the rightful successors. That was the very reason we simplified to saying the RCC, EOC, "and others". But for now if nobody else objects to adding the CoE I won't. --Mcorazao (talk) 17:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Does the Church of England actually claim to trace its authority to the Roman Empire? Even in the light of the teaching that the civil ruler is the supreme governor of the church, I don't see on what basis we can say that. Henry VIII did declare unfounded the papal claim to jurisdiction over the church in England, but did he or the Church of England actually declare that that this church was once subject to the Byzantine/Roman Emperor, when the English, unlike the Britons (Welsh) had never been subject to the empire? Esoglou (talk) 18:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Revaluation

The article is not redundant as it concerns the Imperial Church, largly marked by Arianism, from Constantine to Theodosius and the establishment of the concilliar church. Up until then the Emperor was the undisputed ruler of the church with councils as advisory bodies. After the acceptance of the nicene creed the councils become authoritative and the papacy & patriarchs rise to power. The golden age of the Imperial Church was under Constantius II 317-361ce an Arian that made every effort to stamp out trinitarian heresy.

The church during the reign of Theodosius was not an Imperial church as he had no interest in ruling the church and handed power over to the bishops, it was essentially a concilliar church under imperial protection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.25.142 (talk) 23:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration

Let it be reflected that McCorazao's request for arbitration was unanimously declined.μηδείς (talk) 03:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Lead, again

Another dispute has arisen over the lead for this article. Some admins have requested more input from the community to assist in resolving the dispute. 18:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

A couple of admins have requested that more input be sought to resolve the current deadlock on the lead section so ...

For the uninitiated, this article has been highly controversial. I had started a discussion thread to attempt to at least come to consensus on the lead section and then move on to the rest of the article. Unfortunately there is a deadlock on the third paragraph of the lead that is showing no sign of resolving itself. Hopefully some other opinions might help.

As of this edit, the text that would become the 3rd paragraph read

Even as the Western Roman Empire decayed in the 5th and 6th centuries the Church persisted, at least in theory, as a unifying entity between East and West. The Muslim conquests of the 7th century would begin a process of converting most of the Christian world in Asia and Africa to Islam severely weakening both the Empire and its church. As the Franks under Charlemagne conquered much of Western Europe including Rome the Church in Rome finally separated itself from its allegiance to Constantinople thus ending any pretense of connection to the state church in Constantinople in the West.

The 3rd paragraph currently reads

While the Western Empire decayed as a polity, with Rome being sacked in 410, 455, and 546, and Romulus Augustus being forced by Odoacer to abdicate in 476, the church as an institution persisted in communion, if not without tension between the east and west. While the Muslim conquests of the 7th century would begin a process of converting most of the Christian world in Asia and Africa to Islam severely weakening both the Empire and its church, missionary activities throughout its history created a communion of churches that extended beyond the empire, as such a communion extending beyond the empire existed even before the establishment of the state church of the empire. In the west, the obliteration of the empire's boundaries by Germanic peoples and an outburst of missionary activity among these peoples, who had no direct links with the Byzantine Empire, and among Celtic peoples, who had never been part of the Roman Empire, fostered the idea of a universal church free from association with a particular polity.[4]. With the 25 December 800 AD crowning of Charlemagne as Imperator Romanorum by his ally, Pope Leo III, the de facto political split between east and west became irrevocable and the church in the west was clearly no longer part of the state church of the Byzantine Empire. Spiritually, the Chalcedonian Church, as a communion broader than the imperial state church, continued to persist as a unified entity, at least in theory, until the Great Schism and its formal division with the mutual excommunication in 1054 of Rome and Constantinople.

One proposed alternative above was

By this period most of the basic doctrines of the church had become well established. Even as the empire struggled through onslaughts and territorial loss during this period the church remained a unifying institution. By end of the 8th century Rome had permanently separated from the Eastern Roman, or Byzantine, Empire and the state church was confined to the eastern Mediterranean. During the 7th and 8th centuries the conquests of the Muslim rulers further reduced the territory of the Empire and the reach of the church. By the beginning of the second millennium the patriarchate of Constantinople was effectively the only part of Justinian's formulation that still remained part of the state church. The church would nevertheless remain a defining institution until the Empire's demise in the late Middle Ages.

There has been discussion of these here, here, and here. Please feel free to comment on the form the 3rd paragraph (or the lead as a whole) should take and/or any advice on how to resolve the deadlock and continue making progress (and avoid further edit warring on this paragraph).

--Mcorazao (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Tangential discussion moved to new section. --Mcorazao (talk) 14:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Moving other editors' remarks is vandalism.μηδείς (talk) 21:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Not notifying all relevant parties of a request for comment is an act of bad faith, Mcorazao.μηδείς (talk) 03:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what that means. --Mcorazao (talk) 04:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it correct behaviour for an editor to revert repeatedly from a text agreed on by the other editors to a version for which not even one other editor has (so far) expressed support? One would think that the proper procedure would be to use the generally-agreed-on text as the basis for discussion leading to whatever amendments are judged to be necessary or useful. Esoglou (talk) 05:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I have repeatedly asked that objections to each individual sentence be explained. There is no obligation for me to continue to comment in an absence of specific remarks from others. Replacing an untagged paragraph, arrived at by the work of several editors, that has references to actual factual events and links to articles about those events and people, with one editor's vague synthesis is unacceptable. Nor is retention of the standing wording preventing anyone from improving areas of the article which actually are tagged. The fact that Mcorazao and Esoglou have come to some apparent agreement to support each other's edits does not amount to consensus.μηδείς (talk) 21:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Medeis, you have been invited numerous times to discuss the lead and respond to concerns about the state its in. I have personally bent over backwards to show you extra courtesy. And you have been given ample time to calm down and reconsider your behavior.

You cannot independently decide that you own the article and halt forward progress. If you are not willing to discuss alternatives then you give up your right to have input. --Mcorazao (talk) 02:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I assume good faith on the part of Medeis and do not interpret his observation that Mcorazao and I "have come to some apparent agreement to support each other's edits" as implying an underhand agreement between us. I think indeed that it is to the credit of Mcorazao, RevCasy and (if I may just this once boast) me that, though we started with not merely different but actually directly opposing views, we chose not to revert, in edit-war fashion, to whatever text each of us preferred individually, but instead engaged in a discussion that led to unanimous, express and open agreement on the text that Medeis later objected to and reverted from.

Medeis claims about an "absence of specific remarks from others", but specific comments have been made above, under "Objection to third paragraph", and Medeis has not responded to them. One was a request for a response from him to observations about "a seeming obscurity and a couple of seemingly off-topic items in his version of the third paragraph". The other was: "Would Medeis now say why he considers it correct behaviour to revert repeatedly from a text agreed on by the other editors to a version for which not even one other editor has (so far) expressed support. One would think that the proper procedure would be to use the generally-agreed-on text as the basis for discussion leading to whatever amendments are judged to be necessary or useful." The second of these comments corresponds to that of Mcorazao immediately above, and seems to be the one that at this point most needs a response. Surely no one individual among us can claim an ownership right whereby that one individual is able to exclude from the article a text agreed on by all the other editors. In Wikipedia, no text is frozen for eternity. Esoglou (talk) 06:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Asking me about whether I consider something "correct behavior" (!) is not making a direct criticism of the text to which I can respond. Please make specific comments about specific sentences, and their supposed specific faults and I will answer them. As it stands, the current text gives dates and facts which can be verified. Mcorazoa's "alternative" is a pure editorial synthesis - it states no historical facts - it just amounts to his own personal vague summary of unverifiable nothingness. He states not one single verifiable fact.

I have no problem with making specific changes if they are justified. The assumption that it is either the current version, or Mcorazao's entirely fact-free version is your own unwarranted assumption. Indeed, nothing in the third paragraph is even tagged - while problems remain with the rest of the article which you can address any time you like, including now. Stop making personality an issue. Be specific. Go sentence by sentence and say exactly what you find objectionable with each or move on to some topic which actually needs attention.μηδείς (talk) 23:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

That is precisely the trouble: you are demanding that your text be the one to work on, although nobody else supports it. Anything personal in what I wrote before I withdraw. I only ask that you admit that what you propose as the basis for discussion has nobody's support but yours, and that the text that you deleted is the only one that has the support of several editors, indeed of all the other active editors. Surely that is objective, not personal.

It seems to me that the text to which editors should propose changes by addition, removal or other improvement ought not to be one that a single isolated editor imposes on the others, when those others unanimously agree on a different concrete text, and that a Wikipedia editor ought to accept as the basis for discussion (not as definitive) a text that all the others are agreed on. Do you disagree? Esoglou (talk) 07:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Two weeks without reply. Time to restore to the article the text that all editors but one agree should be the basis for discussion and editing? Esoglou (talk) 07:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Well past time to move forward. Consensus has not changed since the prior discussions, despite the objections of a single editor, and no attempts at a new consensus have been made by the objector. We have made good-faith efforts both to involve the wider community and to allow for extended discussion and alternative proposals. Per WP:Cons "consensus can be assumed if editors stop responding to talk page discussions". Revcasy (talk) 14:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

There has been no response to my repeated request that each sentence be criticized individually. None. At one sentence a day this would be done by now.

The suggested new text amounts to a vague editorial synthesis - it entirely lacks specifically identified verifiable facts, in line citations, and links, all of which the extant version has. If you refuse to give specific criticisms of the existing version - which is not "mine"; it was composed collectively - then there is nothing for me to respond to. An encyclopedia should be encyclopedic. Unless this article is going to be pared down to cover only the period from Constantine to Augustulus, things such as Charlemagne's coronation and the mutual excommunication of the great schism are going to remain salient events which must be mentioned.

The process which we have adopted, by my understanding, is to work at the lead, paragraph by paragraph, in order to come to some consensus on what the scope of the article should be. The scope of the article was the substance of the debate which eventually led to the AfD nomination, and the lack of consensus over that issue is exactly what the current process was intended to address. You have requested criticism of the third paragraph, sentence by sentence, but this would amount to re-opening the debate over scope in essentially the same form which has previously led to no consensus and lack of progress on improvement of the article. I understand and appreciate your concerns over the absence of citations in the proposed new third paragraph, but this should be understood as an ongoing process of improvement and consensus building, and not the establishment of some final version of the article for-all-time. I am sure that our continued work will result in the addition of citations to all paragraphs in the lead. I welcome your input on an improved version of the proposed third paragraph, but I respectfully must disagree with the alternative you submit of retaining the current third paragraph and basing our debate on it because I (and I believe the other involved editors) view this as a non-constructive step. Revcasy (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Johnbod (talk) 16:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

But this is not a matter of scope, since the new paragraph still covers the same time period. It is a matter of detail—with all details removed. Removing details to leave an editorial comment unsupported by verifiable facts, citations, or links is simply not encyclopedic. Although an empty synthesis, without verifiable details it indeed amounts to editorial synthesis. No actual argument has provided anywhere as to what is specifically wrong with the existing version, which was a collaborative effort. The repeated assertion that three editors would like to rewrite the paragraph for the sake of rewriting the paragraph is a rather weak rationale, but when the result is simply to remove all relevant facts, conveying to the reader no detail, the result is unacceptable. According to the MOS, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." Reading the proposed third paragraph, the reader comes away with no actual knowledge, except that "after this, things happened." At a minimum, in an article on the state church of the Roman Empire, the sack and fall of Rome, the coronation of Charlemagne, by the pope, as roman emperor, and the mutual excommunication of the churches are essential details which must be conveyed, The present wording does this and the suggested wording does not.μηδείς (talk) 16:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the inclusion of Charlemagne in the article was a contentious issue in our previous (lengthy and heated) discussions. This is precisely what I mean by re-opening issues which have led to stalemate and lack of progress in the past. I do believe that there is a way to mention Charlemagne in the article in a non-contentious way, but I do not believe that debating the current third paragraph sentence-by-sentence is the best way to arrive at that point. Let me state further that this way of writing an article is foreign to me, as I would normally start with the sources and work toward a text (for numerous reasons, not least of which is that it makes citation much easier), while what we have been forced to do here is exactly the opposite. However, I believe that this is a special circumstance, and that it calls for special methods. It is not an ideal way of proceeding, but in the interest of making progress I am willing to submit to it. I ask that you also would temporarily put aside your concerns (which I realize are not entirely the same as mine) and work toward consensus with us. Revcasy (talk) 17:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that Revcasy's comments be taken on board; articles (and therefore topics) are indeed usually developed from sources that deal with those topics. In this respect, the article title seems something of a chimera; what does it refer to? In other words, what happened to the historical approach? Nowhere in the lead or the article itself do I see reference to the unificatory and organisational functions of Religion in the pre-Christian Roman Empire. Why, then, a "state church"? What does a state church do and what is it for? More baldly, what were the perceived advantages to the Roman State of institutional Christianity over the body of traditional cults loosely and variously known as traditional, Hellenistic and Imperial cult; or, in total, over "paganism", if one prefers the term. These are foundation issues. They should be made explicit; and it strikes me that if they are made so, the content-fork issues described below by SteveMcCluskey come into play. Haploidavey (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, but in an article about the state church of the Roman empire, The crowning of the first western Imperator Romanorum by the Bishop of Rome in three centuries is simply not the sort of thing one leaves out. Again, this is an encyclopedia. How including mention of this amounts as controversial eludes me. It is a seminal event in Western religious and political history.

Please do not simply assert that this is controversial. Explain to me in concrete terms specifically what is controversial about it.μηδείς (talk) 22:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I did not go into details because I am specifically trying to avoid covering the same ground in debate again that has been covered exhaustively in the past. For the answer to your inquiry, if you do not recall on your own, see the archives of this talk page and the extremely extensive AfD discussion. Revcasy (talk) 23:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The basic text on which to work should be the one chosen by the editors in general, all but one. Medeis's comments should be treated as a proposal for additions. Do we have consensus (by all editors but one) to put the agreed text in the article and then consider proposals for modifying it? Esoglou (talk) 07:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It is clear at least that there is no support for Medeis's text, which must be replaced by that favoured by all the rest. Additions can be made through consensus, not through imposition by a single editor. Esoglou (talk) 19:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with you restoring the tags, although they usually indicate ongoing discussion. As for resuming an edit war with a dishonest edit summary after two years? μηδείς (talk) 00:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and do not us the term dishonest to describe an edit summary that explained the commenting out of the reference to the Park book by saying "self-published work printed by vanity press Xulon Press is not a reliable source", and that explained the restoration of the third paragraph as agreed by all but one editor by saying "see Talk" (for the comment of 19:17, 17 September 2012 above. Esoglou (talk) 06:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)