Talk:Quinisext Council

NPOV
This article was lifted almost word-for-word from the Catholic Encyclopedia (1908) and shows a strong anti-Orthodox bias. It needs to be re-edited to make it more NPOV. MishaPan 20:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree: the article is utterly unacceptable.81.211.44.171 (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, it still needs work. One problem: the status of Pope Hadrian's reference to the Canons of this council- a positive reference in a letter is not necessarily "accepting and confirming" them. Gabrielthursday (talk) 05:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I rewrote several chunks of the article, and added some information from a more neutral third party source. Not sure about the objection regarding the source on Hadrian- it seems to have been moderated in the text.  I've pulled the NPOV tag for now as in my opinion it seems fairly balanced- add it back if someone disagrees.  --Clay Collier (talk) 12:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It might be a good idea to remove references (lifted from Catholic Encyclopedia) to Bede's work De sexta mundi aetate, since no such work exists - it may be referencing one of his many letters, but I cannot locate it anywhere in Migne's PL. 136.242.180.165 (talk) 16:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Might it be under a different title/name? The CE is a very reliable source, so I'd be shocked if it was made up out of whole cloth. Gabrielthursday (talk) 17:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I see the reference has been removed, but for what it's worth, Bede did indeed condemn the Quinisextum as heretical. The modern title of his work is De temporum ratione (ed. Jones, Corpus christianorum 123B.538) CRolker (talk) 12:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

It seems like the "which" tag on the paragraph about Pre-Christian festivals is unnecessary as later in that same paragraph it mentions several pre-Christian festivals which were disallowed.Patr2016 (talk) 02:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Clearly this article presents the Western - Roman Catholic perspective, relying overwhelmingly on Catholic sources while giving little more than a passing reference to the Orthodox position. I have attached a POV tag which should not be removed until there is consensus on this page that the article's glaring bias has been corrected. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * do you believe the POV issue has been fixed now? Most sources now used are EOrthodox or academic. Maybe now the article as an EOrthodox bias, though. Veverve (talk) 12:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hugely improved. Well done to everyone involved. I have removed the POV tag. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:10, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Canon 2 commentary could use some clarification
Under the decisions line, the article states that canon 2 endorsed the Apostolic constitutions, Athanasius' 39th festal letter, The synod of Laodicea, and the Third council of Carthage. This is true in so far as it goes, but Canon 2 actually endorsed a lot of things, and these four appear to have been singled out because they're four of the most important early statements of biblical canon. If we're going to have a section on the implications of the Quinisext for biblical canon, lets have it explicitly, rather than just have a half-formed thought which obscures the scope of the canons endorsed by the council.

Also, as I read the canon, it's not clear which synod of Carthage is being endorsed, so that claim would be better made with a secondary source, rather than just citing the text of the canon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.128.184.178 (talk • contribs)