Talk:Second Council of Ephesus

Well was it or wasnt it, Ecumenical?
Para 1 - "...it was never accepted as ecumenical." Para 2 "...those who accepted the Second Council of Ephesus" (Flat Contradicition)

There appears to be some confusion here as the Council was accepted as Ecumenical by the Oriental Orthodox Churches. Perhaps the insertion of the phrase 'was never accepted as Ecumenical by the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches but was by the Oriental Orthodox Churches.

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


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

Astonishingly "POV" article

Neutrality?
Uses only Catholic/Western sources. Could benefit from use of Orthodox/Eastern sources for a more balanced perspective. Haphazardmind 21:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty vague ground for tagging the whole article as disputed. The policy for adding the "disputed" tag states "The above label is meant to indicate that a discussion is ongoing, and hence that the article contents are disputed and volatile. If you add the above code to an article which seems to be biased to you, but there is no prior discussion of the bias, you need to at least leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article. The note should address the problem with enough specificity to allow constructive discussion towards a resolution, such as identifying specific passages, elements, or phrasings that are problematic." Here I see no dispute. You have an idea for making the article better; that's great. If you get a chance, go ahead and do it. I don't see a dispute. So, removing the tag. Mrhsj 17:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

-I actually agree that it is a huge problem to use the Catholic Encyclopedia as your only source. Only a non-scholar or Catholic would not see this problem (think - it has an inherent bias built in AND its pretty dated "scholarship"). It may be vague (a better criticism would be general), but it is far from unfounded. There must be hundreds of scholarly, peer-reviewed articles on this council or at least thousands on the history, dogma, and culture of the early Christian Church. I mean, what if we asked a 16th century pope for his opinion on Martin Luther? These early councils had huge ramifications that continue to resonate today, and they should be described and analyzed in "objective" terms for an encyclopedia. 24.179.180.180 21:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)lostinminnesota
 * I'm well aware of the problems of relying on Catholic Encyclopedia (and can do without the ad hominem criticism). In fact one of my very first substantial wikipedia edits was a rewrite of a very biased article from the same source. But that has nothing to do with the "disputed" tag. This article simply is not "disputed" according to the Wikipedia policy cited above. Mrhsj 21:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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


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

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


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

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

Who is Perry?
"Perry" is cited three times in the article as a reference. But in the reference there are no works by anyone called Perry.

Who is Perry? What source of Perry is being cited?

Montalban (talk) 00:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I read earlier that there's a dispute about bias and of using only one source; the Catholic Encyclopedia. I note in their article they also refer to "Perry" without further information. It seems that the article's author has followed this one source far too closely... which is not to give it the proper credit and to follow its mistakes/lack of information.

I googled "Perry" and the "Robber Council" and note that it gives a work by a Perry on this matter. ''The second synod of Ephesus, together with certain extracts relating to it, from Syriac mss. preserved in the British museum'' by S. G. F. Perry

Montalban (talk) 00:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Wrong Barsumas
The article Barsumas is about the Nestorian bishop of Nisibis, while the Barsumas referred to here was an 'anti-Nestorian'. The one here was the archmandrite of a Syrian monastery, and does not appear to have an article. I've unlinked it. See wikisource:Page:Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature (1911).djvu/119 for more details. 2602:304:CEEB:4D60:70E6:AF69:4624:B574 (talk) 21:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Much need of clarifications
I tried just correcting the grammar but found the article confusing. It needs work by someone who has the time and interest and access to sources. Jzsj (talk) 15:20, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Christology Focus
If and when someone has a chance to work on this page I feel it could probably have a stronger focus on the Christology element. It's mentioned in the second para and terminology of monophysites and miaphysites is used however it seems to be a relatively small amount of explanation for what is, arguably, the most significant historical and theological aspect of the Council. Maybe an entirely new section could focus on it with most of the second paragraph moved there and expanded on? Thanks. Lewis Ransom (talk) 15:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)