Talk:Second Council of Ephesus

message: Astonishingly "POV" title! --Wetman 21:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So I moved it --Henrygb 22:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV title 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Neutrality? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Trying to fix neutrality 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Who is Perry? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wrong Barsumas 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Much need of clarifications 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Christology Focus