Talk:Constantinianism

message: Since when did calling a spade a spade become "POV"?  Is the truth so unpalatable that it needs whitewashing?  My Wikidness 18:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV? 

message: I just put a POV tag on the article. It appears that, unbeknownst to me, this article has had POV charges before. This is hardly surprising. Modernism is the "Modernist heresy"? The term Protestant arose from "bigoted opposition" to the Diet of Speyer? This is indeed "contentious POV". Kevinsam 07:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll say. The Catholic Church has not adopted "modernism." As far as I know most everything in  LAMENTABILI SANE is still valid. The Catholic Church does not believe that the truth changes, that Christ did not really found the Church, or that all religions are equal. It doesn't even accept that people should believe in religions purely based on where "the light of reason" takes them. (This is Pius IX rather than X and dealing with a part of that Syllabus people ignore. Proposition 15 condemns a specific book that said your religion should be whatever you reason out and there's no need it based in any tradition or revelation)--T. Anthony 05:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is just a dreadful article, worse even than Constantinian shift.  It is unclear whose point of view is being put forward, but it launches too many POV attacks as statements of fact.  --Rumping 15:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Worse than Constantinian shift? That's really saying alot. I agree. There was hardly a non-POV sentence in the whole rant. The problem with constantinianism is that it is vague, and in some quarters in just means "everything I think is bad about religion." If this article is to be useful, it needs to be more like a disambiguation page and point to specific things that a writer might mean when he uses the word constantinianism. Rwflammang (talk) 14:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV! 

message: Is this article really necessary as separate from Constantine I. Obviously at the moment it is not very long. I'm not sure, though, that there would ever be enough content for Constantine I that would ever merit creating two separate articles on the man and what he stood for. --Mcorazao (talk) 18:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this article is certainly not necessary from any encyclopedic consideration. It is just a disambiguation page intended to replace the lurching rant that occupied this namespace before the present article was written. I suppose a redirect would work just as well. Rwflammang (talk) 18:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Necessary? 

message: I just did a fairly full overhaul of the content of this page. Feel free to change as needed. Many articles on JSTOR and books available on Archive.org link John Howard Yoder and Stanley Hauerwas to this as a concept.
I think that this '-ism' article was previously suffering from WP:OR and attempts to vaguely describe Constantine's personal views. The state of this article was the equivalent of a Marxism article that exclusively talked about some strange idealized form of Marx himself.
It still needs significantly more work to get it up to representative of more perspectives, but I hope that my edit was a good start. Cheers! Nmarshall25 (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overhaul