" 

 == Edit War Over Intro == 

 User 69.51.152.180, you asked me to explain my objections to your recent revision of the Arius article's opening paragraph.  I will try to do so here. 

 My primary concern is with what appears to be your lack of NPOV in what you wrote. Arius is, admittedly, an extremely difficult subject to write about—especially if one is trying to maintain a strictly ""Neutral Point of View"" (such as Wikipedia demands).  Since the opening paragraph is the first part of the article one is likely to see, it is especially important to compose it in as NPOV a manner as possible.  With all due respect (and I sincerely mean you no disrespect here!), I do not believe your revisions accomplish this.  The overall tone of your new wording clearly slants the reader against Athanasius and his side, and toward Arius.   

 Here are some more of my objections:   

 First, you say that Arius was a ""target"" of the First Council, which is clearly not NPOV; it seems meant to slant the reader in favor of your clearly-intended ""victim,"" Arius, and against your ""boogyman,"" Athanasius.  I don't think that history supports your assertion that Arius was a ""target,"" as if the whole council had already predecided against him before it even was called (which is what your wording indicates).  Rather, what I have read indicates that while most of the bishops were predisposed against Arius, they were willing to grant him a hearing and did at least listen to his statements before deciding against him.  Yes, the debate became heated, and yes, Nicholas of Myra definitely got way out of hand by slapping Arius in the face.  I'm no friend of Athanasius, myself; I believe he and his friends were almost as wrong as I believe Arius was (I am neither an Arian nor an Athanasian, myself!).  But to say that Arius was a ""target"" of the First Council is misleading, and clearly indicates (at least to me!) a definite pro-Arius bias on your part.   

 Second, you describe Athanasius as a bishop, which he was not at the time of the First Council.  Athanasius was a deacon at that time, although he later became the bishop of Alexandria. 

 Thirdly, you refer to the ""Catholic Church.""  This, too, can be very misleading, as Roman Catholicism as we know it today (with its all-powerful and allegedly ""infallible"" pope, college of cardinals, doctrine of purgatory, and claims of complete and absolute authority over every square inch of Christiandom) did not exist at the time of the First Council.  Although many who are not well versed in early Church History believe that the only thing that existed before the Protestant Reformation was Catholicism, history tells a vastly different tale.  At the time of the First Council, the Church of Rome coexisted alongside the Churches of Alexandria and Antioch; other, smaller churches also existed during this period.  While most recognized a primacy of honor for the Bishop of Rome, none necessarily recognized any authority of that bishop to meddle in their affairs, or to dictate to the whole church.  Church government was conciliar in nature, not monarchial; the conflict between these two visions of church governance would continue in the Roman Church into the Reniassance period.  So to simply say ""the Catholic Church"" is misleading; the Eastern Orthodox Church, a body which can claim an antiquity at least as great as that of Rome, would certainly disagree with your wording, as would many historians.  In my opinion at least, one ought simply to say ""the Church,"" or ""The Christian Church;"" not ""the Catholic Church,"" when speaking of the Church as a whole during this era. 

 Fourth, you say that Athanasius et al used Arianism as an ""epithet,"" a ""weasel word"" of sorts to bring together all those who disagreed with Trinitarianism under a single label, which could then be attacked and destroyed.  Again, NPOV is sacrificed here; Arianism was not an epithet, but a real theological idea which was articulated by its defender, Arius, both prior to, during, and after the First Council.  It was not a chimera, but a real teaching.  As such, it was examined, and the council rejected it.  To describe it as an ""epithet,"" in the manner you did here, is grossly biased and misleading, at least in my opinion.   

 Your wording even seems (I emphasize the word ""seems;"" I might misunderstand your intended meaning, here) to indicate that Arius might not have taught ""Arianism"" at all; yet all of his contemporaries, both pro and con, agree that he did.  He might not have originated it, but he definitely taught it.  It is misleading in the extreme to word this intro in such a way as to make it seem that Arius might not have really taught Arianism at all (again, if that was what you were doing here), but was rather made a ""target"" and a scapegoat in s