text:
Talk:Council of Chalcedon

Anglican's relationship to Chalcedon
When becoming ordained in the Anglican Communion, the ordinate must take a vow subscribing to the first 7 ecumenical councils, which would include the Chalcedonian Council of 451. It is, therefore, also accepted by the Anglican Communion.

 * My impression, via the Thirty Nine Articles, was that generally only the first four (1st Nicaea to Chalcedon) were recognized as Ecumenical Councils. Could you cite your source on the claim that ordinates vow subscribing to the Seven Ecumenical Councils? Deusveritasest (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Anglican 39 Articles of Religion
Article XXI Of the authority of General Councils General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of princes. And when they be gathered together, forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and word of God, they may err and sometime have erred, even in things pertaining to God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of Holy Scripture.

From the above, the authority of this and other Councils is subordinated to the Holy Scriptures. Hence, there are parts of the Council of Chalcedon that may be accepted by Anglicans, and other parts, e.g., "Her virginity was as untouched in giving him birth as it was in conceiving him," from a letter by Pope Leo to Flavian, read in Session 2 of the Council) that cannot be confirmed from Holy Scripture.

Lojahw (talk) 21:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)lojahw

Nestorianism
Nestorianism did not end at Chalcedon, but continued for many centuries in Mongolia, Tibet and China. The section on Nestorianism is therefore not WP:NPOV. m.e. 07:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe the article references Nestorianism within the Eastern Orthidox Church's official stated beliefs, rather than the beliefs of the world as a whole, or members within the church. I came upon this page by chance, so I am not versed on the history of the Eastern Orthidox Church, but by the wording and what I know of general Christian history this would seem to be the case. The Catholic Church also had periods similar to what you describe, where the church's official stated beliefs differed from segments of it's membership, ultimatly leading to the Protestant Revolution--Scorpion451 19:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

 * The article is clearly eurocentric on this matter. Too many descriptions of church history forget that there were plenty of Christians living outside of the Roman Empire. The ecumenical councils were only authoratative within the Empire. Antiochian christology continued to develop within the Church of the East, and Nestorius was honoured. — Gareth Hughes 01:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

the Goeorgian Orthodox Church has never been part of the Chalcedonian Oriental Orthodox communion

 * You're saying that the Georgian Church has never been part of the Chalcedonian Orthodox Communion? Or that it has never been a part of the (Non-Chalcedonian) Oriental Orthodox Communion? Deusveritasest (talk) 00:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

2 Citations Needed
One is needed to show that the Church of Georgia was at one time part of the Oriental Orthodox Church. Next, a citation is needed to show that "a part of the Armenian Church was a part of the Eastern Orthodox Church". Deusveritasest (talk) 00:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

 * It's been a little over two weeks since I noted that a citation was needed, and as such will remove the statements about the Georgian and Armenian churches. Deusveritasest (talk) 05:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

On Saint Cyril's Christology
A citation is needed to prove that Saint Cyril, in a dogmatic form, stated that it is incorrect to speak of two natures after the union. Deusveritasest (talk) 05:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a bit hard to nail down to a single quote but perhaps a sufficient citation would be to anathema 3. "If anyone shall after the [hypostatic] union divide the hypostases in the one Christ..." There is an easily accessible translation of the Anathemas at NewAdvent. Does anyone think another or more citations would be needed/helpful? Neotertullian (talk) 19:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

 * That anathema only addresses my concern if nature is asserted as certainly meaning the same thing as hypostasis or if "two natures after the union" is proven to be inherently divisive to the Incarnate hypostasis. Deusveritasest (talk) 22:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Fourth Ecumenical Council
Isn't the very first statement of the article "The Council of Chalcedon was the fourth ecumenical council." a violation of NPOV? I know that some Oriental Orthodox would identify the Second Council of Ephesus as the fourth Ecumenical Council, whereas most of them as well as all of the Assyrian Church of the East would claim that there never was a fourth Ecumenical Council. Deusveritasest (talk) 22:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Old Catholic Church
Why is the Old Catholic Church referenced in the second line of the article? This church did not emerge until the 1870s, according to the hyperlinked Wikipedia article. Should the reference be removed, or does it perhaps make reference to some other branch of Catholicism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doc Yak (talk • contribs) 14:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC) Oops. Never mind. On rereading, I understand the reference. Doc Yak (talk) 14:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Status of Constantinople
There's a problem with the last paragraph...

 * After the passage of the Canon 28, Rome filed a protest against the reduction of honor given to Antioch and Alexandria. However, growing concerns that withholding Rome's approval would be interpreted as a rejection of the entire council, in 453 he confirmed the council’s canons with a protest against the 28th.

"Rome filed a protest" but "he confirmed the council's canons"

Who does "he" refer to?

Also "growing concerns that...". This phrasing is awkward. It should be "amid growing concerns..." or "because of growing concerns...."

--Richard (talk) 01:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreement in Faith
A "citation needed" was added to the claim about Oriental Orthodox agreeing in faith with Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. I know both of these statements to actually be of a certain amount of substance and not pulled out of thin air. I will cite a few sources in this post and wait for people to respond before I add them to the article. Here is a website with the list of agreed statements in the Eastern Orthodox-Oriental Orthodox Joint Commission: Orthodox Unity. The next is a common declaration between Coptic Orthodox Pope Shenouda III and Roman Pope Paul VI: Coptic and Roman. Finally, here is a selection of various agreed statements of Oriental and Roman from the Syriac Orthodox Church: Syriac Orthodox w/ Roman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deusveritasest (talk • contribs) 21:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Chalcedonian POV
This article is clearly of a Chalcedonian POV. The first line reads "The Council of Chalcedon was an ecumenical council of the Christian Church". This is a claim of those of the Chalcedonian traditions, such as Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy, but it is not universally recognized, it never has been. Both those of the Oriental Orthodox and East Assyrian traditions do not recognize such a claim. I don't know why the wording was changed in the first place. I originally had it reading "The Council of Chalcedon was believed to have been the Fourth Ecumenical Council by Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox...". I intend to restore this article to NPOV, but I will wait a few days in case anyone wishes to object. Deusveritasest (talk) 03:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

 * I appreciate that this is not recognized by several Christian groups. The word "believe" sounded tentative. For the participants, this was the fourth council. For the Orientals, etc. it was not recognized at all.

 * Maybe we should just stop counting councils? Would that make more sense? My problem is that I thought the church did not divide until 800 or so. You are pointing out that it occurred before then. In other words, I thought all Christians accepted all history up until 800.

 * And, yes, I am familiar with the term "non-Chalcedonians". I shoulda known I suppose. Student7 (talk) 12:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Well, there is more than one tradition which does not recognize the Council of Chalcedon. The Oriental Orthodox are one of them. They accepted Cyril of Alexandria's Council of Ephesus, but then thought that Chalcedon was inconsistent with the former. There is, on the other hand, the Assyrian Church of the East. They never accepted Cyril's council and they harbored Nestorians. They never had any participation in Chalcedon.

 * What do you mean "believe" sounded tentative? Isn't this all that we can say? The Chalcedonians may have confidently thought that Chalcedon was the Fourth Ecumenical Council. But we can't simply but ourselves in their perspective according to NPOV. This isn't a Chalcedonian website. So we can't say anything that would side with the Chalcedonian truth claims over those of the Non-Chalcedonians. If you still don't like "believe", then what else could satisfy? Deusveritasest (talk) 01:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

 * I agree with everything. I don't know what I was reading. It sounds okay to me. Student7 (talk) 12:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Well, it sounded okay to me before.  :) I guess what I was getting at - this is not the same as believing that John Doe has been reincarnated as a fish. It is not a matter of spiritual, but concrete action. It is recognized by blah-blah churches as the fourth. It is not recognized at all by (non-Chalcedonians) which is fine. But word "belief" shouldn't be in there. The group which called itself a council actually met in Chalcedon. If people don't recognize it's scope that is fine, but this group did meet there.

 * Otherwise, it seems to me, we would have so many "beliefs" in religious articles that not only wouldn't people want to read them, we wouldn't want to edit them! Student7 (talk) 23:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Belief is entirely appropriate to refer to the status of the Fourth Ecumenical Council. Yes, it is true that a council met at Chalcedon in 451. This is not disputed by anyone. "Belief" is often concerned with truth claims. For example, a woman aborts her third trimester fetus. One person say that "I believe that that was murder". How is it not appropriate to say that? They may or may not be right about the assertion. But the fact that it is simply a belief that interprets the meaning and nature of an indisputed and concrete event still stands. This is likewise. The Council of Chalcedon really happened. Some say "we believe that that was an Ecumenical Council of the Church of Christ". Others say "we believe that was not an Ecumenical Council, or perhaps it was not even a council of the Church of Christ". Considering something to be an "Ecumenical Council" is not a concrete action, but rather a theoretical property applied by some as a belief. Thus your objection here doesn't really apply. Deusveritasest (talk) 02:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

 * I don't deny good faith on your part and we don't seem to have attracted anyone else who is interested, so I believe this will be my last word on the subject. This belief, however, applies to the future and I am notoriously wrong when predicting future events! :)

 * I realize that all analogies fall apart eventually, but to take the one about the death of the trimester fetus, I can "know" (assuming I have some close relation with the case!) that the fetus is dead, regardless of my beliefs in the matter of murder.

 * More currently, the UN Security Council met to eventually send troops to combat North Koreans invasion of the South in 1950. USSR had unwisely walked out for the duration and could not veto their decision, which he surely would have done had he been there. The decision was, nevertheless taken. It was not the United States belief that the UN Security Council took that step, it really happened. The USSR did not recognize the step as valid (I suppose. Nobody listened to them at that point!), but the Council meeting still happened. It was real. North Korea was not a member and most certainly did not recognize it. I don't know how to reword that in terms of belief.

 * Are you from New England or the UK? Maybe the word "belief" has a stronger meaning for you. In most of the US, it has a weak meaning. Student7 (talk) 12:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Nope, I am from California.

 * I don't see how the debate we are having actually lines up with your analogy, though. Yes, the death of the fetus is an objective reality. Yes, the UN Security council actually took this step. But does this really correspond to what we are discussing. To me, it seems clear that the real objective reality that compares to what you are speaking of is the fact that a church council met in the city of Chalcedon in 451. Is its status as "The Fourth Ecumenical Council", likewise a real objective reality? No, it is simply a theoretical attribute used to describe the Council of Chalcedon, an attribute that may very well be an erroneous attribution. It seems clear to me that whether or not the Council of Chalcedon was the Fourth Ecumenical Council is most clearly comparable to whether or not abortion is murder.

 * You keep trying to speak of objective realities and happenings. How can this be the case with giving attributes to something that happened? Yes, to be more objective we could say that the RC and EO truly did call the Council of Chalcedon the Fourth Ecumenical Council. But we simply cannot go so far as to say that it objectively was the Fourth Ecumenical Council, as that idea is up for debate and is POV. Deusveritasest (talk) 18:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Let me try another approach. Just looked up the Council of Trent. There is no count of the number of this council. The other question: why do we have to count councils through Chalcedon?

 * The word "belief" doesn't occur anyplace. It does not say, the "Catholic church believes that the council of Trent was held..." It just says it was.

 * So why can't we just say the council was held, don't number it, and say who recognized it? The key question here, is when do councils that someone somewhere doesn't recognize cause the article to slop over from "disbelief" to reality? Trent was actual although only accepted by the Catholic Church. I find this relaxing. The other churches really don't care. I agree with their position. Why should they care? If Trent came up with the most outrageous findings (and I'm sure they weren't very polite about Protestants), it does not seem to provoke the "disbelief" that this fairly obscure council did way back when. Student7 (talk) 20:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

 * It is qualified with "of the Roman Catholic Church", however. On top of that, "Nineteenth Ecumenical Council" does redirect to the Council of Trent. But why should we judge what we should do in this article on the basis of what is said in that article? How does that show to say that whether or not the Council of Chalcedon was an Ecumenical Council is a matter of belief is wrong?

 * You're on the wrong track when you bring up the numbering. That is not what was significant. If we said that "the Council of Chalcedon was an Ecumenical Council of the Christian Church", similar to how it was previously phrased except without numbering, I would still object. The point is that the status of Chalcedon as Ecumenical is questionable. It is not recognized by the Oriental Orthodox Church or the Assyrian Church of the East. The 2nd most important church in Christianity at the time, that of Alexandria, never subscribed to Chalcedon until Chalcedon itself deposed the Pope of Alexandria, which it didn't even do for a matter of wrong belief. How is that Ecumenical then? Now, I'm not here to make my POV that Chalcedon was not Ecumenical to be what is said in the Wiki article. But I sure am not going to allow the opposite POV to reign either.

 * I really don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. You keep harping on the point that Trent was actual and that nobody questioned the fact that they said X, Y, an Z. But I never denied that. And that's not the point I'm making. I'm making the point that the status of Chalcedon as Ecumenical is not actual. Chalcedon itself is actual. It actually claimed to be Ecumenical. That doesn't mean it was actually Ecumenical. Deusveritasest (talk) 01:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Non-chalcedonian
I get the distinct impression that the people who ultimately rejected the council, did, indeed attend it, but it got rejected for whatever reasons after they got back home. There is a story in Non-Chalcedonian about minority this majority that. Which seems like weasel words BTW but that is their story and they are sticking to it. Shouldn't the record show here that non-Chalcedonians attended and a summary of the non-chalcedonian article? (Then remove from "see also" where I just put it). Student7 (talk) 00:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Your statement about the Non-Chalcedonians attending Chalcedon and later rejecting it is untrue for not one but two classes of Non-Chalcedonians. For one, your impression that all of the bishops present at Chalcedon accepted the findings is simply false. As a matter of fact, the last canon of the council indicates that the Egyptian bishops refused to ratify the findings of the council en masse in the midst of the council itself. The only reason that the Oriental Orthodox can claim any sort of unbroken continuation to their tradition is because there was always a group of believers even up to the episcopal level who never accepted the Council of Chalcedon. Further, there were pockets of the church that had not direct involvement in the council who later rejected it on the basis of comparison to their own previous traditions. The Armenians are a great example. So yes, the record certainly does show that there were some who attended who did not accept the council. As a matter of fact, one of the most famous among them, Pope Dioscorus I of Alexandria, was one of the primary focuses of the council itself. (talk) 04:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

 * I doubt that there has been any council that was accepted by 100% of the people who actually attended. This is why for large groups, "consensus" is not defined as 100%. That doesn't mean that the council did not take place for the people who didn't care for the outcome. Or who repudiated it after they got home and discovered that it wasn't popular. The latter is a non-council issue, however, not council ones.Student7 (talk) 12:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Who convened the council?
The present version represents a Roman or ultra-Romanist perspective, possibly taken from the Catholic Encyclopedia, by that claiming the council was convened by a pope. The account generally accepted by secular historians is that it was convened (like each of the first seven oecumenical councils) by the Byzantine emperor. In this case the emperor, Marcian, acted under the influence of his wife, the Augusta Pulcheria, sister of the previous emperor Theodosius II, who had favored the other (monophysite) side. There are very full accounts in Gibbon (whose discussion in the Decline and Fall is particular memorable), Bury, Vasiliev, and others.173.61.149.232 (talk) 21:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

 * And? The article does say that the Council was convened by the emperor: "Leo had pressed for it to take place in Italy, but Emperor Marcian instead called for it to convene at Nicaea. Hunnish invasions forced it to move at the last moment to Chalcedon". Another sentence ("The Council of Chalcedon was convened by Flavian's successor, Anatolius, at Pope Leo I's urging, [...]") seems to say that it was the Patriarch of Constantinople who asked the emperor to convene the Council. Are there any other problems? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 22:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

 * It is almost heartwarming how someone can speculate about an article being based on the Catholic Encyclopedia and cry foul and then go on and suggest we look to Gibbon, a pre-critical book from the 18th century. Fact is that there is no neat and tidy way such Councils are convoked. It was a collaboration of Emperor, Pope and Patriarch. Str1977 (talk) 08:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Box at top of article
The box at the top of the article as of 1/23/12 goes far beyond any consensus that I can see. The article does have substantial room for improvement, but I don't think it is true that "the whole piece needs to be replaced by a new entry" and most of the editors on the talk page don't seem to think so either. I will leave the box in place for the moment pending comments, but if no one can provide a good justification for it then I will remove it. Kevin Nelson (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

 * As no one else has made any comments on this issue, I have removed the rewrite box. Since it does raise some potentially serious issues, I am preserving the content of that box by pasting it here:

Kevin Nelson (talk) 07:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

 * My two cents: An article about a religious meeeting occuring a millenia ago, based on an article a century old, is not, by that statement, proved to be obsolete. Definitely in physics and computer science, maybe in mathematics, but not clearly in theology or history! Thanks for removing box! Student7 (talk) 13:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Anglicanism & Protestantism
The IP 216.165.1.67 has edited several articles without explanation including this one but the purpose of the edits seems clear: to include Anglicanism within Protestantism. So far as describing religious movements is concerned, the basic guideline in Wikipedia seems to be that their own self-understanding should be respected, hence the description of "Christian" applied to the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses despite the recurring objections of editors who would restrict the adjective to groups which, among other doctrines, hold to Nicene trinitarianism and Chalcedonian christology. In the case of Anglicanism it is almost a commonplace that it is some form of half-way house between Catholicism and Protestantism. For example, Many more quotations along the same lines could be found but I hope these are sufficient. I have therefore reverted the changes here and will try to do so elsewhere. Jpacobb (talk) 00:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) "[Anglicanism claims to] possess a religious outlook distinguishable from that of other Christian bodies both Catholic and Protestant"(Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church 1974, art. Anglicanism);
 * 2) "Having both Catholic and Protestant features, the Anglican Church ..."(New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, art. England, Church of;
 * 3) About forty or fifty years ago, the "Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States of America" authorised the practice of omitting the adjective "protestant" from its name in general use. (See Episcopal Church (United States).)

Anglicans and Lutherans
I restored the mention of these two denominations for the following reasons. (1) Ever since the Oxford Movement which began in in 1833, an increasing number of Anglicans have been unhappy about classing Anglicanism as a protestant denomination, the standard formula today would seem to be "both Catholic and Protestant" and in this particular field where some sort of self-understanding is clearly stated it takes precedence over other view points [The obvious cases here are the claims of Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses to be classed as "Christian" which are accepted on Wiki but which many "mainstream" thinkers would question or deny.]  (2) There are a number of different understandings of the word "Protestant". To some people it is virtually synonymous of fundamentalist or evangelical: German-speaking Lutherans prefer "evangelische" which is by no means a synonym of the English "evangelical". Jpacobb (talk) 00:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Church?
The article states: "The judgements and definitions of divine nature issued by the council marked a significant turning point in the Christological debates that led to the separate establishment of the church in the Western Roman Empire during the 5th century"

What denomination is "the church" that is mentioned there? That should be clarified. - KitchM (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Methinks it too obvious to clutter the text with, but since you don't, go ahead and edit it in. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 17:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 12:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Council of Chalcedon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100613053629/http://cfpeople.org/Books/Pope/POPEp46.htm to http://www.cfpeople.org/Books/Pope/POPEp46.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130110112941/http://www.aoiusa.org/canon-28-and-eastern-papalism-cause-or-effect/ to http://www.aoiusa.org/canon-28-and-eastern-papalism-cause-or-effect/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Minor language question/neutrality
It seems to me the line 'A minority of Christians do not agree with the council's teachings' could be improved, particularly as it is in the lead. From my perspective, the language minimizes those who does Christians who do not agree with the council. Maybe a better statement might be "While the majority of Christians follow the council's teachings, those that disagreed would become the Oriental Orthodox churches." Thoughts? Dbsseven (talk) 17:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

 * I do not see anything wrong with that line. It is objectively true. Those who disagree with Chalcedon are indeed a minority. This fact does not in any way disparage the Oriental Orthodox. Minorities can be correct. Majorities can be wrong. Referring to a minority as a minority does not imply that its theological stance is incorrect. Ohff (talk) 00:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Lead
, I am confused as to the purpose of your recent reverts. For one, the purpose of the lead is to provide a general overview of the subject at hand. It should give the reader the general idea without getting into too much detail. As long as my edits are true (you haven't said that they aren't), you shouldn't revert them simply because they don't cover all the details you want. If my edits have left something out that you feel is important to have in the lead but are still true in fact, either leave it alone or add the few extra words yourself. A novel concept. Right now, the lead contains no details on what the council actually defined aside from linking to another article. That is a big problem. Either go with what I wrote or add a few words or sentences if you think there's something missing.

Also, the dogma of the Son being consubstantial to the Father was developed centuries earlier by Tertullian and codified at Nicaea. I'm not sure why we need to say it here. Display name 99 (talk) 14:16, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There's no need for more detail in the lead. That's why we have blue links. To re-state the entire Definition in the lead would undermine the rationale for a separate article for the Definition. Do you propose to merge the two articles? Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

 * I don't propose merging. Per WP:Manual of Style/Lead section, "The lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." There's no summary taking place if we totally ignore what the Council actually did. The entire purpose of the lead is undermined if we refuse to provide even a brief summary lasting no more than a sentence or two of what the Council taught. I'm not proposing to restate "the entire Definition." That's what we have the longer article for, and to a lesser extent the body of this one. But a sentence or two isn't too much to ask. BTW, I suppose we can include the consubstantial part, as that was part of the Definition. Display name 99 (talk) 14:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Consubstantial is covered in "and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis". And yes it's an important part of the Definition otherwise it would be open to the charge of Sabellianism. The Definition cannot be selectively quoted. Quote it in its entirety or don't quote it. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The second paragraph ("The Copts...") is unclear, overlong, not neutral, and not clearly related to what comes immediately before and after it. Maybe a comprehensible version of it should be in the "Theological Background" section. 87.122.104.233 (talk) 11:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Council of Chalcedon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131230235329/http://www.anastasis.org.uk/holy_fathers.htm to http://www.anastasis.org.uk/holy_fathers.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Non-neutral language
I appreciate the efforts of editor "84.83.56.208" to provide an Oriental Orthodox counterpoint to the prevailing understanding of the Council of Chalcedon. However, given that their edits added six major paragraphs with blatantly non-neutral language, and their minority viewpoint now dominates the lede paragraph and the rest of the article, I don't think the current article reflects Wikipedia policy.

I am reverting the edits, though I hope that the added content can be salvaged with more neutral language and organization. --PublicolaMinor (talk) 00:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Elephant in the room?
I read the Council of Chalcedon Wikipedia entry, and unsurprisingly noted that it contained the usual text and resources on the subject. I have found it important that in this particular subject, to add the point of view from the non-Chalcedonian Orthodox. It is important to note that The See of Alexandria, being one of the pioneering Churches during that time (pioneer in context of Theology, thoughts, spiritual writings, and framing up discussions in the Early Councils), was not a minority - and including writings from this Church is extremely important to offer a proper assessment of the events that may have taken place. Having sources not from the non-Chalcedonian Churches risks missing out on a major participant and a key party in the Early Church. I am reverting the changes again. If you have any specific inquiries on specific sections, kindly raise these, and I am happy to discuss or provide evidence to the material. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbisada (talk • contribs) 19:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Lead section not adequate
I notice that the lead section of this article fails to give a summary of the council itself and instead focuses on details of the content in sections 2, 'Acceptance' and 3, 'Theological background'. I suggest that the lead section be shortened and made more representative of the article as a whole, so that it "serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents" (MOS:LEAD). I also think the material in the lead section may give an unbalanced summary of the controversies covered in the article, but that is secondary to the main problem, in my opinion. I am also, as a member of the EOC, declaring a conflict of interest here. Maximilian Aigner (talk) 05:31, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Miracle of Euphemia
Why is the miracle of Euphemia not mentioned? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphemia#Miracle_during_the_Council_of_Chalcedon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.77.35 (talk) 12:37, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

 * It’s not mentioned because the earliest mention of the miracle was in an 11th century Constantinople Synaxarium. It is easily dismissed by scholars as a legendary tale attached to saint. More evidence for this is the fact that the story of the miracle claims that the “tome of the monophysites” was found at her feet, but there is was never such a thing as the tome of monophysite, unless it is referring to the second letter of Cyril to succencus, which would have been the closest to thing to a tome, but a letter that was also dogmatized at Ephesus, which would make this legend extremely problematic. Something else to consider is why this legend was not mentioned in the several recorded debates between monophysites (miaphysites) and chalcedonians. Surely if this miracle was witnessed, it would be quite a strong argument against the monophysites? But again, no mention is made. 142.181.90.182 (talk) 11:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

The principal purpose?
In the introduction, this is stated: "The principal purpose of the council was to re-assert the teachings of the ecumenical Council of Ephesus against the teachings of Eutyches and Nestorius."

I think this is a serious misreading of the mentioned source (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03555a.htm). The ecumenical Council of Ephesus (Ephesus I, 431 AD), was not against Eutychus, but against Nestorius. The principal purpose of Chalcedon is therefore not to reaffirm Ephesus I, but it is against Eutychus and the monophysites. 81.82.254.20 (talk) 10:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Council of Chalcedon


text:
Talk:Peshtigo fire

Merge?
Peshtigo, Wisconsin Fire of 1871 is the same think, only a stub, merge the info?--Rayc 03:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Comet Theory
Question -- the comet theory was indeed proposed as early as 1882 and that the comet now known as 3D/Biela was the cause. Why does this article now have a concluding sentence that states: "But now scientists who study meteors now state that meteorites do not pose a threat of starting fires."???

First of all, a comet is not a meteorite. And secondly, as recently May and June of 2007, a group of science researchers asserted that a huge comet hit the Earth's atmosphere over North America approximately 12,900 years ago, wiping out the Clovis culture and large numbers of animal species and (I quote): "wildfires spread across North America". Here are some links: SunSw0rd 20:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Comet may have doomed prehistoric Clovis 12,900 years ago
 * 2) Ice Age Ends Smashingly: Did a comet blow up over eastern Canada?
 * 3) Comet Wiped Out Early North American Culture, Animals, Study Says

 * There is a difference. When a large comet or meteor hits the Earth, the impact catastrophe is similar to a nuclear explosion (cf. the Tunguska event and other impact events). That a wildfire is also started is secondary. In the Chicago and Peshtigo fires, there was no report of a large explosion. If it was started by meteors or comet fragments, they would need to be small enough not to cause such an explosion.
 * Far more likely is that environmental conditions that day were just right over this entire area to turn both places into tinderboxes. Another possibliity is that cinders from one fire were carried at high altitude to the other fire, but I don't know of any evidence to support that. --IanOsgood 19:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The fire jumped the Bay of Green Bay, which is 10 to 20 miles of solid water across and barely visible from one side to the other. There were fires across the 30+ miles of solid waters across Lower Michigan at roughly the same latitude. These three fires line up pretty good, which could support a comet theory. These three fires don't align at all in with the Chicago fire. The weather was the key to all four fires, with winds from a very intense front that fanned the flames in a drought ridden region. Maybe the November gale force wins tha come most years came early that year. The comet section needs to remain a small section for an alternate theory. Royal broil  04:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

comet/asteroid theory
Meteorite experts say that meteorites are cold when they land on earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.42.47 (talk) 01:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So then please see preceding discussion of the difference between an asteroid and a comet. SunSw0rd 15:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Discuss revisions made by User:WolfmanSF -- removing supporting evidence for alternative comet hypothesis and retaining only the cold meteorite commentary. SunSw0rd (talk) 15:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Which experts say this??? There is one unverified anecdote from 1917 and that's all there is. Kortoso (talk) 01:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The wikipedia article on meteorites reports conflicting opinions on this matter - some authorities say that they are hot when they land, others that they are cold and may even have condensation on them. 173.67.130.115 (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

 * That's not critical to the article, given that there were already numerous small fires burning in the area before the firestorm arose. WolfmanSF (talk) 20:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikified and dismabiguated mage
Not sure which to use.
 * 1) Magician (paranormal), a person who performs feats using supernatural means
 * 2) Magician (fantasy), a character in a fictional fantasy context who performs supernatural feats.  I used No. 1.  But it could have been the other.  7&6=thirteen (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC) Stan

Number of deaths
It looks like the intro summary misrepresents the numbers. It says "as many as 1,500", implying no more than that. Later, under the Firestorm heading, it says "Between 1,200 and 2,500". Is the intro just wrong? Westphjm (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Movie "Superfire"
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0303110/ Mentioned one hour and six minutes into the movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.44.164.5 (talk) 10:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Religious belief as fact
From the entry:

The Shrine of Our Lady of Good Help, located on the Door Peninsula, was threatened by the fire but escaped being burned; it remains standing although not as originally constructed. The site is a Marian shrine, where visitors can make religious pilgrimages. The site was unscathed by the flames after Adele Brise and others who had taken refuge there refused to leave and begged the Virgin Mary to save them.

The last sentence presents religious belief as fact. I thought it was irrelevant so I removed it. Risssa (talk) 23:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No. Those are all facts.  There is no claim of causation. You confabulated that on your own.  7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

What part of "The site was unscathed by the flames after Adele Brise and others who had taken refuge there refused to leave and begged the Virgin Mary to save them" are you having trouble with? The sentence clearly implies that the reason the church didn't burn is because of a miracle solicited by Adele Brise and granted by the Virgin Mary. Sure looks like a religious belief being presented as fact. I stand by my decision to remove it. Risssa (talk) 23:55, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That is your opinion, not your decision. We are now discussing it.  Ipse dixit doesn't apply here. Whether the nuns or the Catholics want to believe in miracles (or this particular "miracle") is up to them, and their belief itself can be documented as a fact.  If part of their doctrine somewhere is that The moon is made of green cheese, we could document that too, without attesting to, or contesting, the veracity of the belief.  7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This is from the Shrine's cite:

When the tornado of fire approached Robinsonville (Champion), Sister Adele and her companions were determined not to abandon the Chapel. Encircled by the inferno, the Sisters, the children, area farmers and their families fled to the Shrine for protection. The statue of Mary was raised reverently and was processed around the sanctuary. When wind and fire threatened suffocation, they turned in another direction to hope and pray, saying the rosary. Hours later, rains came in a downpour, extinguishing the fiery fury outside the Chapel. The Robinsonville area was destroyed and desolate…except for the convent, the school, the Chapel, and the five acres of land consecrated to the Virgin Mary. Though the fire singed the Chapel fence, it had not entered the Chapel grounds. Those assembled at the Chapel, realizing that they had witnessed a miracle, were asked by Sister Adele to retire to the Convent, where they were made as comfortable as possible for the rest of the night.

What’s more, the only livestock to survive the fire were the cattle brought to the Chapel grounds by farmers and their families who came to the Shrine seeking shelter from the firestorm. Though the Chapel well was only a few feet deep, it gave the cattle outside all the water they needed to survive the fire, while many deeper wells in the area went dry. Hence, the Chapel well has been sometimes referred to as the “miraculous well”.

In the days to follow the great fire, the poor Belgian pioneers needed no more proof that Mary’s visit to Sister Adele was genuine. Father Peter Pernin, known as the “hero of the Peshtigo Fire”, visited Sister Adele shortly after the catastrophe, and wrote…

“I have no intention either of passing judgment on the apparition of the Blessed Virgin and the pious pilgrimages which have resulted from it. Ecclesiastical authority has not yet spoken on the subject; it silently allows the good work to advance, awaiting perhaps some proof more striking and irrefutable before pronouncing its fiat. Far from me be the thought of forestalling ecclesiastical judgment.

“I have but another word to add. If it lay within the power of any of my readers to proceed to the spot and visit this humble place of pilgrimage, as yet in its infancy, and the only one, I believe, of its nature in the United States, I earnestly counsel them to go. There, they can see and question Adele Brise, who, without having sought it, is the soul and heroine of a good work, progressing with rapid strides from day to day; and I feel assured that, like myself, all those who have gone thither with an upright intention, they will return edified and happy at heart, if not convinced, of the reality of Our Lady’s apparition.”

The claim of apparitions and intervention are made. I agree that the procession had started ten years earlier. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 03:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Would you add some of this content to the shrine's article? It is appropriate to include information on this fire incident into that article.  Royal broil  04:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

 * The apparitions occurred in 1859. They were what led Adele Brise to a religious life, but have nothing to do with the fire. (See Shrine of Our Lady of Good Help.) What is claimed on the shrine web page may have some relevance to the shrine article, but it seems irrelevant here. 71.139.148.134 (talk) 04:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * She had hallucinations that made her religious. My schizophrenic friend used to talk about the apparitions he saw too. 199.168.95.209 (talk) 20:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

 * 7&6=thirteen; Please consider removing or abbreviating your blockquote. As it stands, it may not qualify as fair use. This article is about the fire, not about an allegation of a miracle. As Royalbroil suggests, with adequate sources, it may be appropriate for another article. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that this content is inappropriate here, just that I think it's also appropriate elsewhere. I think the few sentences that exist in this article at this moment is just the right amount. I think that more content on other survivor's stories is appropriate too. I toured the Peshtigo Fire Museum a few years ago and it had lots of interesting survival and death stories. I agree about censoring this long blockquote, perhaps it should be deleted but left in this talk page's history.  Royal broil  04:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

 * With respect, this is fair use. And I do NOT agree to abbreviate it.  While you characterize the issues in your way, I disagree as to that. too.  If we Bowdlerize the quote, you will then say I have not proven what it says.  What you are trying to do is create a self fulfilling prophecy, so to speak.
 * It would seem that "relevancy" is in the eye of the beholder. I would err, if at all, on the side of too much of the irrelevant, rather than too little of the relevant.  Let the other editors decide the substance after they have read it.  I chose not to put any of the quote the article, as I anticipate your WP:Undue objection.  The standard for inclusion in an article is not the standard of some Common law pleading.
 * So we can agree to disagree on the issue, the proofs, the procedure and the meaning of it all.
 * If you have a copyright issue, then go the copyright enforcers in Wikipedia. We both know who they are, and I will gladly pick up the gauntlet.
 * Best regards. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Pilgrimage
I found a fairly detailed history of the Shrine of Our Lady of Good Help in a 1959 newspaper article (Jack Rudolph. "Catholics in Pilgrimage to Robinsonville Today", Appleton Post-Crescent, August 15, 1959, p. 4, cols. 3-7.). It turns out that the pilgrimage held annually at the shrine has nothing whatsoever to do with the Peshtigo fire. The pilgrimage, begun in 1861 (10 years before the fire), celebrates the Feast of the Assumption, which was Adele Brise's favorite religious observance. Please don't reinsert the unsourced statement about the pilgrimage having begun because of the fire. 71.139.148.134 (talk) 01:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Grammar
A chapel is not a sentient being capable of cognition or reasoning, so how can a chapel posit? 71.139.148.134 (talk) 04:30, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * LOL. YGBSM. It is those who administer the chapel.  See above.   7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Peshtigo Fire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101205000000/http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/2006/4/2006_4_26.shtml to http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/2006/4/2006_4_26.shtml
 * Added tag to http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/decennial/1870.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131127043314/http://shrineofourladyofgoodhelp.com/htmPages/g_hst_p5.html to http://www.shrineofourladyofgoodhelp.com/htmPages/g_hst_p5.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090325065110/http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/CDReadyMPDC04_865/PV2004_1419.pdf to http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/CDReadyMPDC04_865/PV2004_1419.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Capitalization
An editor renamed this article from "Peshtigo Fire" to "Peshtigo fire" (lowercase "fire") with a summary of "case norm; frequently lowercase in sources" and I have reverted this per WP:BRD on the following grounds:

 * 1) Not sure what "case norm" means (case normalization?), but we use sources for content but not necessarily typography. There are many exceptions and it's complicated, but generally on these matters we look to our own MOS rather than the whatever MOS happens to be used by sources.
 * 2) I'm not sure, but a glance at some article titles shows that our de facto MOS is at least split on the matter. for instance List of California wildfires shows seven "Fire"s and two "fire"s (one being a firestorm; "firestorm" and "wildfire" appear to tend not to be capitalized here, while just plain "fire" does). Other list articles use "name" rather than "description" to designate fires, implying that these are considered proper names.
 * 3) On the merits, IMO it's a proper noun since it's the name of the entity. "The Peshtigo Fire was a fire in Peshtigo" would be correct IMO.

It's arguable I guess. Since it's arguable the editor perhaps should not have renamed the article (whether WP:BOLD applies to article moves is itself debated) without first initiating a discussion, but at any rate a a WP:Requested move discussion needs to be initiated now, and the editor to make his case. Herostratus (talk) 08:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Capitalization practice varies considerably in this case. Doremo (talk) 09:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Just a note that Oakland firestorm of 1991 isn't capitalized because it isn't the proper name of the fire, but rather the common name (which in that particular case is inarguably more widely used). The proper name of that fire is Tunnel Fire. The other article is actually at the properly-capitalized name, Mount Vision Fire. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, how an entity other than Wikipedia capitalizes something bears very little on the question.

 * For content we rely on sources. That is why our article says that the fire occurred on the eight day of October in 1871. Because this is content and our source say this.

 * For formatting questions we look to our MOS. Whether we would say "October 8, 1871" or "8 October 1871", we would look to our MOS and not sources. If most sources used the ordinal "October 8th, 1871" would we use that? No we wouldn't.

 * Now, it is true (I think) that our MOS does not specifically describe whether fires are proper nouns. The next place to look then is our de facto style for fires, created by various editors "voting with their feet". On this it seems we are not consistent, but my quick sample shows more instances of fire names being treated as proper nouns than not. Certainly willing to be shown otherwise by a more extensive survey.

 * We can also consider the question on the merits, and at that point we want to look at what other people outside Wikipedia think. So I mean what style other sources use is not nothing. It's a piece of data, but let's not overvalorize it.

 * Also, my saying that our MOS trumps sources has many exceptions -- but mostly for well-known entities. Our article is titled eBay because that term is used a lot and is well known under that typography. However, if someone starts a new company named "MuSCLE*P0WeR" our article would probably be named "Muscle Power" or something unless and until the entity because well-known enough and the odd typography becomes well-used enough for the entity to carry its unusual typography into the Wikipedia.

 * The Peshtigo Fire is not famous enough to carry its own typography with it into the Wikipedia.

 * As far as official name / common name (the Oakland firestorm of 1991 given above), point taken but I dunno. The Big Apple and The Big Easy and so on are not official names but are still capitalized. A complicated question I guess. Herostratus (talk) 01:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

 * "Oakland firestorm of 1991" comes across as something other than a name, i.e. a convenient way of referring to one of multiple Oakland firestorms. However, "Oakland Hills Firestorm" looks like a proper noun and so should be capitalized. Similarly for "Peshtigo Fire", "Great Chicago Fire", etc. So, I suggest reverting. WolfmanSF (talk) 03:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with WolfmanSF that the change to "fire" should be reverted. It was made without discussion, and the edit summary ("not usually capped") seems false based on this. Doremo (talk) 03:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Consider also this. WolfmanSF (talk) 04:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

The n-grams clearly confirm my claim that it's more often lowercase in sources. Certainly nowhere near the usual criterion of "consistently capitalized in sources". The Chicago one is completely different. Dicklyon (talk) 04:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

 * The main point is, the name is clearly a proper noun, arguing it should be capitalized, as the names of nearly all historic fires are in Wikipedia, or at least were until you start moving things. WolfmanSF (talk) 04:47, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of people out there who don't understand the concept of a proper noun, and believe that things get capitalized when they're important. That's the only explanation I can see for why "Great Chicago Fire" or "Great Fire of London" would be more consistently capitalized than "Peshtigo Fire". All are proper nouns. WolfmanSF (talk) 05:36, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I admit to not understanding what criterion you are using to decide what's a proper noun. Are you saying that the majority of sources on this topic don't understand what's a proper noun?  What's your definition or criterion?  Should we change what MOS:CAPS suggests, which is "consistently capitalized in sources"?  I admit it's not perfect. Dicklyon (talk) 14:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * FWIW, Great Fire of London Ngram. WolfmanSF (talk) 21:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the usage stats do make it clear why we cap Great Fire of London and Great Chicago Fire, but not the Peshtigo fire. Dicklyon (talk) 23:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "not the Peshtigo fire." Why? Big fire, big F? Little fire, little f? That is not logical. BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Big F in sources, big F in Wikipedia; little f in sources, little f in Wikipedia. That's roughly it, if you want logic. Dicklyon (talk) 00:03, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This is where we have to depart from relying on sources. If there is a conflict between sources and our principles (proper nouns get capitalized) we have to go with the latter. Examples are Solar System (Ngram) and Universe (Ngram) which are generally not capitalized, but are in Wikipedia. It is more important to be consistent and capitalize the names of all historic fires, all of which are proper nouns, because they are all unique, named events. WolfmanSF (talk) 03:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Another example is Sun (Ngram). WolfmanSF (talk) 03:34, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, based on recent usage you might argue for capitalizing golden eagle (Ngram), but we don't, because all common names of biological species are common nouns, which we don't capitalize based on principle. WolfmanSF (talk) 03:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Our principles, expressed in MOS:CAPS, are to reserve caps for proper nouns, as evidenced by consistent capitalization in sources. Yes, I agree there remain other over-capitalized titles and words like the ones you point to (we have a pretty good understanding of when to capitalize Sun, perhaps less sure on Universe, and there's considerable disagreement on Solar System).  And it wasn't long ago that the bird common names were all capped, but we got past that.  No reason to stop making progress toward our state style guidelines. Dicklyon (talk) 05:20, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No, proper nouns are determined by applying the definition of a proper noun: any "unique entity" (event, in this case). By definition, the name of any unique fire event, if it has an accepted name, is a proper noun. So Peshtigo Fire and all other named historical fires are proper nouns and should be capitalized here. WolfmanSF (talk) 06:34, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Very many unique entities are titled descriptively because they do not have proper names (see Proper noun). If you claim that Peshtigo Fire is a proper name, you are claiming that a majority of sources got it wrong.  That's a pretty outrageous claim to make about RSs. Dicklyon (talk) 18:03, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

 * You're saying that me claiming the majority of sources since 1988 got it right is outrageous? I don't get it. WolfmanSF (talk)
 * A couple of points about that. First, even if the number that you're claiming got it wrong were a bit less than half, yes, that would be an outrageous claim.  Second, when you use n-grams, realize that many of those hits are of references to titles (in title case).  To try to get a more fair estimate, you can put words like "the" in front, e.g. as here.  It's very clear that we're nowhere near the threshold criterion of "consistently capitalized in sources", even in recent decades. Dicklyon (talk) 06:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well a few points...
 * "Big F in sources, big F in Wikipedia; little f in sources, little f in Wikipedia". That just isn't true, any more than than "October 8 in sources, October 8 in Wikipedia; October 8th in sources, October 8th in Wikipedia" is true. (Neither is the statement completely without merit tho; it depends on various things, but none of which seem to much demand lowercase in this instance.)
 * Capitalization is, at the margins, a debatable issue. Is it "20th Century" (the name of a century) or "20th century" (a century which is 20th in ordered list of centuries)? Dunno. For my part, it's fine if we do it differently in different articles. (I think our default for this is "20th century" tho.)
 * "...and  a  president of Franistan is frequently present at these ceremonies" vs. "...and  the  President of Franistan is frequently present at these ceremonies"... see the diff? One of a class vs. a specific instance of that class. Thus, " A  Peshtigo fire is a fire which occurs in Peshtigo, which happens often..." vs. " The  Peshtigo Fire is the only fire which has ever occurred in Peshtigo..."
 * If you're not going to capitalize "fire", why capitalize Peshtigo? We are referring to a fire, not the city of Peshtigo. Thus: "There are many types of fires: crown fires, which spread in treetops; brush fires, which spread along the ground; peshtigo fires, which spread underground and were first seen in Peshtigo, Michigan..." in parallel with "20,000 watts" (not "20,000 Watts"). (I recognize this is a lost point, I'm just making the argument from logic.)
 * Consistency within an article matters too. In this article we have reference to a "Peshtigo Fire Museum" and the "Peshtigo Paradigm", and should not these be changed to "Peshtigo fire museum" (a fire museum which happens to be in Peshtigo) and "peshtigo paradox"(or Peshtigo paradox maybe) in the interest of internal consistency. There is also a Peshtigo Fire Cemetery and maybe this should be "Peshtigo fire Cemetery" (Capital C because it is a particular named Cemetery but lower case f because elsewhere this event is referred to as the (or a) Peshtigo fire. Or maybe "Peshtigo fire cemetery" (a fire cemetery in Peshtigo).
 * etc. Herostratus (talk) 18:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Now you're just being silly. Peshtigo is consistently capped in sources, and is unquestionably a proper noun, so that's why we cap it.  Same with Peshtigo Fire Cemetery and Peshtigo Fire Museum; the Peshtigo Paradigm is more questionable, but looks like it has come to be pretty consistently capped in sources, so we cap it. Dicklyon (talk) 22:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * In fact, the Peshtigo Fire Museum pretty well account for most of the capitalized occurrences of Peshtigo Fire in books. See n-grams. Dicklyon (talk) 22:09, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The rest of the recent burst of caps seems to be from the made-up proper name "Great Peshtigo Fire".
 * Also your "President of" example is not so clear. Sources in the last 30 years are about evenly split on this; our own guidelines on it are detailed at MOS:JOBTITLES, which says we do not cap it in "Richard Nixon was the president of the United States".  I know, there are plenty of articles violating this guideline, too. Dicklyon (talk) 23:01, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well but.... I mean can you answer these questions?
 * If our sources for an article mostly say "October 8th", should our article also use "October 8th" or should it use "October 8"? Why or why not? How does this differ from the current question?
 * Suppose the sources for an article mostly use "Peshtigo fire", and mostly use (say) the Chicago Manual of Style, and mostly use "Peshtigo fire" because of this. Should we replace the Wikipedia Manual of Style with just a pointer to the Chicago Manual of Style and/or rules copied from the Chicago Manual of Style? Why or why not? Is this change likely to occur? Herostratus (talk) 17:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The manual of style has been built over many years to represent a consensus of editors on Wikipedia style. It draws on the CMOS and many other style guides, trying not to be too US centric, etc.  We do not "follow the sources" in general, but the suggested criterion to decide whether something is a proper name is that it is "consistently capitalized in sources".  Many styles capitalize for other reasons, e.g. to define acronyms, to emphasize terms important to their topic or area, etc.  So if we see something just over half capped in sources, we use lowercase.  We need a supermajority at least (exact numbers have never been specified) to conclude proper name status. Dicklyon (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "if we see something just over half capped in sources, we use lowercase", what? Why? Is this written down anywhere? Are there other instances of rules to the effect "if about half the sources do X and half do Y, we do X"? Even if there are, are there any specifically covering this sort of thing? Or is it a de facto general practice? If it is, how do explain that my (admittedly non-exhaustive) survey of named fires here found well over half to have "Fire" capitalized? Is this an oddity found specifically here in names of fires or perhaps natural phenomena generally, but not other similar entities? Herostratus (talk) 01:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * In the U.S., most modern fires are given unique official names by the agencies that fight them, and the editors involved have generally insisted on using these as proper names. Sometimes common names are used instead, like Oakland firestorm of 1991 instead of Tunnel Fire. Dicklyon (talk) 03:22, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 13 February 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Peshtigo Fire → Peshtigo fire – Per MOS:CAPS. Since it's not consistently (nor even mostly) capped in sources, we don't cap it. Dicklyon (talk) 03:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943  (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Survey
*Oppose on principle. See thread above. Do not much care about Ngrams for answering formatting questions. What our MOS says, and our common practice, are the main data points. THE MOS doesn't really say, and I believe that more fire names are capitalized here than not. Herostratus (talk) 02:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support as nom – Books n-grams clearly confirm that it's more often lowercase in sources. Certainly nowhere near the usual criterion of "consistently capitalized in sources"; unlike some other fires. Dicklyon (talk) 03:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - This is not a fire that got a formal name like the Camp Fire (2018); it obviously long predates modern systems of wildland fire management. Given that, the rules which should apply to modern fires shouldn't apply here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – Not consistently capitalised in RS, so should be lower case per MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS, as above. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per the above, and MOS:CAPS in general.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Changed my vote, based on looking deeper into common practice (see below), which seems to support lower case for fires that do not have official names (which basically means, older fires such as the Peshtigo one). Herostratus (talk) 07:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The discussion above clarified why "more fire names are capitalized here than not": because modern fires get assigned official proper names. The principal in MOS:CAPS is that we avoid unnecessary caps, and cap only when sources consistently do so. So it's not clear what "principle" you are opposing on. Dicklyon (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Right... well, it's a complicated question and no mistake. The principle is just that, IMO, our MOS mostly trumps sources for style issues such as capitalization. That doesn't mean the article shouldn't be moved, just that the Ngram is not very important. (It's not nothing, but it's not very important IMO.) Our MOS has capitalization guidance for military terms, literary genres, sports, and so on, but not natural events. So, we must look elsewhere -- common practice, and the MOS for the most-similar situations. OK, recent fires have "official names" that some agency give them; the fire in Peshtigo is too old for that. So... looking backwards, in chronological order from oldest, and skipping instances where title case decides capitalization ("Fire of Moscow" etc...) we see 1681 Trondheim fire, but Copenhagen Fire of 1728. Tiverton fire of 1731. Great Podil fire, Richmond Theatre fire. Great fire of Tirschenreuth. Grue Church fire, Great Fire of Turku, but it's reasonable to say that "Great" fires can be treated differently... 1836 U.S. Patent Office fire. And now Great fire of Hamburg, but then Great New York City Fire of 1845... Hofburg fire. Alright, that's enough. I'll concede the point, and change my vote. What can I say? The point of these discussions to change people's minds, not just yell at each other. Herostratus (talk) 07:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * And who's to say you can't be persuaded to change back again. This fire was, as mentioned on its pages "the deadliest natural fire in the history of the United States". So it has a mortality notability that no other fire in the U.S. has. Great or otherwise. The upper-cased name is used for its museum and its historically significant cemetery. This is not middling fire, or even a once-in-a-decade occurrence, but the deadliest natural fire in the country's history. It's the real deal, and this page should keep its long-term proper name. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Nobody is disputing the notability of the fire. It has an article because it's notable. Dicklyon (talk) 06:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

 * Oppose per 1) Ngram ambiguity (there is not a compelling difference in the capitalization patterns), 2) parallel case usage with the (smaller) Great Chicago Fire and various other named fires, and 3) the secondary-primary stress pattern of the name (Pèshtigo Fíre, not Péshtigo fíre/fìre); for this last point, cf. the Chicàgo Cúbs vs. a Chicágo cómpany/còmpany. Doremo (talk) 04:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * As discussed above, the Great Chicago Fire is consistently capped thus in sources, unlike this one. No reason we should ignore that difference. Dicklyon (talk) 04:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose because I think it is operationally awkward to treat some members of this class (the principal names of notable fires) as proper nouns and others as common nouns. The distinction is a bit arcane and will likely be a source of endless confusion. Also, there dosesn't seem to be a precise definition of "consistently capped". Depending on that definition, "Great Chicago Fire" might actually be improperly capped. If it is properly capped, then its status changed over time (see this). WolfmanSF (talk) 04:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * However, if you can pull off changing "Great Chicago Fire" to "great Chicago fire" (since, in point of fact, that is obviously not consistently capped), as well as changing other inconsistent examples, I may change my mind. I don't think having "Great" in a fire's name qualifies it for an exemption from our policy, whatever it is. WolfmanSF (talk) 08:50, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I do. If a fire rises to the level of "great", it's a difference in degree that amounts to a difference in kind. The Great Fire of Boston, for instance, was 145 years ago, but it was an important historical event that greatly affected the development of that great port and city and remains still vivid in popular lore. It's a big deal, and so it gets a proper name. Other fires in Category:Fires in Massachusetts, not so much, so they don't get proper names. Herostratus (talk) 04:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It is very unlikely that "Great" in a fire name inherently means "this was a big fire" in contrast to fires elsewhere. It is more likely that it means "this was a big fire" in contrast to all the other fires in the same place (i.e., Boston has had many fires, and this was the biggest of those). There is no "Great Peshtigo Fire" because the Peshtigo Fire is not being compared with other fires in Peshtigo. The epithet "Great" therefore does not make such fires more important than fires elsewhere that lack the epithet. Similarly, one doesn't refer to the Great September 11 Attacks, the Great Challenger Disaster, the Great Attack on Pearl Harbor, or any number of other unique events because there is no need to distinguish them. Doremo (talk) 05:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, I don't think so. I think "Great" means "important" in the context of fires. "Great" is applied to fires and not battles or shipwrecks, because people. I think every important fire has also been large, but the important thing is that it's been important. "Great Depression", not "great depression". "Great War" not "great war". Great Plague, Great Hunger, Great Game, Great Terror, Great Yaeyama Tsunami. There are a lot of counter-examples too TBH. Earthquakes, here, seem to capitalize like this: "Great X earthquake; corollary here would would be "the Great Chicago fire" which seems odd... Herostratus (talk) 23:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Of the 10 deadliest wildfires known, only the fourth has "Great" in our article title. So, obviously there's no accepted or reasonably consistent threshold at which a fire becomes "Great". WolfmanSF (talk) 23:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * And Peshtigo is "the deadliest natural fire in the history of the United States", so there's that. That should count for something in keeping this in its stable upper-case title. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No, not really no. Big does not equal important. The Great Chicago Fire is, in an important sense, a character in the history of the United States. Herostratus (talk) 23:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Randy, this idea of yours that important things deserve caps is contrary to MOS:CAPS, has been repeatedly rejected in RM discussions, and is getting tiring. Why can't we just go with Wikipedia's style principle of avoid caps when sources show them to be unnecessary? Dicklyon (talk) 06:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The importance factor is what makes it a proper noun. If "Pesthigo fire" was so insignificant that its meaning could only be determined by context, it wouldn't be a proper noun. The fact that it is important makes its meaning context independent, so that it meets every aspect of the definition of a proper name. The argument for not capping then hangs entirely on usage statistics. That is unworkable, because there is no definition of "consistently capped" and it could be argued that no historical fire name is consistently capped. Then the only logically consistent policy would be to lower-case all fire names that do not have some imprimateur of being an "official" name. Which is unfeasible, unless you're willing to uncap Great Chicago Fire and the Great Fire of London. That would also lead to many absurdities, such as upper-casing the 21,135 acre Duck Lake Fire and not the 1,200,000 acre Peshtigo Fire. Letting "Great" be the determining factor leads to other absurdities, like upper-casing the 200,000 acre Great Hinckley Fire (great Hinckley fire?) and not the Pestigo Fire. WolfmanSF (talk) 10:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

 * Oppose even though the n-gram evidence shows that not every semi-famous fire is a Fire, upper-case is fine here per such things as the Peshtigo Fire Museum and the historically important Peshtigo Fire Cemetery. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ...and per six upper-case mentions on Wikipedia's main page in the On this day... section, starting in 2004. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems clear enough that Peshtigo Fire Museum and Peshtigo Fire Cemetery are proper names. But that's not really relevant.  Why do you still want to cap everything you think is important? Dicklyon (talk) 04:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with Dick on this... the museum is distinct from the fire (we cap “Museum of Natural History”... but not “natural history” on its own). Blueboar (talk) 11:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

 * Oppose. The ngrams show that since the late 1980s the capitalized version has gained on, and overtaken, the lowercase fire spelling. --В²C ☎ 19:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That is not what it shows if you ask it right. If a capped name is desired, then maybe "Great Peshtigo Fire", but that's mostly popular because of so many books using it in their titles, and references to those. Dicklyon (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I suggest ngrams require the term in question to be included to get the accurate counts. --В²C ☎ 23:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support/other Per n-gram by nom, not "consistently capitalized in sources" per MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS. N-gram of Born2cycle and resp by nom (immediately above) does not change this. WP:OTHER arguement by Randy Kryn assumes that these are correctly titled (not established) and that because of their capitalisation, this article must also follow - it does not need to. Onomastics, proper names are not descriptive. It is descriptive. However, the guidance is to rely on the sources - for each individual case. As observed by nom (immediately above), "Great Peshtigo Fire" may be the preferred, based upon the sources. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 07:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Per 's research and 's comment, how about going with Great Peshtigo Fire. The main reason it hasn't been labeled as 'Great' since its occurrence is that the same-day Chicago fire stole its thunder (and apparently its lightning). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Mild Support - it is a boaderline case, but the n-gram evidence tips me to “not capped”. Blueboar (talk) 12:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Extended discussion
OK, I mean here's my thinking, and why I am of the mind of support for this particular case -- not all cases.

Here's what seems to make to sense to me. See if you agree. Now, this makes sense to me on the merits -- from a practical procedural/political viewpoint, this might be too complicated to get "enacted", tho.

 * 1) Fires which have an official proper name -- which means basically most modern fires -- should be capitalized: Foobar Fire.
 * 2) Fires which do not have an official proper name (mostly older fires) should not be capitalized: Foobar fire, since their appellations are descriptive rather than proper.
 * 3) As an exception to #2, fires which have a generally accepted proper name should be capitalized: Great Fire of Foobar. (Most if not all "Great" fires would fit under this, and few if any which are not named "Great", so the presence or absence of the word "Great" in the name serves as a reasonable basis for determining capitalization, absent other data.)

Basically, this just acknowledges that some fires have proper names (and proper names are always capitalized), and some don't. Messy as that is, it's just the fact.

It's a little sketchy because WP:OFFICIALNAME tells us not to much consider what government agencies say. However, really in most cases by giving the fire a proper name, the agency is also giving it it's common name anyway, which most sources will use. (To further complicate matters, there might be some cases where a fire is officially named "Wayne County Fire Number Two" but sources generally call it the "Ford Canyon fire". In this cases, WP:COMMONAME would trump the official name I would think.)

I think, to some degree, it is worthwhile to look at external sources here. Not to pay any attention to what various publications' stylebook is, but to help determine which fires are generally considered to have proper names and which don't. So the Ngram is a useful data point I think. Herostratus (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

More comments on capitalization
No doubt many of the editors involved would like to consider this a resolved issue, but that is unlikely to be the case, because of all the absurdities the article move has created, some of which I've already pointed out, as well as the specious arguments used to justify the move.

It is instructive to consider what Wiktionary has to say on the subject of proper nouns:

Definition: "A noun denoting a particular person, place, organization, ship, animal, event, or other individual entity".

Usage notes: "Some references erroneously conflate whether a noun is common or proper with whether it is capitalized or not, although these are not the same."

So, any noun phrase that refers specifically to a given historical fire is a proper name, by definition. There is no basis for claiming a distinction between such noun phrases that are proper names and those that are descriptive terms. They're all proper names. One could draw a practical distinction between widely used terms and those that are one-offs or seldom used. There is no basis in claiming that "official" names are more "proper" than those that lack such status. In astronomy, informally proposed names are capitalized along with officially accepted names.

The bottom line is, it is operationally foolish to claim that the names of some historic fires qualify for capitalization, while others do not, on the basis of an undefined standard of being "consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources". Given that the standard is undefined, its application will inevitably be arbitrary, and efforts to try to apply it it to individual cases like this one will be an unproductive use of editors' time. The treatment of members of a class should be consistent. Wikipedia has specific policies dealing with the names of organisms and names of astronomical objects to ensure consistent treatment of members of these classes. We obviously need a similar policy to deal with historical events. WolfmanSF (talk) 23:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Miracle indeed
I removed the following passage from the article:

And I edited the following passage

to instead read

Both of these being ref'd to a source I consider substandard:

It's the site of Our Lady of Good Help itself, and it's biased and unreliable. (The bit about a deep well isn't in the ref and therefore has no ref so its swept away with the rest. The deep well thing suggests there're other more reliable refs out there about what actually happened.) Herostratus (talk) 13:39, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Slash-and-burn land management is oxymoronic
It's irresponsible to imply that this is a form of managing the area, as practiced in 19th century Americas 2001:56A:7D81:BF00:DD83:CEA5:8E32:3DDA (talk) 17:21, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Slash-and-burn land management is a common term in English. Doremo (talk) 17:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

External link
As per WP:ELBURDEN, disputed links should be excluded by default until there is consensus for inclusion. please explain what unique value you feel the disputed link provides when there are already several other links that include images of the memorial. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:14, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree. Sundayclose (talk) 18:16, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

"Jumping" the bay
"However, the fire did not jump across the bay. Most likely, the firestorm spread and created a new ground fire in New Franken which then spread and burned everything northward up until Sturgeon Bay." No definition I know of would not call this "jumping the bay". The source cited after this also makes no mention of jumping or refutes any claim about the fire jumping the river. If material from the fire got to the other end of the bay and it caused the fire to spread there, then using "Jumped" should be appropriate. 2600:6C44:7D7F:3708:6745:1686:67C1:3F (talk) 01:22, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Clarification
So allegedly the Great Peshtigo fire was caused because Jesus was mad that people in Wisconsin weren't Christians? So 12 years later he started this specific area of the USA on fire as punishment (as the phrasing alludes)? And then allegedly they prayed and God sent rain? The rain didn't come because they prayed... the rain came because that's how weather works lol. Why would God start a fire, just to put that same fire out after a small group of people prayed? He allegedly started the fire!! Why are we pushing this as even a little factual when this is incredibly religiously biased? On another note, weird that a loving god (the one most modern Christians push) would torch, at most, 2,500 people and then save a random church (despite I'm sure many other churches being lost in the fire). It's fascinating how much that religion has changed in such a short amount of time. 199.168.95.209 (talk) 20:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Peshtigo fire


text:
User:Dygituljunky/Sandbox01

placeholder

title: User:Dygituljunky/Sandbox01


text:
Talk:Christopher Reeve

!

title: Talk:Christopher Reeve


text:
Miri (Star Trek: The Original Series)

"Miri" is the eighth episode of the first season of the American science fiction television series Star Trek. Written by Adrian Spies and directed by Vincent McEveety, it first aired on October 27, 1966.

In the episode, the Enterprise discovers an exact duplicate of Earth, where the only survivors of a deadly man-made plague are some of the planet's children.

Plot
The USS Enterprise answers a distress call. Using the ship's instruments Spock measures the planet and determines its dimensions. It has a circumference of 24,874 miles.

A landing party of Captain Kirk, First Officer Spock, Chief Medical Officer Dr. McCoy, Yeoman Janice Rand and two security personnel find it resembles an abandoned, 1960s-style Earth. They are attacked by a disfigured man, who has a seizure and dies after Kirk hits him while trying to fend him off. Noises draw the landing party to an abandoned building. They discover a teenage girl called Miri, who ran away from them because "grups" ("grownups") killed and maimed the children on the planet before dying out. She and her friends are "onlies", the only ones left. The distress call is traced to an automated signal.

The landing party, except for Spock, notice purple lesions on their bodies; Miri tells them that these are the first signs of the disease that has infected the planet and they will soon become like the other adults. The party find a medical research laboratory and look through documents for clues to the disease, discovering that it is a side effect of a life-extension experiment, affecting those who have reached puberty; death follows a brief period of violent madness. The "children" are actually over 300 years old, aging one month every century, but show the mental and emotional maturity of their biological age, rather than their actual age. When the disease begins, its victims have seven days to live. Although Spock is apparently immune, he considers himself a carrier who could infect the Enterprise if he returns.

Kirk uses his charm on Miri to persuade her to show him to the other children. However, mistrustful of the "grups", they disperse when Kirk and Miri approach their hideout. Jahn, an older boy and the leader of the children, steals the landing party's communicators, rendering McCoy's search for a cure impossible without the Enterprise computers. When Yeoman Rand panics at their impending fate and Kirk comforts her, a jealous Miri runs away and schemes with her friends to kidnap Rand.

McCoy discovers a possible vaccine for the disease, but without the ability to check the dosage with the ship's computers, the vaccine may kill the patient. Kirk tells Miri that they will all contract the disease if they don't help him find a cure. Upon realizing that she herself is infected, Miri brings Kirk to where Rand is being held. At Jahn's urging, the children swarm and gang up on Kirk. An injured and bleeding Kirk then angrily begs the children to think of the youngest amongst them, who will be helpless when the older ones are dead. He points out that their food supplies are running out; the children will starve within six months. Convinced, Jahn gives the communicators back to Kirk. He rounds up the children and returns to the laboratory, but in desperation McCoy has already injected himself with a dose of the vaccine. The doctor's sores fade, confirming the cure's effectiveness.

Back on the Enterprise, after vaccinating everyone and leaving the children in the care of a medical team, Kirk sends for teachers and advisers to help the children improve their lives.

Reception
Zack Handlen of The A.V. Club gave the episode an A− rating, describing using children as the antagonists as one of the script's "smarter twists". Handlen felt that the sense of threat was maintained throughout as, although the audience knew the crew wouldn't die, "they don't know that."

BBC ban
Following the first screening of "Miri" on British television in December 1970, the BBC received a number of complaints regarding the episode's content. The quantity and nature of the complaints were never made public.

Throughout the 1970s and 1980s the BBC chose not to include the episode in repeat runs of Star Trek. Three other episodes from the series were also excluded: "Plato's Stepchildren", "The Empath", and "Whom Gods Destroy".

Fans writing to the BBC to complain about the ban during the show's repeat run in the mid-1980s, its fifth showing altogether, received a standard reply: "There are no plans to screen the four episodes because we feel that they deal most unpleasantly with the already unpleasant subjects of madness, torture, sadism and disease. You will appreciate that account must be taken that out of Star Trek's large and enthusiastic following, many are juveniles who would watch the programme no matter what time of day the series is put into the programme schedules." However, the ban was finally lifted for the BBC's next showing of the series in the early 1990s. In 2020 it was also shown in Britain on the Horror Channel.

Production
The planetary exteriors were shot on the set used for fellow Desilu series The Andy Griffith Show, part of what had originally been known as the RKO Forty Acres backlot in Culver City which had been acquired by Desilu.

Apart from guest stars Kim Darby (age 19) and Michael J. Pollard (age 27), several of the children on Miri's world were portrayed by relatives of the Trek cast and crew. Among them were William Shatner's daughters Lisabeth and Melanie, Grace Lee Whitney's son Scott, Vincent McEveety's son Steven, and Gene Roddenberry's daughters, Darleen and Dawn. Two others, Phil and Iona Morris, children of Mission Impossible actor Greg Morris, later appeared in subsequent Star Trek shows as well.

This was child actress Kellie Flanagan's first television role. She played the Blonde Girl standing on the table in the schoolhouse. Between takes her agent, Dorothy Day Otis, got her a line to deliver during the scene, which led to Flanagan receiving her SAG card.

Another of the actors playing the children, John Megna, had played Charles Baker "Dill" Harris in To Kill a Mockingbird in 1962.

"Miri" was the first episode to feature regular background cast member David L. Ross as Lieutenant Galloway, one of the few core group of extras that had speaking lines throughout the series.

Tie-in novel sequel
The novel The Cry of the Onlies by Judy Klass takes place after the events of the episode.

title: Miri (Star Trek: The Original Series)


text:
Sandy Bay

Sandy Bay can refer to:

Africa

 * Sandy Bay, Cape Town, South Africa
 * Sandy Bay, Saint Helena

Asia

 * Sandy Bay, Hong Kong, China
 * Sandy Bay, Sandakan, Sabah, Malaysia

Australia

 * Sandy Bay, Tasmania, Australia

Europe

 * Sandy Bay, Gibraltar

North America

 * Sandy Bay First Nation, Manitoba, Canada
 * Sandy Bay, Manitoba (Lake Winnipeg), Canada
 * Sandy Bay, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada
 * Sandy Bay (Newfoundland and Labrador), Canada
 * Sandy Bay, Saskatchewan, Canada

Caribbean

 * New Sandy Bay Village, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
 * Sandy Bay, Jamaica

title: Sandy Bay