Greetings!

I see you objected somewhat to my bold edits to the Filioque clause article. I can see why you did so -- the paragraphs you reinserted are important. (That's why this a collaborative work, right?) I do think they could be trimmed just a bit more, to focus more on the role of the filioque itself, but that may be just my opinion.

In any case, we have a different problem: placement within the article. The current outline looks like this:

1. Explanation of the creed
2. Origins
   1. As an addition to the Nicene Creed
   2. The Franks and the filioque
3. The beginning of conflict
   1. The Photian controversy
   2. The Franks in Rome
4. The Great Schism and attempts at reconciliation
   1. Complicating factors
   2. The Council of Florence
5. The Filioque Clause in the Theology of the Church Fathers
   1. The Filioque and the Doctrine of the Trinity
   2. Reconciling the Eastern and Western Traditions
6. Modern positions
   1. Eastern Orthodox Church
   2. Roman Catholic Church
7. Recent discussions and joint statements
8. Summary

As you can see, the article starts with a brief intro, then an explanation of the creed, then goes into the history: Origins of the clause, conflict begins, Great Schism and failed reconciliation; then a detour into the theology before resuming the history with the modern positions & discussions; and concluding with the summary.

I think we can group into two main (==) headings, History and Theology, and the Summary. Most of the current "main" historical sections would be grouped under History as submain (===) headings. The exception, I think, would be the "Recent discussions ...", which could go under "Modern positions", parallel to the EOC and RCC headings. The Theology section would basically be the text you restored, with the section on the creed inserted at the beginning. The question, then, is whether the History or Theology should go first.

Chronologically, the Theology section makes more sense, but I'm not sure most readers would be as interested in that as in the History. What do you think? ~ MD Otley (talk) 03:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]