This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Saints, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Saints and other individuals commemorated in Christianliturgical calendars on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
At the end of Exile, return, and death: "Several recent writers, far removed from the event, have guessed that Arius may have been poisoned by his opponents." This is absolutely not neutral phrasing! This is openly scoffing! Every person alive today, writing on any subject, is "far removed from the event[s]" of 1700 years ago. And educated speculation is not "guessing". Heavenlyblue (talk) 08:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry Anoldtreeok, I see that you've already broached this subject. I'm going to go ahead and change it. Heavenlyblue (talk) 08:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I've changed it to the flat neutral "Several recent writers have speculated that Arius may have been poisoned by his opponents.". Heavenlyblue (talk) 08:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Just an addition to the non-neutral phrasing that Heavenlyblue pointed out, where it says "Eusebius of Nicomedia should not be confused with Eusebius of Caesarea. In fact, some later "Arians" disavowed that moniker, claiming not to have been familiar with the man or his specific teachings" at the end of the introduction. It's simply irrelevant to the page, and the quotation marks around '"Arians"' are unnecessary as it is a defined theological teaching and there is a page about it that can be linked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 11:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Yet again, someone puts back the false image of Arius
Going to have to put in the old picture, unless someone can magically find an actual depiction of Arius.(EDIT NOTE, had to move this up one paragraph, can't figure out how to put it down below without it going in the archive.184.108.40.206 (talk) 06:21, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
The problem with the "old picture" recently reverted to, Arius portré.jpg, is that it shows him as a bishop when, in fact, he was a presbyter, so methinks it's not a good picture to use. I move to either have no picture (unless or until some third picture can be found) or to keep this one with an explanation of the fault I'm pointing out here. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 09:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
The article says that "Arius preferred the use of the term ὁμοιούσιος (homoioúsios, from ὅμοιος, hómoios, "similar" rather than ὁμός, homós, "same"), for "similar substance", in order to emphasize distinctions among the three persons in the Godhead." Looking through the texts and reconstructions of the texts of Arius as set forth in Hanson's book on the Arian controversy, I do not see him use the word homoiousios at all. At certain places he directly contradicts this (though these sections are of arguable authenticity). Anyhow, unless someone can give a citation which claims that Arius spoke of the Son as homoiousios to the Father, I am going to remove this sentence.Ocyril (talk) 01:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I have rewritten section 2.3, as it seemed to me to be wordy and awkward. I don't mind stepping on toes, but my theological history is rather weak, so if I have introduced inaccuracies, please correct them. Thanks. Rags (talk) 06:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)