Talk:History of the Orthodox Church

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Christianity / Eastern (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy (marked as Top-importance).
 
WikiProject Greece (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject History (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

A few suggestions[edit]

Since this article is shaping up, I felt I'd jump in with a few helpful comments before things get too carried away. Everyone, keep in mind to cite sources. If we ever want this article to reach GA or even FA status, we MUST have sources. It is no longer option, wikipedia simply requires it, and any unsourced info can be removed at any time. So while the user who are writing content are still around, please, please remember to use inline citations for all new content. Next, make sure to COPY EDIT your contributions. I found the following, just as an example:

As far as buildings being churches there where none above ground until the first above ground churches where built in Armenia. Since Armenia was the first country to legalize Christianity and also embrace it as the state religion around 301 AD.

I mean, there is no reason for such garbled English to be in an encyclopedia. If you need help copy editing, please post to talk first, and I (and other editors) would gladly help. But it just makes me cringe when I find stuff like this in the main article space. Anyway, thanks to the editors working on expanding this article, keep up the good work!-Andrew c 00:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Would it be too much to ask LoveMonkey to please stop adding to the article before copyediting can be done on the contributions? Much of what is being added is pretty garbled. 71.241.79.69 00:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Nothing is stopping you Andrew from rewording the article if you think it is unclear. This article was started by Richard and I think that he can do much to help you, since it appears once again that you can not act in good faith but would rather frustrate contributing members contributions. So much for your apology ah Andrew c. LoveMonkey 20:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect[edit]

"Under a program of consolidating these countries and peoples, the Soviet also acted to suppress and obliterate their ethnic identities under the banner of a united egalitarian or socialist state."

The 'Under communist rule' section is bad, but this is a particularly egregious example. The policies of the Soviet state depended on who was in power at the time. Lenin for one was a supporter of the various nationalities, as were many other Bolsheviks (see for example Korenizatsiya). - Francis Tyers · 08:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I'm just going to remove this sentence. - Francis Tyers · 08:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
It would be better if you could replace the sentence with text that more accurately describes what happened. --Richard 08:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I've added some stuff, could still do with some work though - Francis Tyers · 09:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I added a direct and sourced quote from Lenin that directly contradicts my statement being labeled "incorrect". Telling people to chock out and hang their neighbors' middle class and clergy and offering a 100,000 rubles to the ones that do is not a policy of tolerance. LoveMonkey 18:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Collaboration[edit]

The article should discuss the collaboration of the Orthodox church with the Nazis and other fascists, the role of the church in the hellenization and oppression of the Balkans, and other less savoury facts. - Francis Tyers · 08:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Also anti-semitism and pogroms. - Francis Tyers · 09:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think they had more problems with the Nazis than friendships. Read the following article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ustasha

Also try Jasenovac concentration camp that targeted many Orthodox Christians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jasenovac_concentration_camp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.185.74 (talk) 04:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Father Father George Calciu-Dumitreasa[edit]

Francis since you are Romanian what is the general view of Father George Calciu-Dumitreasa there. Also since you wish to include pogroms should we include the Codreanu and Horia Sima's Legionnaires or the Legion of Archangel Michael in Romanian? How about pogroms in Moldovia? I think that this is understandable do you know if the Russian Orthodox made any official statements of condemnation of these pogroms? Because ALL pogroms are wrong. Then should we include the Ustashe? Since both Jewish and Orthodox Christians were their victims? Is there a history of Orthodox pogroms against Jewish people in other Orthodox countries like Serbia? Greece? How about Georgia? Belarus? Should we include Nazis atrocities against Orthodox and Jewish alike during WW2 like Jasenovac, or like Salonika, which has a history of Greek and Nazis antisemitism as well? As long as the information is well researched and contextual I agree it should be included. But it must be about Orthodox Christianity specifically I think my mention of the 3.5 million Ukraines who fell victim to the Harvest of Sorrow was removed because (I guess) it had no direct correlation to the Ukrainian Orthodox church. LoveMonkey 17:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard of Father George Calciu-Dumitreasa. We should include all of the information about pogroms, from all the Orthodox churches etc. Regarding the stuff against the Orthodox church, we should list them if they are specifically because a person/people were Orthodox, and not just because they were Serbs. e.g. Bulgarians were Orthodox, but they co-operated with the Nazis. So the key thing was co-operating with the Nazis, not being Orthodox. - Francis Tyers · 16:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Francis your sources are dubious. The latest one you added blames the Czar no where do they blame the Orthodox church as a whole. Also what about the Orthodox who fought the Nazis under Stalin and or in Serbia and in Greece? Should we not include them as well? http://www.factsofisrael.com/blog/archives/000418.html

Please come here onto the talkpage rather then posting inflammatory comments and then revert warring them back into the article with questionable sources. LoveMonkey 17:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You can add that some Orthodox people from Serbia and Greece fought the Nazis, but then we can also add that some collaborated with the Nazis. - Francis Tyers · 12:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


By "Orthodox people", do you mean "Orthodox clergy"? If not, then the point is a weak one. What the laity did is not the central focus here. The only truly significant accusation that can be leveled here would be to assert that the clergy and the hierarchy actively promoted or passively condoned pogroms. Did the Church ever take a position for or against pogroms? For or against Jews? --Richard 23:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I mean clergy. There were some clergy on the side of the partisans during the German occupation of Yugoslavia, but I think most were with the royalist chetniks. The Orthodox Church (indeed the Catholic and other Christian churches) are well known to have been historically anti-Semitic (indeed there is today a current of anti-Semitism, for example: Obraz et al.), this should be reflected here. - Francis Tyers · 08:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Then why did the Jasenovac incident, happen I mean if the Serbian Orthodox where collaborating with the Nazis why force them to convert to Roman Catholicism and then shot them in the head? Let alone make a concentration camp for them. Also there was some clergy who supported the communists and where against the Nazis. LoveMonkey 13:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Only if we can add that the Stalin was Hitler's ally you know the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and they both worked together under the pretense of a perceive Jewish conspiracy (see Stalin's antisemitism) you know like his Doctors' plot. I think that would help for perspective. Also why isn't the Orthodox church stated as deeply involved in Anti Jewish pogroms in this article History of the Jews in Russia and the Soviet Union? LoveMonkey 17:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This article is about the Orthodox Church, not about Stalin, and about that other article, some devout Orthodox gent has probably removed it. - Francis Tyers · 08:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Antisemtism is wrong if the church engaged in it then the church was wrong. If you can name clergy then post it. There was no Jewish holocaust in the East. I can say that clergy like Alexander Men and Semen L. Frank were Jewish and semitic and converted to Orthodoxy so I find the broad generation inaccurate but what can I say, other then antisemitism is wrong period and that it was wrong for Orthodox christians to do those things. LoveMonkey 14:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

But since you found time to post here why have you not answered any of the questions and or tried to work toward a consensus instead of not even addressing the removal of information from the article? Why can we not post about Russification (which you denied existed) under the socialist rule in Russia? You are edit warring and revert warring. LoveMonkey 17:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You may wish to look at History of the Russian Orthodox Church --Richard 23:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The article doesn't even mention the pogroms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.189.119 (talk) 05:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Editing[edit]

I have to ask: Is English your first language? Forgive my saying so, but many of the contributions made seem to have been translated poorly from some other language. Might I suggest (with Andrew c) putting proposed additions on this talk page for copyediting before adding them to the article? 71.241.79.69 19:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Might I suggest one, that you create an account with Wikipedia before you engage in conduct that makes me think that your a sock puppet. Two might I also suggest that you follow some of the rules and mark what parts of the article you think need to be rewritten [1] as well as get to re-writing them yourself, as well as sourcing them. Third might I also suggest that you might start contributing to articles before being critical of other people's contributions. Your post and comments do not appear to be in "good faith" so now might I also suggest finally that you post here what parts of the article you have problems with and start working toward building a consensus and creating the best article possible. Or do you have another agenda? LoveMonkey 20:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

anti-jewish pogroms and the Russian orthodox church[edit]

Why did you restore the allegations without sourcing a specific scholarly work or a reputable news organization? Such an allegation is very serious and should be very clear and not just a passing comments based on a website that is not an authoritative source. What does Bar Yar say for example? Were the pogrom ethnic or were they genuinely the Church attacking the Jewish community and which specific pogroms were the church involved in? LoveMonkey 02:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/SERHIS.html Is this book in question that is being source to make the statement that the Eastern Orthodox church was deeply involved in Anti-Jewish Pogroms? LoveMonkey 17:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Complete rewrite?[edit]

OK, what's with the "complete rewrite" tag? I know that this article has gotten a bit out of control lately but why a "complete rewrite"? What are the issues that you see with the current revision? Can they be fixed without a complete rewrite?

If not, how would you change this article in the rewrite?

--Richard 07:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Copy editing is easy; organization is hard. There are lots of people who can write literate English prose; not so many who know a lot about the subject. I suggest getting the logic, structure, and content in place first. Tom Harrison Talk 13:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

There is content, organization and copy editing. This is a very young article (less than a week old) and the expansion in content has been quite dramatic. When I see the "complete rewrite" tag, I interpret this to mean the "logic, structure and content" are all quite deficient due to issues such as POV or unencyclopedic text.
Conversely, if the content is basically OK but there are issues in organization, that seems to me to be something short of a "complete rewrite". Problems with copyediting are issues of "cleanup" not "rewrite".
I'm trying to find out who put on the "complete rewrite" tag and what they meant by it.
--Richard 16:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe the section about the later Ottoman Empire could be expanded. Tom Harrison Talk 01:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Why "Moravia of the Czech Republic" is not a good section header[edit]

The Czech Republic did not exist at the time of the mission to it and so it is anachronistic to say "Mission to Moravia of the Czech Republic." --Richard 18:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Again... there was no Czech Republic in the time of Rastislav. The Moravia article makes it clear that present-day Moravia is in the Czech Republic. It is anachronistic to use the Czech Republic to refer to Great Moravia whose territory spanned territories outside the current Czech Republic.

From the "History" section of the Moravia article.

In 833 this became the state of Great Moravia with the conquest of the Principality of Nitra (present-day Slovakia and parts of northern Hungary). Their first king was Mojmir I (ruled 830-846). Great Moravia reached its greatest territorial extent in the 890s under Svatopluk I. At this time, the empire encompassed the territory of the present-day Czech Republic and Slovakia, the western part of present Hungary (Pannonia), as well as Lusatia in present-day Germany and Silesia and the upper Vistula basin in southern Poland.

I'm going to change the link from Moravia to Great Moravia which I think is most appropriate.

--Richard 20:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Well at least this was done without a condescending or patronistic attitude you should reframe from sighing in your comments. Also good for you on this little anachronism I think now we can go through the entire article now by your standard and remove all references to anything in their modern name. Please, try and keep in mind in the future posting sighs in your comments does nothing in good faith, as well as threats. My work here is for free as I am also giving up personal time to contribute to this article about my religion. I am not and can not speak for you. But I will say that your comments on my talkpage (remember I have made no threats to you anywhere) and your sighing do not even come close to good faith. We lead by example and since the work here is free, rather then trying to frustrate people and or become frustrated yourself maybe you should reconsider your own actions. This before becoming overly cumbersome with your "enforcing" of wiki policy. Which just looks like you trying to frustrate, and of course that would not be good faith. LoveMonkey 20:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

This has stopped being about the article and is now about our collaborative relationship (or lack thereof). I will respond on your Talk Page later today as I want to give my response the time and thoughtfulness that it deserves. In the meantime, please be aware that it has not been my intention to antagonize and frustrate you although it is obvious that I have done so.
As for the "old name" vs. "current name" comment that you made, I think this is an emotional response rather than a considered response. When I first inserted the "Conversion of the Rus'" section, I considered naming it "Conversion of Russia" but decided that, although I didn't fully understand it at the time, there probably was a reason why others were using "Rus'" instead of "Russia". As it turns out, I now understand that the Rus' are considered the historical predecessors of modern Belarusians, Russians, and Ukrainians. So saying that it was the conversion of the Russians would leave out the Belarussians and the Ukrainians. Similarly, characterizing the response to Rastislav as a "mission to Moravia" with a link to Moravia could suggest that the mission was just to that portion of Great Moravia which is currently within the borders of the Czech Republic. I don't mean to say this in a patronizing way. I didn't know where Moravia was before this morning, let alone anything about Rastislav or Great Moravia. I only learned this after you inserted "in the Czech Republic" and I started trying to figure out what to do about the anachronism. As I've said before, I learn a lot from Wikipedia.
--Richard 22:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The Dnizz-LoveMonkey edits[edit]

There has been a bit of back-and-forth editing between Dnizz and LoveMonkey with the only discussion being via edit summaries. Edit summaries can be a poor way to conduct a discussion. The compulsory terseness tends to lead to edit-warring rather than consensus-building. Please consider following the WP:BRD model. Revert at most once and then discuss. Explain your reasoning so that others can understand where you are coming from.

In this spirit, I have looked at each of Dnizz's edits and evaluated each one separately. In general, I see that Dnizz is making valuable points although I might suggest a different resolution for some of them. I will treat each point below.

Arian heresy[edit]

While I think it is reasonable to have a section titled "The Arian heresy", I also understand that some people think the word "heresy" is inherently POV and prefer to avoid using it. I disagree with that position but I don't see that using it in this section title is critical so I propose "Confronting Arianism". (I also thought of "Suppressing Arianism" as a possibility). "The Arianism" doesn't work because it is uncolloquial to say "The Communism" or "The Christianity". I thought of changing the section title to just "Arianism" but that doesn't really impart the sense of conflict that my proposal does.

I would prefer "Confronting Arianism", because "Suppressing Arianism" is just as POV as "Arian Heresy." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.183.0 (talk) 05:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Age of captivity[edit]

I admit that I copied this section title from another article. It has a nice ring to it but it does also have a bit of POV to it. It's fine to just use "Under Ottoman rule" or "Ottoman Empire" as the section heading.

I don't think the {{facts}} tags are really warranted but I will look for sources when I have more time. Perhaps others can help.

The genocides and the Republic of Turkey[edit]

Yes, Dnizz has a point that these genocides occurred before the formation of the "Republic of Turkey". On the other hand, they were orchestrated by the "Young Turks" who later overthrew the Ottoman Empire and formed the Republic of Turkey.

I have restored the text but moved it to a separate section titled "Persecution in the aftermath of World War I". There are two remaining issues. The first is whether these were genocides or not. I think we should use the Wikipedia article titles. If and when the word "genocide" is removed from those titles, then we should consider not using the word genocide in this article. In other words, please fight the POV battle over at those articles and then bring the consensus result here.

The second issue is something we need to grapple with and that is... "What do the genocides have to do with the History of the Eastern Orthodox Church"? Note that I am not saying that they had nothing to do with the History of the Eastern Orthodox Church. I'm just saying that we have not "connected the dots" for the reader who is not familiar with the history to begin with. And, yes, I am one of those readers. We need some prose here to explain how these genocides are connected to each other (i.e. they were part of a master plan to eliminate Christians from the Ottoman Empire and, later, Turkey). We also need to explain the impact on the Eastern Orthodox Church (substantial number of adherents were killed or expelled from Turkey).

Greco-Turkish relations[edit]

I have mixed feelings about the sources that Dnizz characterizes as "unrelated". I think the problem is that sources cited in the "References" section should be tied to specific assertions. If they are general sources rather than specific references, then they should be in the "Sources" section. Let's either move these sources to the "Sources" section or write more text with specific assertions that are cited to those sources.

--Richard 16:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Difference of opinion regarding how much detail to include in this article.[edit]

There is a difference of opinion between User:LoveMonkey and myself regarding the level of detail to include in this article. The debate is over my deletion of text inserted by LoveMonkey with the edit summary "Removing excessive detail".

LoveMonkey has sought to cast this primarily in terms of Wikipedia policy regarding length of articles. I have referred him to WP:SIZE and indicated that this is a guideline, not a policy. At 82kb, this article is definitely getting on the long side and it would be good to carefully manage any further growth as it will be difficult to split it up given that it attempts to provide a high-level overview of 2000 years of history. It is clearly reasonable to expect that an article of this scope will tend to be quite long.

In my opinion, this is not a question of capping the length of the article at an arbitrary limit. Instead, I prefer to cast the discussion in terms of readability. Because of the breadth of this article's scope, there should be a limit to the depth of detail that is included in order to keep the reader's attention focused on the overall topic. It is with this perspective in mind that I deleted the text in question and moved it to another article (Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union).

I readily admit that this is a judgment call and that there are situations where very important events require a bit more detailed coverage. I just don't think this text is an example of one of those situations.

I also considered moving the text in question to History of the Russian Orthodox Church which is only 47kb in length. However, it is still my opinion that the text in question is too detailed for an article with as broad a scope as History of the Russian Orthodox Church. That is why I put the text in question in Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union.

Since LoveMonkey and I have been unable to resolve this difference of opinion, I am looking for the opinions of other editors on this question.

--Richard 03:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Difference of opinion on detail is the least of my complaints. No one owns this article not me and most definitely not you Richard. I added content to this article that is sourced content I have added quite a bit of information to the article that was also new information rather then just copy and paste from other wiki articles. Adding this information and it's sources (and also reading those sources) is time consuming. But it also makes wikipedia more reliable and accurate. Richard has become editor in cheif to this article while also not being Orthodox and not knowing enough about Orthodoxy to be so opinionated about it. Let me be real detailed right now. Richard while micro managing and reprimanding me on my talkpage which is frustrating and counter productive (which he has no right, justification nor authority to do). Has allowed other editors to engage in rather ugly editing tactics on this article. Richard has done nothing to state an informed opinion about the ugly matters of the yoke of Islam and the yoke atheism or socialism to the Orthodox church. His best is copy and paste not his work but regurgitating others work. He has instead let some of these ugly things stand. Also he allowed an individual to accuse the church as a whole of antisemitism without doing anything to inform himself about how valid that allogation is. He does not and will stand up to ugly and yet he is actively antagonizing actual Orthodox christians who are working on the article. Unbelievable and unacceptable. LoveMonkey 04:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion[edit]

This article is definitely too long, and it is without question that some content should be moved to more detailed articles. The way in which this is done is under dispute. Making the summaries of the more detailed information here might involve deletion of valid content, but will most likely be relocation of content. Not the validity of the content is disputed: its place in this particular article is.

From the discussion above, I gather that not only the actual edit as well as the general behaviour of the editors is under dispute. As a proponent of simple solutions, I would be willing to spend this evening (GMT) summarizing this article to fit the maximum WP:SIZE recommendation. That is, 50kb. One condition is that both editors agree with this - please state below if you do so or not, and your reasons.

Further, I have to note that cutting down the size of an article is not disrespectful of the authors of the content that is removed. Especially in "History of .." articles, it is only a natural process as recent events happen and move into history.

--User:Krator (t c) 15:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Krator, thank you for providing a third opinion. I have felt for some time that the article was too long but, of course, it is far easier to write a long article than it is to write a good short summary. Writing good, concise summaries is not one of my strengths.
I am willing to accept your offer to cut this article down although I don't feel that 50kb is a hard threshold. I'd be happy if the article ran 50-60kb. Also, if you could create a sandbox for any deleted text, we can then work on moving that text to other subsidiary articles.
--Richard 22:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

How do you arrive at 50kb as an appropriate size for this or any article? The article WP:SIZE states it is unnecessary. However chopping 25-30kb is rather drastic as for readability allot of content could be allocated to the sources section and out of the main body of text. LoveMonkey 22:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I too am curious how a third of the article can be cut out while still providing a comprehensive overview of the History of the Eastern Orthodox Church. I think that, if I put a lot of work into it, I could cut out 10-20% but 30-40% seems quite ambitious. However, since nothing is irreversible, I am willing to let Krator try.
This is, by the way, a common problem with articles that have a large scope. During the Featured Article Candidacy of United States, there were people who kept saying "it's not FA because it's too long" while others said "it's not FA because it doesn't cover my favorite topics X, Y and Z". In the end, the article did not achieve Featured Article status. I think the editors who were working on it (including me as a minor contributor) just gave up and said, "There's no way this will become FA with such contradictory opinions."
--Richard 16:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Sources section[edit]

I in my humble opinion believe and would like to verify with User:Krator if the source section of the article isn't really where the biggest blot of this article is. I mean if you look across the top of the article it states that the article has no sources. I have added allot of sources having to triple source some simple sentences in order to fight against edit and revert warring editors on the article. So can User:Krator please confirm the size of the article if the sources section was removed off of the page into it's own article in order to save space and or reading? LoveMonkey 15:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting point...
If you read WP:SIZE, the size guidelines are meant to apply to "readable prose" only. As stated in WP:SIZE, "Readable prose" is the main body of the text, excluding sections such as:
  • Footnotes and reference sections ("see also", "external links", footnotes, bibliography, etc)
  • Diagrams and images
  • Tables and lists
  • Wikilinks and external URLs
  • Formatting and mark-up.

A more exact list, and a means of calculating readable prose, is given in the notes.

In the notes is this suggestion "To quickly estimate readable prose size, click on the printable version of the page, select all, copy, paste into an edit window, delete remaining items not counted in readable prose, and hit preview to see the page size warning."
I tried this and came up with a readable prose size of 67kb. Thus, while the article is definitely on the long side, it's not as egregiously outside the guidelines as the 83kb edit warning would seem to indicate. However, still suggests that some 17kb would need to be deleted in order to get inside the 30-50kb range specified in the guideline. This represents 25% of the article which, in my opinion, would require a lot of work to "remove fat without cutting into the muscle".
I would oppose moving the sources to a separate article as there are only three sources. The bulk of space is in the footnotes and neither sources or references (footnotes) are counted in the size guidelines anyway.
--Richard 16:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Well this is not my point and I think the misunderstanding is in my articulation. I will try again. When I source something in the article body it's added text to the article body. I.E. Aleksey Khomyakov comments in the article. The text is still in the article body but a reference or meta tag still points to the end of the article. Hence my question, I am wondering how the text is removed from the total size equation. LoveMonkey 17:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Sources[edit]

Also can someone please tell me what needs to be sourced or remove the article needs sources tag/citation across the article. LoveMonkey 15:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the tag from "unsourced" to "moresources". I don't know who put on the "unsourced" tag but it's clearly no longer applicable. There are, however, entire sections that have no citations. It would be good to have sources put on the more significant assertions in each section. When most of the sections have adequate citations, we can remove the "moresources" tag and just tag individual sections with the "unreferenced" tag.
--Richard 16:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

OK now other then the source tags what specifically needs to be sourced? LoveMonkey 19:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. Are you suggesting that the entire article can be sourced to the three sources? This may be true but I can't offer an opinion on that question one way or the other.
As for the specific material which needs citations, refer to WP:V which says "Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article."
Typically, much of Wikipedia content is entered without citations and is only cited when someone challenges it. However, this is the way things are done, not the way things should be done. The way things should be done is that there should be a citation for any assertion which could raise a reader's eyebrow so that they think "Really? I didn't know that. How interesting..." or "Really? That's a little hard to believe...". Stuff that elicits a "Yeah, I already knew that" on the part of an average reader does not require sources.
It is time-consuming to go through every line of a long article such as this one and determine whether it needs sourcing and how to source it. If you're up for it, have at it.
--Richard 19:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I am asking what parts need sources if we are going to leave the article in Categories like Articles lacking reliable references from June 2007 then what parts need to be sourced in order for ridiculous categories like this to be removed? LoveMonkey 00:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I think there is no simple answer unless you really want me to go through this article sentence by sentence tagging each assertion that needs a citation with a {{citation needed}} tag. A good rule of thumb is that, if you see a subsection without at least one citation in it, that subsection probably needs to have a citation added to it. You'll have to look at each subsection on a case-by-case basis to figure out where a citation would be useful and where it would be superfluous.
--Richard 05:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I say tag 'em. That is the only way to insure that there is no misunderstanding. LoveMonkey 15:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've started the process by tagging a few sections but this is going to take me a long time, partly because this is not an area that I am strong in. I've read through a couple of sections trying to decide which assertions need citations and tagged a few. It's not something that's "black or white". I can easily imagine somebody else thinking that I missed some assertions that needed a citation and yet another person thinking that I tagged something that didn't really need a citation. I'm not even 100% sure that all my tags are really necessary even though I did spend some time thinking about each one.
If it is your intent to find sources for everything I tag, I would suggest that you adopt the approach that my opinion on {{fact}} tags is nothing more than my opinion. Please don't waste your time running after sources that you think are a waste of time. I am not the "editor in chief" nor is my opinion the only one or the right one. If you see a {{fact}} tag that you think is really superfluous, feel free to challenge it here. I'm happy to discuss and remove any tags that are really superfluous.
Personally, I don't tend to tag stuff for citation unless it is really egregiously POV or just cries out for supporting evidence. Other people are less liberal in their interpretation of Wikipedia policies. I've seen articles that are just dripping with citations. That's not my style but some people seem to think this is critical to an article being encyclopedic. Frankly, most encyclopedias that I've seen don't use footnotes so, in my opinion, this is just a Wikipedia affectation used to resolve conflict among conflicting editors.
--Richard 15:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep em coming. I'll source as close to every line I added to the article if I have to.LoveMonkey 15:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Sections that can be shorten[edit]

I think the Photian schism section and the mission to moldivia can be chopped in half and added to the contention between east and west section. I think the Movian section and be shorten and the bulk of the content added to the main article it already directs the reader toward. LoveMonkey 02:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Eastern Catholic[edit]

So when are we now going to add the Mormon, Protestant and Buddhist sections to the article that you stated is already to long? If this group which is only really about 300 years old gets added then when can the other groups get added? LoveMonkey 15:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a closer logical linkage between "Eastern Catholic" and "Eastern Orthodox" than say "Mormon" and "Eastern Orthodox". Someone reading about Eastern Orthodox Church might have an interest in understanding more about the differences between the "Eastern Catholic Churches" and the "Eastern Orthodox Church". These Eastern Catholic churches are mentioned in the article. The other religions that you mentioned are not.
--Richard 16:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure they are. The Jehovah's Witnesses are the modern arian movement. Mormons are a very akin in cause and formation to Islam. But Eastern catholics are considered directly hostile to the Eastern Orthodox church. At least the sources I quote state this. LoveMonkey 05:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The removal of the passages about the "frangopapas"[edit]

Well Richard the point of what I put into the article about the Arian defeat of the Western Roman Empire is that the filioque clause was caused as a response to conquest as part of the Roman Catholics tactics to convert the Arians to Trinitarian Christiantiy. Are you saying that this is incorrect? By the posted comments below? LoveMonkey 11:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Arianism in the early medieval Germanic kingdoms

The Wikipedia article on Arianism puts a different spin on the relationship of Arianism and the early medieval Germanic kingdoms...

However, during the time of Arianism's flowering in Constantinople, the Gothic convert Ulfilas (later the subject of the letter of Auxentius cited above) was sent as a missionary to the Gothic barbarians across the Danube, a mission favored for political reasons by emperor Constantius II. Ulfilas' initial success in converting this Germanic people to an Arian form of Christianity was strengthened by later events. When the Germanic peoples entered the Roman Empire and founded successor-kingdoms in the western part, most had been Arian Christians for more than a century.
The conflict in the 4th century had seen Arian and Nicene factions struggling for control of the Church. In contrast, in the Arian German kingdoms established on the wreckage of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century, there were entirely separate Arian and Nicene Churches with parallel hierarchies, each serving different sets of believers. The Germanic elites were Arians, and the majority population Nicene. Many scholars see the persistence of the Germans' Arian religion as a strategy to differentiate the Germanic elite from the local inhabitants and culture and to maintain their group identity.
Most Germanic tribes were generally tolerant of the Nicene beliefs of their subjects. However, the Vandals tried for several decades to force their Arian belief on their North African Nicene subjects, exiling Nicene clergy, dissolving monasteries, and exercising heavy pressure on non-conforming Christians.
By the beginning of the 8th century, these kingdoms had either been conquered by Nicene neighbors (Ostrogoths, Vandals, Burgundians) or their rulers had accepted Nicene Christianity (Visigoths, Lombards).
The Franks were unique among the Germanic peoples in that they entered the empire as pagans and converted to Nicene Christianity directly.

--Richard 11:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what the different spin is from what I posted and what your stating. If you feel you can integrate the article and keep it as about Eastern Orthodox Christianity good. I was under the impression that we needed to shorten the article. I am trying to rewrite chunks of the article more concisely for this very reason. Once I have the parts concise enough I will drop and or integrate the stuff you copied from the "other" Eastern Orthodox article. LoveMonkey 00:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The above text was presented to provide counterpoint to the following edit of yours (which I deleted)...
The Trinitarian theology held true (but only after much more conflict) until the Gothic Wars which saw Byzantium try to convert back the Western Roman Empire (which fell to the Arians) to the Orthodox Christianity of the East. Where as much of the West was conquered by the Arian Gothic European Tribes. The Western Roman Empire primarly fell under the control of the Franks. This group later evolved more or less into France. It was under Clovis I that this group of Arians converted to Catholicism. It is believed in the East the Franks extended influence over the Western Roman Christian church, as Arian Goths that spawn much of the different understanding of God and also the filioque clause. This was an influence over the Western Church that started after the last Western Roman Emperor Romulus Augustus 476AD.

In the above edit and a couple other places, you insinuate that the Western Roman Church effectively became Arian or Arian-influenced and that this is the cause of the Great Schism. This is an assertion that would assuredly be rejected by the Western Church and therefore cries out for citation.

--Richard 05:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


Now here is what the wikipedia articles stated on the filioque clause'.


[edit] First official use Although there were earlier hints of the double-procession of the Holy Spirit, including an expression in the Athanasian Creed and a dogmatic epistle of Pope Leo I[2], it was first officially added to the Nicene Creed at the Third Council of Toledo in 589.[3] This was done primarily to oppose the Arian heresy, which taught that the Son was a creature and not God and which was prevalent among the Germanic peoples. This version of the Creed was accepted by the local Visigothic rulers, who had been Arians until then.


[edit] The Franks and the filioque After the Visigoths, the filioque was also accepted as part of the Creed by the Franks, which under the leadership of Pippin the Younger and his son Charlemagne rose to dominance in the West, with Charlemagne being crowned Emperor in 800.

Pope Leo III forbade the addition of "filioque" to Nicene Creed which was added by Franks in Aachen in 809. He also ordered that the Nicene creed be engraved on silver tablets so that his conclusion might not be overturned in the future. He wrote «HAEC LEO POSUI AMORE ET CAUTELA ORTHODOXAE FIDEI» (I, Leo, put here for love and protection of orthodox faith)(VITA LEONIS , LIBER PONTIFICALIS (Ed.Duchene, TII, p.26)

However, among the Franks the filioque was widely thought to be an integral part of the Creed. Most thought that the Greek churches, which at that time were under the thumb of successive emperors and dominated by iconoclasm, were in error for omitting it. Contemporary usage was thought to be normative and authentic. Frankish predominance put pressure on Rome to adopt the filioque, which however only occurred after the year 1000.


So where am I going wrong here Richard? LoveMonkey 12:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


Now again my point is that Arianism was the catalyst that motivated the Western Roman Church to insert the filioque. This being that oh so great influence. Now also understand that when I post something on wikipedia. I am usually using another source and then referencing what is already on wikipedia to get a more concise intergration. So if misunderstood, then try to point try it this way.

The Trinitarian theology held true (but only after much more conflict) until the Gothic Wars which saw Byzantium try to convert back the Western Roman Empire (which fell to the Arians) to the Orthodox Christianity of the East. Where as much of the West was conquered by the Arian Gothic European Tribes. The Western Roman Empire primarly fell under the control of the Franks. This group later evolved more or less into France. It was under Clovis I that this group of Arians converted to Trinitarian Christianity. It is believed in the East the Franks extended influence over the Western Roman Christian church, as Arian Goths that spawn much of the different understanding of God and therefore the insertation filioque clause into the Nicenea Creed. This was an influence over the Western Church that started after the last Western Roman Emperor Romulus Augustus 476AD. That then extended all the way through to the filioque clause being acceptable after the year 1000AD.



Part of all of this is what became the Holy Roman Catholic Empire under Charlemagne.This is also validated by the wiki article and outside sources.


The Franks and the filioque After the Visigoths, the filioque was also accepted as part of the Creed by the Franks, which under the leadership of Pippin the Younger and his son Charlemagne rose to dominance in the West, with Charlemagne being crowned Emperor in 800.

Pope Leo III forbade the addition of "filioque" to Nicene Creed which was added by Franks in Aachen in 809. He also ordered that the Nicene creed be engraved on silver tablets so that his conclusion might not be overturned in the future. He wrote «HAEC LEO POSUI AMORE ET CAUTELA ORTHODOXAE FIDEI» (I, Leo, put here for love and protection of orthodox faith)(VITA LEONIS , LIBER PONTIFICALIS (Ed.Duchene, TII, p.26)

However, among the Franks the filioque was widely thought to be an integral part of the Creed. Most thought that the Greek churches, which at that time were under the thumb of successive emperors and dominated by iconoclasm, were in error for omitting it. Contemporary usage was thought to be normative and authentic. Frankish predominance put pressure on Rome to adopt the filioque, which however only occurred after the year 1000.


This is an awful lot of writing about this when what I posted seemed to be pretty concise. But Again as I have put up on my talkpage and commented elsewhere if you can word it better and more concise DO SO. But removing it again misinforms by underinforming. If you now have problems with filioque clause article then go there and have at it. I have plenty, but don't have plenty of time. So I will remain focused on this and few other articles.[2] Come on Richard you didn't even ask. You assumed. I mean did you not even read the filioque article here let alone the one on Orthodoxwiki? LoveMonkey 12:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

My other stuff that Richard removed[edit]

Again now about the other "stuff" you removed. I thought the history of the Roman, Greek, Egyptian, Hebrew empires and how they all got to be one Roman Empire and that 5000 or so years being consolidated into two simple paragraphs (yes I got all of it into two paragraphs that you deleted) was appropriate. The understanding of Christianity in an article about it's history must be cultural and contextual. You affectively have edited out my attempts at both. What is it with your trigger happy deletion without discussion Richard? You did not even ask for sourcing before deletion. I would like to remove parts of this article and reduce them to the type of concise and direct communication I did WITH THE VERY THING YOU DELETED. I was adding history so that people reading could understand what the Byzantine Empire was. You removed that. I was adding history on how parts of the bible cambe about (i.e. Greek occupation of Jeruselm, Roman occupation of Jeruselm, Roman participation in the crucifixion of Christ, i.e. why Christ was crucifixed not say stoned to death) either I gave direct information or layed groundwork you deleted this. How are people supposed to be collabrative when one person is deciding to delete without collabration? You keep doing this. This conduct is unprofessional. I mean at least contact people and discuss it with them first. I am being too grow very tired and very disillusioned with wikipedia. LoveMonkey 12:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Tell Richard why can we not collabrate? Please stop blanket deleting. I have limited time to contribute. The article needs to be historically informative. You are not collaborating. LoveMonkey 13:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Nationalistic Churches[edit]

I was wanting to lay the groundwork in the article for and examplination on how nationalism played a role in the schisms of the Early church. Since Egypt got conquered by Greece and then Greek (and by proxy Egypt) then got conquered by Rome. Each of the conquered wanting to have a Christianity that nationalistically and or culturally was there Christianity. I was wanting to reflect how this was the way the orginal church was and this was how Christianity was. But that this caused certain problems that led to the schisms. This is a current problem like in the communities in Israel that needs to be addressed and have a correct cultural and contextual understanding. LoveMonkey 13:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... I still have my doubts about the text in question but these points are probably worth making somewhere in Wikipedia. My initial guess is that they more properly belong in History of Christianity but it depends in part on whether all the "national" churches are considered part of the Eastern Orthodox Church. (My understanding is that they are not).
I am really quite a novice in this area but my understanding is that the Egyptian and Syriac churches (and some others that I can't list off the top of my head) long pre-date the East-West schism whereas most of the Eastern Orthodox (Greek, Russian, etc.) are really creatures of two events: the East-West split, the conquest of the Byzantine Empire by the Ottoman Turks AND the 19th century independence movements. Thus, the Russian Orthodox church was made autocephalous because the Russian church was separated from Constantinople by the Turkish conquest. The Greek church was made autocephalous because Greece won its independence from Turkey in the early 19th century. However, AFAIK, these churches share the same doctrine and differ only in language, governance and, to a limited extent, rites. (I'm not sure about the rites)
The Egyptian, Syriac, etc. churches on the other hand differ quite substantially not only in language and governance but also in rites, doctrine and scripture.
All this should be discussed somewhere. As I said, I think the right place is History of Christianity because the pre-schism national churches are not, AFAIK, parts of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
Correct me if I'm wrong. This is not an area that I know much about.
--Richard 16:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Confronting Arianism[edit]

There seems to be a dispute between LoveMonkey and Jacob Haller regarding Constantine deposing Athanasius and restoring the Hersiarch. Can each side explain what the issue is from their POV? Thanks.

--Richard 19:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Calling someone a "heresiarch" (founder of a heresy, founder of a false teaching) violates WP:NPOV. Jacob Haller 20:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I thought. I've had my doubts about that sentence for some time but was waiting for someone else to raise the issue. LoveMonkey, can we change this sentence to avoid use of the POV word "heresiarch"?
--Richard 23:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I sourced 5 sources that refer to Arius as heresiarch. POV would be for wikipedia to decide that a known and well used term from historical sources would now be POV. I disagree that something used and sourced by historical accounts can be called POV. Also you both need to be even handed and go and look at the wikipedia article named heresiarch. And note I have never edited that article. But I sure can source it. LoveMonkey 13:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Ha the irony [3]. Why are people to stop referring to Arius by what he is referred to as? Politicial Correctness is nothing but historical revisionism. LoveMonkey 13:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

"NPOV requires views to be represented without bias." Jacob Haller 15:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Calling Arius a "heresiarch" has two parts: the statement that Arius founded the doctrine or group, which is widely disputed (non-Nicaean sources of the period regard "Arianism" as the received tradition from before the controversy, and deny borrowing anything from Arius; some sources, ancient and modern, attribute an important role to Lucian of Antioch, etc.), and the statement that Arius was wrong, which is widely accepted, but is biased.
I think it would help the encyclopedia not to call anyone a heretic or heresiarch and can't see why people complain about political correctness as soon as someone decides to stand in the way of the POV-pushing. Jacob Haller 16:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

By your standard everything is POV. This article has by design a bias to represent only Eastern Orthodox christianity. Just as any article on wikipedia has a POV. Just as your POV is that Arius was not heresiarch. Your request to relativise is not an acceptable standard. "NPOV requires views to be represented without bias." is far to board a standard for anything to be stated and then not disputed. I mean was the term not used for him by historical sources or not. NPOV should be for things that are of opinion. Historically to the Orthodox church Arius was heresiarch so deny this and state that it should not be represented because your POV is Arius wasn't wrong. I mean they had several councils and people killed each other and died over what Arius taught. Post how that's an opinion. As for POV once again there is no such of a thing as NPOV. The standard was made to try and limit POV not block information people don't like. LoveMonkey 17:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, would you consider Joseph Smith, Jr. (of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) to have been a martyr? Why or why not? The LDS church considers him to have been a martyr. I don't or at least I think we should be careful in calling him such because of the strong emotive meaning of the word. I changed the text of one article from "after Smith was martyred" to "after Smith was killed" because I think martyrdom is a POV label. It's OK to say "the LDS church considers Smith to be a martyr" but it is POV to say "Smith was a martyr".
So now, turn this argument around and we can see that the martyred saints are only martyrs from the Christian POV and not necessarily from anyone else's POV. For some people, Trotsky and Hitler are also martyrs.
This is the basis of Jacob Haller's argument (at least as I see it).
--Richard 20:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The standard of NPOV[edit]

The neutral point of view The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions.

Shortcut: WP:NOPOV As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV". The neutral point of view is a point of view that is neutral, that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject. Debates within topics are described, represented and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from asserting which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. When editorial bias toward one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed. LoveMonkey 17:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

So Arius was a heresiarch to what? To Eastern Orthodoxy. To state otherwise confuses people as to the extent of what was happening historically. Your POV is that you don't think Arius was a heresiarch. BUT the article is not about you the article is about The History of the Eastern Orthodox church. And you are saying that the church doesn't beleive Arius was heresiarch nor do they depict him way. People are allowed (at least for now) to be critical of one another. The Eastern Orthodox church in it's history was critical of Arius. I have sourced it 5 times with 5 different sources that this is how Arius was perceived. LoveMonkey 17:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I see that you have clarified that the Orthodox Church considered him a heresiarch. That's pretty much what I was hoping for. Thanks, and sorry about the harsh words. Jacob Haller 18:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. LoveMonkey 13:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Confronting Arianism[edit]

I have made some changes to this section. Most notably, I don't think it was just the Eastern Orthodox that considered Arius a heretic/heresiarch. The Western Church does as well. Although this article is about the Eastern Orthodox Church, I think it is inaccurate to characterize Arius as being considered a heresiarch by the Eastern Orthodox Church without mentioning the fact that the Western church considered him such as well.

In fact, I have been disturbed for some time by the implication of this section that the Eastern church remained Orthodox while the Western church was conquered by Arians. Without further explication, this suggests that the Western church was (and possibly still is) Arian or contaminated by Arianism. Such an assertion is, to say the least, POV and needs to be recast into an NPOV stance (e.g. "According to Eastern Orthodox doctrine,....") and counterbalanced with the Western POV.

As stated above, NPOV does not mean "No POV" but rather than all POVs should be stated without giving undue weight to any particular POV.

Finally, I don't see the point behind saying that both the Nicene Council and the Nicene Creed declared Arius to be a heretic. The Nicene Creed is a product of the Nicene Councils and a Creed is only made to declare something by the people who composed the creed.

--Richard 20:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I moved the stuff on the West to the end of the section and added some more explanation. Does that help? Jacob Haller 02:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's better but the section still ends unsatisfyingly. To better understand my concerns, please read this section on LoveMonkey's talk page. --Richard 22:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

We have went over this Richard I covered this in the previous conversations on this page. If I source it, the article then becomes an ethno-centric attack on the Roman Catholic church which to me is useless. There is already plenty of historical ugliness between the two groups of Roman catholicism and the Orthodox in the article already without me even going there. It would be nice if us Christians didn't fight so much. LoveMonkey 13:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

"It would be nice if us Christians didn't fight so much."
Yes, I agree. It is reprehensible that a religion based on the love of our fellow man should have such a lengthy history of conflict in the name of Jesus. Nonetheless, Wikipedia's mission should be to document this history in as objective and NPOV a manner as possible.
I do not have a problem with documenting ethno-centric biases, hostilities and grudges provided that they are well-sourced and presented in an NPOV manner. It is not our job to gloss over conflicts but to present them in an NPOV manner. How else is the reader to understand that the East and West have been unable to reconcile differences that have existed for over a millenium?
I myself don't understand the theological implications of the filioque clause and would certainly like to have both sides of the issue explained to me in a way that a layman can understand.
I have already learned a lot in recent months about the history of post-Nicene Arianism (frankly, I thought they just withered away and vanished after the Nicene Council). Nonetheless, it is certainly important to document any allegations that Arianism is behind the theological differences separating the Eastern and Western churches, if that is truly the case.
--Richard 22:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay. I know that Arianism, or rather Wulfilan Christianity (which was non-Nicaean, but whose exact affinities are still debated; Homoian according to some modern scholars, possibly Homoian according to Socrates Scholasticus, and Anomoean according to Philostorgius) came into the west c. AD 400.
Auxentius of Durostorum, Ulfilas' adopted son, not to be confused with Auxentius of Milan, became bishop of the Arian congregations in Milan, while the opposing parties disputed the control of certain church buildings. Ambrose gave a sermon condemning Auxentius at the time (On the giving up of the Basilicas). Later, Gothic and Vandal conquest created or supported Arian churches alongside Catholic ones. The Vandals conducted some persecutions, but the Goths generally did not. In Italy, the Italian and Gothic Arian churches had close ties, and Amory (in People and Identity on Ostrogothic Italy) sees Arianism in Ostrogothic Italy as a local phenomenon, instead of an imported one, but does not extend this to the rest of the West.
The Byzantine reconquest of Africa (in the 530s) and Italy (in the 530-550s), as well as the Frankish conquest of Toulouse, shut down the Arian churches in the area. However, Arianism survived among the Goths in Hispania and must have reached the Lombards, who had large Arian communities for some time to come.
I'm not that familiar with Spanish Visigothic history, or Lombard history. But in 586 a Catholic became king of Visigothic Hispania, and in 589, at the Council of Toledo, as Catholicism became the state religion, several bishops went over to the Catholics, and the Filioque clause was added to the Nicaean-Constantinopolitan Creed. The actual reasons are disputed; the Wikipedia article says to oppose Arianism, some say to conciliate various parties, etc. I checked the Lombards article to estimate when the Catholicism became the main religion among the Lombards, as well as the rest of the population of Italy.
Thank you very much for this. The Wikipedia article on the Filioque clause has much more detail than I knew before reading it but it confirms my fundamental understanding that it was inserted to fight Arianism. This is why it is so jarring for me to read something that suggests that the Filioque was the result of Arian influence.
I would like to bring to your attention the fact that the History of Christianity article mentions almost none of this. Look at the section titled "Church of the Early Middle Ages (476–800)". I think it is important to add this information into that article as it is an area that User:Lostcaesar and I identified as a "hole" in our knowledge when we were rewriting that article.
--Richard 04:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not very familiar with present-day EO theology either. Is there general support for the doctrine, with opposition to its insertion in the Nicene Creed, or is there substantial opposition to the doctrine as well? This article suggests the latter. Jacob Haller 23:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I followed most of what you wrote but I got lost in the last paragraph. What "doctrine" are you referring to?
--Richard 04:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering if the idea of dual progression was generally accepted or generally rejected by the Eastern Orthodox; of course its insertion into the Nicene Creed is rejected.
One common suggestion is that the Filioque was inserted, not to rule out Arianism, but to attract those wavering between Gothic Arianism and western Catholicism, in Spain. I'm not sure how that would work. Arian theologies generally regard generation and procession as forms of creation, and Nicene ones do not, so I'm not sure how any addition about procession in the Nicaean sense could compromise with Arianism or address Arian concerns. Strictly speaking, this is getting way off-topic for the History of the Eastern Orthodox Church and we may wish to port this duscussion to Talk:Filioque clause. Nonetheless, I'll continue here.
Not many Gothic Arian theological texts survive. One is Auxentius of Durostorum's eulogistic letter for Wulfila where he says (translated by Heather & Matthews; Goths in the Fourth Century) (gaps are my selection, not gaps in the text):

The Holy Spirit he furthermore declared to be neither Father nor Son, but made by the Father through the Son before all things ... created by the unbegotten through the begotten ...

This could be said to parallel the Filioque, but I'm not convinced.
Another is the Skeireins (translations here). I actually disagree with the translations; One of Wright's dictionaries, as opposed to the linked translations, translates andwairþi as "presence, face, person" in andwairþja as "before, in the presence of" and andwairþs as "present" - so, going on an OR limb, the definition as "person" is the odd one out, and while it makes the Skeireins fit Trinitarian expectations, it is not logically necessary.
This, in part:

... For not only the change of names signifies the difference of the two persons, but much more the evidence of work. the One obviously judging no one, but giving to the Son the power of judgment, and He, receiving the honor from the Father, and He performing all judgment by His Will, that all may honor the Son, as they honor the Father. Now we all should, at such and so clear a declaration, render honor to the Unborn God, and recognize the Only Begotten Son of God to be God ...

There are several references to the Holy Sprit but none to tripersonality (regardless of the translation). I'm not sure what to make of that. Jacob Haller 05:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

"Strictly speaking, this is getting way off-topic for the History of the Eastern Orthodox Church and we may wish to port this duscussion to Talk:Filioque clause."

Yes, I agree. This discussion is only relevant to the History of the Eastern Orthodox Church to the extent that this article asserts that the Arian influence on the Western church was a contributor to the East-West schism. Without that assertion, we need not belabor this further here. I argue that such an assertion is an "extraordinary assertion" which requires "extraordinary support". I don't mind putting it in the mouths of an Eastern theologian who is critical of the West. However, since such a claim is certainly controversial, we must not baldly assert it without providing a reliable source.

I am not even close to competent to discuss the history of the Filioque and so I would urge you to share your knowledge with the editors of that article and even be bold and insert it forthwith.

I do also wish to point out that History of Christianity article is sorely lacking in the discussion of Arianism in the West. Since I am not knowledgeable in this area, I would prefer it if you (Jacob Haller) would rectify this deficiency by inserting the information which you provided above. Presumably you have access to reliable sources to back up the text. I have none.

--Richard 06:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, for obvious reasons, Arianism in general doesn't get as much coverage as Trinitarianism. Fewer sources and fewer editors who concern themselves with it... Jacob Haller 06:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Censured again[edit]

NOTE: This thread is copied here from User talk:Richardshusr. Since it deals with the text of this article, I think the discussion should be held here. The deletion in question is this diff.

Below is some of the deleted text..


The conflict between the two churches is framed from two different perspectives. From the perspective of many Eastern Orthodox, it is yet another ploy by Roman Catholicism to undermine and ultimately destroy the ancient church by undermining its legitimacy and absorbing it into the Roman Catholic church. This perceived ploy fails to restore the power to the original eastern Patriarchs of the church and forces the acceptance of rejected doctrines and Scholasticism over faith. Whereas the Catholic Eastern churches depict their position as one of reunification between the east and west, some Eastern Orthodox charge that joining in this unity would come at the expense of ignoring critical doctrine differences and past atrocities. -We are Orthodox from Czechoslovakia. God permitted for us to be greatly tested. We feel, He is burning and testing us like gold in a crucible. We also feel, we are not like gold to survive this fire without the help of God and support of our brothers throughout the world. We beg you therefore to pray for us to the Lord and the Most Holy Theotokos, that Orthodoxy in Czechoslovakia recover her freedom and equal rights with all the other Christian communities and overcome her enemies.



(Side note: I think LoveMonkey meant to say "Censored again" although I'm sure he also feels "Censured". I didn't mean to censure him.) --Richard 08:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

As usually either avoiding that issue or distracting from it. But thats good that you point out misspelled words in my contributions. It shows that I actually write and make contributions instead of deleting other peoples.
LoveMonkey 09:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You again deleted large portions of the History of the Orthodox church article claiming they belong somewhere but are now deleted. You deleted sourced info without a valid explaination. This article of which you state you are not well enough informed about to be making such board edits seems to be one that should fit your whim. Rather then be one that before removing sourced information you discuss. Remember the article has a header stating that it needs sourced info. What part of the article would not and could not be considered polemic Richard? I mean your now imposing a logical fallacy as a standard for validation.

LoveMonkey 07:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I may not know a lot about Eastern Orthodoxy but I know polemic when I see it.
The text in question is not NPOV. It presents one side of the debate without presenting the other.
So by you deleting an entry that literially starts with "The conflict between the two churches is framed from two different perspectives." You are again reading something other then what you deleted. So Richard if two sides are not enough how many is? Or maybe you are not actually reading what you are deleting.
LoveMonkey 09:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

So it is polemic. It might be OK to leave it if text providing balance is added.

Again how many sides of this conflict between Roman catholicism and Orthodoxy do you need since you make all the rules and you decide what ends up in this article AGAIN.
LoveMonkey 09:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


Moreover, it is not "history". It discusses a current, ongoing dispute.
I see according to Richard nothing can be an ongoing dispute and be note worthy. Nothing can be a current dispute with a history because if it is unresolved then it's history can not be posted or discussed.
LoveMonkey 09:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


So, it more properly belongs in the Eastern Orthodox Church article or the Eastern Catholic Churches article.

It is a matter of history Richard. Either way you deleted it rather then moved it and this is not the first time now is it? Let me guess you don't see anything wrong in what you did. Nothing disruptive about it? Nothing that people might find frustrating? The source I used for the statement

The conflict between the two churches is framed from two different perspectives. From the perspective of many Eastern Orthodox, it is yet another ploy by Roman Catholicism to undermine and ultimately destroy the ancient church by undermining its legitimacy and absorbing it into the Roman Catholic church. This perceived ploy fails to restore the power to the original eastern Patriarchs of the church and forces the acceptance of rejected doctrines and Scholasticism over faith. Whereas the Catholic Eastern churches depict their position as one of reunification between the east and west, some Eastern Orthodox charge that joining in this unity would come at the expense of ignoring critical doctrine differences and past atrocities. -We are Orthodox from Czechoslovakia. God permitted for us to be greatly tested. We feel, He is burning and testing us like gold in a crucible. We also feel, we are not like gold to survive this fire without the help of God and support of our brothers throughout the world. We beg you therefore to pray for us to the Lord and the Most Holy Theotokos, that Orthodoxy in Czechoslovakia recover her freedom and equal rights with all the other Christian communities and overcome her enemies.


What year is that source quoted from Richard? Since it is a current event and not a historical one?

LoveMonkey 09:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

In any event, it does not belong in the position from which I deleted it because it is now in the "Forced Conversions" section where it most certainly does not belong.

--Richard 07:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

No Richard.


The conflict between the two churches is framed from two different perspectives. From the perspective of many Eastern Orthodox, it is yet another ploy by Roman Catholicism to undermine and ultimately destroy the ancient church by undermining its legitimacy and absorbing it into the Roman Catholic church. This perceived ploy fails to restore the power to the original eastern Patriarchs of the church and forces the acceptance of rejected doctrines and Scholasticism over faith. Whereas the Catholic Eastern churches depict their position as one of reunification between the east and west, some Eastern Orthodox charge that joining in this unity would come at the expense of ignoring critical doctrine differences and past atrocities. - We are Orthodox from Czechoslovakia. God permitted for us to be greatly tested. We feel, He is burning and testing us like gold in a crucible. We also feel, we are not like gold to survive this fire without the help of God and support of our brothers throughout the world. We beg you therefore to pray for us to the Lord and the Most Holy Theotokos, that Orthodoxy in Czechoslovakia recover her freedom and equal rights with all the other Christian communities and overcome her enemies.


Was removed completely from the article, by you. Without discussion and for whim disguised as reason.

LoveMonkey 09:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Once again, just because something is "sourced" doesn't mean it is encyclopedic. Even if it is encyclopedic, that doesn't mean it can be placed anywhere in any article.

Now you have gone completely off the deep end. If this relationship between these two group has a history then it seems it should be noted in an article claiming by it's very name to be a source of clarification on the history of this subject. If it is a matter of History that Orthodox christians called the Eastern Catholics their enemies. It is a matter of history and is also critical for an understanding of why things are the way they are. You are an administrator to this site. You should have no need for anyone having to point this out to you. It is becoming more and more apparent that a complete understanding and or both sides is not at all, what you seek. Your actions do not follow your logic.

LoveMonkey 09:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


You wrote "What part of the article would not and could not be considered polemic Richard? I mean your now imposing a logical fallacy as a standard for validation."
I don't understand your question.
It is clear and direct then you should read it again. I do not think anyone following this discussion would have trouble understanding what is being said.
LoveMonkey 09:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Text that is neutral and fact-based is encyclopedic. Text that argues a point-of-view is polemic. Yes, sometimes it is a judgment call but this text was starting to push it.

I do not know what policy you are quoting because it is not the policy here on wikipedia which clearing states that there is no way to escape POV or bias. The policy on wiki dictates that we try and balance the biased and not give just one side. As I have pointed out at the horrible gnostic bias (Pagels, Walter Bauer the Tubingen group) that many of the articles on wikipedia have on Christianity, are taking the side of lunatics and not quoting their opposition in Christian matters. Stating that the lunatics are noteworthy purely because their lunatic is not sane logic at all. Let alone not pointing out to the uninformed that have come here to be informed that the opinion is one widely held as that of a lunatic. I mean these peoples' opinion's are not accepted in the academic community. Theory is theory. I have pointed this out to you repeatedly and it like your base condition gets ignored.
LoveMonkey 09:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
What "logical fallacy" are you referring to?
--Richard 07:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
That the history of a group and its conflicts as stated from that group, is not history.

That is a logically fallacy.

LoveMonkey 09:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


From time to time, you seem to write as if you are writing "A History of the Eastern Orthodox Church from the POV of the Eastern Orthodox". Maybe Conservapedia would suit your desires better.
OK then provide me with historical sources on the Church and it's history outside of the church and it's history Richard. I have been asking you for that from the beginning instead you keep deleting my contributions while providing nothing other then aggravation. Name me any group that would deny first hand accounts over secondary accounts. Logical fallacy. Maybe your just trying to justify your negative behaviour over removing things from the article you don't like. Maybe your little sight there that I should go editing at another encyclopedia encapsulates what your agenda really is. How else should the above statement be understood? Maybe editing somewhere else would suit me. I think it would suit you since it appears to be on your mind. Now is that a real good way to keep and establish collaborators but then again wikipedia has yet to be anything but duplicitous. Stating one thing and then turning around and contradicting it with more nonsense to justify the whims of it's administrators.
LoveMonkey 09:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The article should be "History of the Eastern Orthodox Church" from a NPOV. That NPOV includes the views of Catholics, Protestants, Jews and yes, even atheists.

--Richard 07:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

NPOV now means no one is to have an opinion. Funny the policy reads to me that the opinion is supposed to be balanced but then Richard you just took both opposing positions. Either the article has no point of view or it has a balanced point of view. Which is it. Either way you are wrong to be deleting my contributions and then making excuses for your behaviour. Let alone telling me to go somewhere else to contribute. LoveMonkey 09:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

No. You're twisting my words. NPOV means that *ALL* points of view are to be presented without giving any particular position undue weight. However, the real point here is that the text in question didn't belong in the position of the article that it was. I'm not even sure that it belongs in this article at all. I've suggested other articles that might be more suitable. If you have a suitable place in this article for the text, feel free to propose it and we can discuss it. I just can't see how it belongs in a section titled "Forced conversions". Of course, I admit that I created that problem by creating the section heading. Perhaps you can help me solve the problem that I created. I wasn't able to come up with a suitable solution and, since the text in question was polemic and of questionable suitability, I deleted it pending a solution to the problem.
--Richard 17:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

In reviewing what I wrote and what LoveMonkey wrote in response, I must say that some of what I wrote was wrong, wrong-headed or, at best, badly expressed. Rather than spend effort going through the above dialogue, point-by-point, let me just say that some of LoveMonkey's objections to what I wrote are valid. Nonetheless, I think the current revision of the section is an improvement over the revision that I started working on.

I think that section on "Eastern Catholic Churches" still needs a lot of work but perhaps we need to step back and ask whether the subsection should be about "forced conversions" or something else. There's more than one way to tell a story. Right now, the subsection on "Forced conversions" dominates the section on "Eastern Catholic Churches" and probably shouldn't. And yet, the "forced conversions" topic is encyclopedic and should be dealt with in this article. Perhaps we could keep the Ustase stuff in "Eastern Catholic Churches" and move the conversion of Catholics in Russia stuff to the section on the Russian Orthodox Church.

I am not opposed to presenting the Eastern Orthodox view of the Uniate movement. I just think that the treatment needs to be more balanced, not just in volume of text but also in tone. This sort of thing is always difficult to achieve and may take a couple of iterations. Let's approach it in a spirit of collaborative improvement and discussion rather than one of conflict.

--Richard 18:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to try and reinsert the text with an improved tone. If we're going to talk about Eastern Catholics in an article about the history of the Eastern Orthodox Church, you have to talk about forced conversions and other manifestations of that conflict. Here's another dimension: when Eastern Catholics immigrated to the U.S. in the first half of the twentieth century, many were initially asked to join Latin Rite Roman Catholic churches, which they were reluctant to do; ultimately, many such Eastern Catholic parishes in the U.S. converted to Eastern Orthodoxy so they could more fully preserve their culture and religious practices. I'll look for an appropriate place and way to add this. Wesley 04:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply[edit]

The ball is in your court Richard. You removed the text because you decided that it was unacceptible. You reword it to resolve your objections since you are the one with the objections and you are the one deleting text from the article. You have reposted in talk here only a portion of what you deleted of my contributions to the article. So now you post how you see that the controversal information should be properly worded. LoveMonkey 04:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted text[edit]

Parking this text here to make it easier to refer to and reinsert into the article as appropriate...

The conflict between the two churches is framed from two different perspectives. From the perspective of many Eastern Orthodox, it is yet another ploy by Roman Catholicism to undermine and ultimately destroy the ancient church by undermining its legitimacy and absorbing it into the Roman Catholic church. This perceived ploy fails to restore the power to the original eastern Patriarchs of the church and forces the acceptance of rejected doctrines and Scholasticism over faith. Whereas the Catholic Eastern churches depict their position as one of reunification between the east and west, some Eastern Orthodox charge that joining in this unity would come at the expense of ignoring critical doctrine differences and past atrocities. [1][2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardshusr (talkcontribs) 17:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Again, The ball is in your court Richard. You removed the text because you decided that it was unacceptible. You reword it to resolve your objections since you are the one with the objections and you are the one deleting text from the article. You have reposted in talk here only a portion of what you deleted of my contributions to the article. So now you post how you see that the controversal information should be properly worded. Collaborate means to actual write and create text. So now by all means, collaborate. LoveMonkey 04:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Gulagbook cover.JPG[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Gulagbook cover.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Reversion of two wikilinks[edit]

LoveMonkey inserted wikilinks to the articles on Saint Augustine and Holy Roman Empire in the text that follows:

However, much of southeastern Europe and central Europe, including many of the Goths and Vandals respectively, had embraced Arianism, which led to Arianism being a religious factor in various wars in the Roman Empire (see Saint Augustine).[citation needed] The Goths and Vandals later conquered the Western Roman Empire, including Italy, parts of Gaul, Hispania, and parts of North Africa. In the west, organized Arianism coexisted with Catholicism until the Byzantine reconquest in North Africa, the Council of Toledo in Hispania, and the 7th Century in Italy (see Holy Roman Empire).[citation needed]

I have reverted these wikilinks because the leap from the text to the linked article is too great for the average reader. For example, the article on Saint Augustine says very little about the Goths and the Vandals and the average reader would have to scan the entire article to find the few sentences related to the Goths, Vandals and Arianism. Here's the relevant text from the Saint Augustine article...

Augustine died on August 28, 430 during the siege of Hippo by the Vandals. He is said to have encouraged its citizens to resist the attacks, primarily on the grounds that the Vandals adhered to Arianism, a heterodox branch of Christianity. It is also said that he died just as the Vandals were tearing down the city walls of Hippo.
After conquering the city, the Vandals destroyed all of it but Augustine's cathedral and library, which they left untouched. Tradition indicates that his body was later moved to Pavia, where they are said to remain to this day.[4]
Augustine was one of the most prolific Latin authors, and the list of his works consists of more than a hundred separate titles.[8] They include apologetic works against the heresies of the Arians, Donatists, Manichaeans and Pelagians, texts on Christian doctrine, notably De doctrina Christiana (On Christian Doctrine), exegetical works such as commentaries on Genesis, the Psalms and Paul's Letter to the Romans, many sermons and letters, and the Retractationes (Retractions), a review of his earlier works which he wrote near the end of his life. Apart from those, Augustine is probably best known for his Confessiones (Confessions), which is a personal account of his earlier life, and for De civitate Dei (The City of God, consisting of 22 books), which he wrote to restore the confidence of his fellow Christians, which was badly shaken by the sack of Rome by the Visigoths in 410.

The article on the Goths says that they converted to Arianism but says nothing about Arianism being a factor in religious wars. The article on the Vandals says "During the Emperor Valens's reign (364–78) the Vandals accepted, much like the Goths earlier, Arianism, a belief that was in opposition to that of Nicene orthodoxy of the Roman Empire." but once again says nothing about Arianism being a factor in religious wars.

Similarly, the article on the Holy Roman Empire says nothing about Arianis at least as far as I can tell.

Assuming the base text in this article is accurate and factual, we need to find better support than the Wikipedia articles that were linked to by LoveMonkey.

--Richard 00:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Survival of Arianism after the Council of Nicaea[edit]

NOTE: This is copied from my Talk Page Hey I think it is time to remove this line from the article "In the west, organized Arianism coexisted with Catholicism until the Byzantine reconquest in North Africa, the Council of Toledo in Hispania, and the 7th Century in Italy.[citation needed]" Since it has not been sourced. LoveMonkey 14:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... I always had my doubts about this sentence but it's an area that I do not know a lot about. Me personally, I had always figured that Arianism died off fairly quickly after the Council of Nicaea since Western Christians don't tend to focus very much on the fate of the Arians. For example, I did not know that the Germanic tribes were Arian. If you look at the article on Arianism and on the Third Council of Toledo, the text there is compatible with the sentence that you propose removing. What I would like to understand is what specifically you are challenging. Seems like there was Arianism in North Africa and Hispania. I don't know about 7th century Italy but, once again, this is not an area where I know a lot.
--Richard 17:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

???? I don't remember requesting that the line be sourced. I think that the other editor (User:Jacob Haller)put the line in there working off of something I wrote along the lines of the Arians later conquered much of the Western Roman Empire. As for it dying out well I would say that it lived a long life until it ran into the Franks and Charlemagne (in the west that is). If you want to include that history in this article I won't stop you but it really isn't needed. Either way it should be rewritten to be more concise and conclusive since it is the last sentence of that segment. Also I was in what I had posted trying to show that for a time parts of the Western Roman empire fell to the Goths (Arians) then back to the Byzantines and then back to the Goths. It got muddled. LoveMonkey 17:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The goths[edit]

Also here is abit of the clatification you requested. [4] LoveMonkey 04:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

History of the Church[edit]

[5] LoveMonkey 05:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

At it again[edit]

Richard I know from other Orthodox articles and complaints from those editors that this is a pattern of behaviour on your part. Before removing historical evidence under the guise of the evidence being for theological discussion, please come to the talkpage first. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I also saw that massive deletion, and I have no idea why it happened. Can this be explained? Turgidson (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Droz, I have also left a note on the Spider's talkpage because Richard has done this kind of thing on the Eastern Orthodox Church article as well. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Assyrian Church of the East Symbol.JPG[edit]

The image Image:Assyrian Church of the East Symbol.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

This article may be too long to comfortably read and navigate[edit]

I am (or have) creating(ed) articles on each the centuries of Christian History. The plan is— in due time— to cut out some excess from History of Christianity and hopfuly others such as this article and History of the Roman Catholic Church. They are all over 100 KB.

Christian History
BC 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th
11th 12th 13th 14th 15th 16th 17th 18th 19th 20th 21st

Please join me and help now. --Carlaude talk 20:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

NON-OBJECTIVITY IN PRESENTING EASTERN ORTHODOX HISTORY[edit]

I cannot help but notice that in several articles involving Eastern Orthodoxy on Wikipedia, there seems to have been a strong effort to present a conservative Eastern Orthodox doctrinal view of history as though it is universally-accepted fact in a given matter, instead of simply presenting the evidence of literature and history first and then presenting the Eastern Orthodox Point of view separately in the article, clearly identified as such. That seeming non-objectivity characterizes considerable portions of this article as well.

For example, the segment on the Apostolic period of the Christianity makes it appear that Eastern Orthodoxy was already fully in existence in the 1st-2nd century and was virtually the sole kind of genuine Christianity at that time. This is in great contrast to what we know of the era from the literature. There were instead quite a number of Christian sects of different beliefs in the first period of Christianity, from those who held Jesus to have been a biological son of Joseph to those who believed Jesus to be born Son of God from a virgin. One could multiply such examples with ease. Why, then, inaccurately treat Orthodoxy in an historical discussion as though the account of it accepted in Eastern Orthodox tradition is factual history, particularly when no supporting evidence is provided in the article for the latter view? As I see it, the portions dealing with the early history of Eastern Orthodoxy should be completely rewritten to present what is known factually of the early period from the existing evidence rather than presenting it from what is essentially an Eastern Orthodox doctrinal point of view of its own history (in Eastern Orthodoxy, Tradition, with a capital T, is a part of doctrine).

In the example mentioned above, why not discuss how Eastern Orthodoxy gradually emerged from among the various Christian groups that existed right up into the 4th century? That would be far more accurate from the historical evidence, and also far more helpful to a reader looking for facts supported by actual historical evidence rather than doctrinal opinion.

Tischbein (talk) 21:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Seal of Prince Strojimir mirrored.png Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Seal of Prince Strojimir mirrored.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Seal of Prince Strojimir mirrored.png)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ We are Orthodox from Czechoslovakia. God permitted for us to be greatly tested. We feel, He is burning and testing us like gold in a crucible. We also feel, we are not like gold to survive this fire without the help of God and support of our brothers throughout the world. We beg you therefore to pray for us to the Lord and the Most Holy Theotokos, that Orthodoxy in Czechoslovakia recover her freedom and equal rights with all the other Christian communities and overcome her enemies. The Orthodox Faith was taught to us by the holy brothers Cyril and Methodius in 863. After the repose of Saint Methodius, in 885, the latins expelled the Orthodox priests from Greater Moravia and destroyed all their works. Orthodoxy survived only in Carpathia, in the east of our country. The Pope of Rome, unhappy of the fact that the Church (Orthodox) continued to exist, instituted the Unia of Uzgorontzcy in 1649, in which of the 1200 priests they allowed us only 63. For 300 years the Uniates worked tirelessly to uproot Orthodoxy. Following the second world war, the people begun to return en-masse to the Orthodox Church, which became free again and powerful. But the years of happiness and peace did not last. In 1968 God allowed the first test. The Country recognized the Unia (which called itself “Greek Catholic Church”), which with the forbearance of the State started to torment the Orthodox followers. They confiscated by force our churches and threw the priests with their families to the street. And nobody came to our support. For a while we thought that everything was finished…. However, our Lord and the Most Holy Theotokos had mercy on us and we did not perish completely. The Uniates “allowed” us to continue our worship in our churches, which however we had to share with them. Since then we continuously drink daily from the bitter cup of hatred and malice. The devil however cannot rest, seeing that Orthodoxy still survived in Czechoslovakia. He then unleashed the Uniates against us. They now demanded that we hand over all our churches to them with all their wealth and heritage. If this happens then we will have to worship on the street. What would then happen? The happenings of 885, 1649 and 1968? From past history we have bitter experience of the hardships that Rome visited upon us through its Unia. Brothers we seek your help. Terminate all discussions with the Roman Catholics as long as tha Unia problem remains unresolved. Come to us and give us courage. You and we are one body, the body of Christ. Let the world know about our suffering brought on by the Uniates. They say they are Christians but are not. Christians have love for their fellow man. Let the papists sent their church letters to the idolaters, not to the Orthodox of Czechoslovakia and the Ukraine. Here live Christians and not idolaters. (Signed by Orthodox dignitaries of Czechslovakia). “Orthodox Kypseli” Puplications - Thessalonika , Greece - http://www.impantokratoros.gr/170832DE.en.aspx
  2. ^ Atrocities of the Uniate or Unia