Talk:Theoria

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Christianity / Theology / Eastern (Rated C-class, Mid-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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by theology work group (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy (marked as Top-importance).
 
WikiProject Religion  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
WikiProject icon A version of this article was copyedited by Paulmnguyen, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on October 17, 2010. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to help in the drive to improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please direct them to our talk page.

Proposal to delete the section on the Roman Catholic Church[edit]

After doing some thinking, i'd like to propose we delete the section on the Roman Catholic Church entirely (rather than replace it with that section from that other page as i'd previously suggested). Theoria doesn't have the same significance in the Western Church as it does in the Eastern Church, and everything that needs to be said about the Roman Catholic Church in regards to theoria is already covered in the section Theoria#Contemplative_differences_between_Eastern_Christianity_and_Western_Christianity.

Here are the main problems with the section as it currently stands, as i see them:

1. John Cassian, Saint Gregory the Great, and Dionysius the Areopagite are all figures from before the Roman Catholic Church split from the Eastern Orthodox church and each is somewhat more closely tied to the Eastern Orthodox tradition than to the Roman Catholic tradition.

2. The portrayal of St Augustine is misleading. His understanding of God was more rational and mechanical than contemplative in the intuitive sense of theoria.

3. The reference given regarding the writings of Peter Lombard, Alexander of Hales, Saint Albert the Great, Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint Bonaventure:

"According to these writings, mystical knowledge must be distinguished from the rational knowledge by which we know God, not in his nature, but through the wonderful order of the universe, which is a participation in the divine ideas. Through the more perfect mystical knowledge of God, a knowledge beyond the attainments of reason (even when enlightened by faith), the soul contemplates directly the mysteries of divine light.[172]"
does not mention any of those people.

4. The paragraphs :

Theoria or contemplation of God is of far higher value than reasoning about God or speculative theology,[182] its illumination prized much more than the intellectual capacity of a theologian.[183] "Prayer cannot be reduced to the level of a means to improved understanding".[98] Instead, contemplation is "the normal perfection of theology".[183]
The rational exposition and explanation of Christian doctrine is the humbler task of the theologian, while the experience of contemplatives is often of a more lofty level, beyond the power of human words to express,[184] so that "they have had to resort to metaphors, similes, and symbols to convey the inexpressible."[103]
reference the works of Thomas Merton, who is a 20th century thinker who doesn't exemplify the historical position of the Roman Catholic Church. This passage would be fine as a sort of footnote describing how some more modern Roman Catholics have begun to accept the idea of theoria, but his ideas are among Roman Catholics the exception to thousands of years of denying the importance of theoria, not the rule.

5. The Jesus Prayer is used mainly in the Eastern Church. The Rosary Prayer would be more fitting in a section about the Western Church.

What do you (Esoglou) think of my suggestion to delete the section?Timothy.lucas.jaeger (talk) 02:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The pretexts advanced by no means justify deletion of the section. If adjustments are required, that can be dealt with without a blanket deletion of the whole section. Esoglou (talk) 09:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I'll submit a request for third opinion.Timothy.lucas.jaeger (talk) 13:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
No third opinion offered yet. I've been trying to wrap my head around your stance on this issue Esoglou. Perhaps you could answer a question for me, to help me understand. What do you see as the difference between theoria is the Eastern Orthodox tradition and in the Roman Catholic one, considering the time from the Great East-West Schism of 1054 up until the present day? Timothy.lucas.jaeger (talk) 19:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I suppose the chief difference is that in recent centuries the East seems (but perhaps this is a false idea) to have plumped for a single method (one that was unknown to Cassian or at least not mentioned by him in his advice on prayer) and for the Palamist interpretation, while the West is open not only to that method and that understanding, but also to others. (An attitude of "both/and" rather than "either/or" - cf. this commentary, which of course is not applicable, strictly speaking, to theoria.) Do you think this is the main difference? Whatever the main difference, it is much less than that between philosophical understandings of theoria and the Christian understanding of theoria as contemplation of God. An article on theoria must cover them all. And whatever differences in understandings of theoria there may be, they are not grounds for excluding any of them from an article on theoria. Esoglou (talk) 08:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps then, this is the crux of our dispute. I think that theoria is really a concept of eastern christianity, whereas you see it as something somehow larger. Consider that a search for theoria on encyplodedia britannica returns this: [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothy.lucas.jaeger (talkcontribs) 13:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
It is indeed something larger. What you have in mind is an article on "Theoria (Eastern Orthodox concept mysticism)", but the article we are discussing is instead an article on theoria. Your link to EB does not lead to an article on theoria. All you get is: "The topic theoria is discussed in the following articles" (note the plural), followed by a link to the subsection "Eastern Christian mysticism" in the section "Eastern Christianity" in the EB article "Christianity". The same topic theoria could have been discussed also in other articles or sections of other articles, even if in fact it hasn't been. If there were an EB article on theoria, it would have to be somewhat on the lines of the Wikipedia article on theoria.
The EB mention of the topic theoria within a subsection of a section of an article obviously does not go into anything remotely like the details in the section "Eastern Orthodox Church" of the Wikipedia article. In particular, it is obvious that the EB mention can have nothing of the remarks put into that section by an editor who, instead of indicating what the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches, has insisted on ideas that some selected Eastern Orthodox writers say are not Eastern Orthodox teaching but are instead, so they say, the teaching of others. Remarks about others' teachings surely belong rather in other sections of the article. Esoglou (talk) 14:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry wrong link. A search of theoria actually turns up seven articles on britannica: [2]. Take a look. Most of the seven don't really sound like they have anything to do with the concept of theoria we're talking about. Now compare a query of that encyclopedia on the word contemplation: [3]. One hundred eighty one results hitting on a wide variety of themes. Contemplation is a broad concept. Theoria, however, is only an important term inside of Eastern Christianity. Timothy.lucas.jaeger (talk) 15:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Look at the list of pages on wikipedia that link to theoria. Almost every one is about Eastern Christianity or a Christian religious figure. Timothy.lucas.jaeger (talk) 17:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
The seven EB articles listed as dealing with theoria amply show that the meaning of "theoria" is much wider than that of "theoria (Eastern Orthodox mysticism)". Only one of the seven deals with that. They have also reminded me that the Antiochene style of Biblical exegesis (this of course is long before the division into Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic) is called theoria, a different concept from that of theoria (Eastern Orthodox mysticism). The Wikipedia article, don't forget, is about theoria, not about any particular kind of theoria. It should therefore treat of theoria, not limit itself to some particular kind of theoria.
The reason that so many other Wikipedia articles link to the theoria article is that the link has been included in the "Eastern Christianity" template, which is inserted in perhaps all articles related in any way with Eastern Christianity. In scarcely any of the articles themselves is there mention of theoria. In addition, your "almost every one" shows that the inclusion of that template in so many articles about Eastern Christianity (even non-Eastern Orthodox forms of Eastern Christianity) and about Eastern Christian figures (again, not all of them Eastern Orthodox) is no indication that the only meaning of theoria is theoria (Eastern Orthodox mysticism). Esoglou (talk) 18:53, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
I feel like i've been reasonable, but you haven't convinced me that this section on the Roman Catholic church is appropriate or relevant. I can't any longer just sit idly by when i'm sure many more people are reading it and being as confused as i was when pretty much every reference is to people and ideas from the Eastern Orthodox Church. Anyone trying to learn the difference between the two churches as i was when i first proposed changes to this section is sure to be set back in their studies. I am going through with my proposal to delete. Timothy.lucas.jaeger (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources undeniably show that theoria has several senses other than that of theoria (Eastern Orthodox mysticism). Your action in deleting an important part of the article with support from nobody else is an act of vandalism. Please do not repeat. Esoglou (talk) 20:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I disagree and consider what you are doing vandalism. Please leave my changes. Timothy.lucas.jaeger (talk) 22:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Whatever your convictions on this matter you cannot simply remove large sections of text unless it clearly violates some non-negotiable policy. You also cannot call Esoglou's edits "vandalism" just because you disagree with them. This is a *content dispute* and must be resolved through the appropriate processes for dealing with such disputes. Any attempts by you to just remove this information will be reverted until and unless you can convince other editors of the rightness of doing so. So far, it seems to me, you have completely failed to offer any arguments which remotely come close to doing this. Anglicanus (talk) 04:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
If this is the way America acts during negotiating then i can see why no other countries want to act nice. Fine whatever my convictions are etc etc you go ahead with all that and this nonsens i dont give a damn go right ahead with you and whatever other sockpuppets you have; i dont have the time to fight that shit. Make it right or don't.
Yeah you busted me with your patience, congrats. I guess that is what theoria means to you Timothy.lucas.jaeger (talk) 08:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I haven't the time (or apparently the patience) to try to fix this any longer. I'm removing this page from my watchlist. Feel free to contatct me on my talk page if you need my further involvement in this matter. Timothy.lucas.jaeger (talk) 05:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate additions to Wikipedia[edit]

Here are some examples of inappropriate Roman Catholic POV pushing that does not belong in a article about the Greek Orthodox word and theological concept theoria. Here are some of the things Esoglou added to this article that are in violation of Wikipedia posting rules.

Almost half of this section posted by editor Esoglou is COPYRIGHT violation. It is posting copyrighted material from the Eastern Orthodox theologian John Romanides' works directly.[edit]

1.According to Greek Orthodox priest John S. Romanides, "glorification is the vision of God in which the equality of all mean [sic] and the absolute value of each man is experienced. God loves all men equally and indiscriminately, regardless of even their moral statues [sic]. God loves with the same love, both the saint and the devil. To teach otherwise, as Augustine and the Franks did, would be adequate proof that they did not have the slightest idea of what glorification was. God multiplies and divides himself in His uncreated energies undividedly among divided things, so that He is both present by act and absent by nature to each individual creature and everywhere present and absent at the same time. This is the fundamental mystery of the presence of God to His creatures and shows that universals do not exist in God and are, therefore, not part of the state of illumination as in the Augustinian tradition. God himself is both heaven and hell, reward and punishment. All men have been created to see God unceasingly in His uncreated glory. Whether God will be for each man heaven or hell, reward or punishment, depends on man's response to God's love and on man's transformation from the state of selfish and self-centered love, to Godlike love which does not seek its own ends. One can see how the Frankish understanding of heaven and hell poetically described by Dante, John Milton, and James Joyce are so foreign to the Orthodox tradition".[1]LoveMonkey 13:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

LoveMonkey, it was you who added the Romanides quotations to the article, no doubt a violation of copyright. Do you agree then that it should be deleted? Esoglou (talk) 13:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
So Esoglou takes a source and its passage that was used as a source in the article and not in the body of the article and takes source and posts them into the body of the article and then says that because he is committing copyright infringement that the source should be removed entirely from the article. LoveMonkey 14:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
If it makes a difference where the copy is placed, in the body or as a footnote, it may indeed be acceptable to put the copy as a footnote and have a summary - but an accurate summary - in the body. Shall we consult? Esoglou (talk) 14:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
If Esoglou already understands this then why he did not only misrepresent my point but only now try to do what is appropriate according to Wikipedia posting policies? How is it the Esoglou can add this entire passage..
  • God loves with the same love, both the saint and the devil. To teach otherwise, as Augustine and the Franks did, would be adequate proof that they did not have the slightest idea of what glorification was. God multiplies and divides himself in His uncreated energies undividedly among divided things, so that He is both present by act and absent by nature to each individual creature and everywhere present and absent at the same time. This is the fundamental mystery of the presence of God to His creatures and shows that universals do not exist in God and are, therefore, not part of the state of illumination as in the Augustinian tradition. God himself is both heaven and hell, reward and punishment. All men have been created to see God unceasingly in His uncreated glory. Whether God will be for each man heaven or hell, reward or punishment, depends on man's response to God's love and on man's transformation from the state of selfish and self-centered love, to Godlike love which does not seek its own ends. One can see how the Frankish understanding of heaven and hell poetically described by Dante, John Milton, and James Joyce are so foreign to the Orthodox tradition"
And then comment it was me as an editor who did that?
  • :LoveMonkey, it was you who added the Romanides quotations to the article, no doubt a violation of copyright. [4]
How is that engaging in good faith editing for Esoglou? How does Esoglou's behavior with other editors trying to contribute recently to this article and Esoglou reverting, rewriting their contributions and bureaucratizing away their concerns good for this project? [5], [6] At what point is this considered disruptive? LoveMonkey 15:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, it was you, wasn't it, who added all that Romanides material in the footnotes? If I was wrong in thinking that moving the material in the body from footnotes to body was legitimate - something we can consult about - I apologize for my mistake. Esoglou (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
You apologize while blaming it on me? LoveMonkey 16:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

This section is speculation created by Esoglou and is original research as not a single source provided by Esoglou mentions either John Romanides and his theology nor Eastern Orthodox theology in general.[edit]

2.Both John Milton[2] and James Joyce rejected Roman Catholic teaching, and even Dante has been seen by some writers, including Joyce, as anti-Catholic.[3] Contrary to what Romanides said, it is Roman Catholic teaching that God loves all, even those who choose against him, such as the devil.[4] And again, the understanding of the problem of universals that prevails in the West is that of Aristotelian realism, which understands universals as existing only in the things that instance them, not in God. LoveMonkey 13:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no need for this material to mention either Romanides or LoveMonkey. It is well-sourced material about Milton, Joyce and Catholic teaching and can remain, even when and if the copyright-violating quotation of Romanides is removed. However, in that case I would willingly remove part of it. Esoglou (talk) 13:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
So well known and sourced that you did not actually provide a source for the sentence here in the article? Really show me a source that mentions John Romanides and the sentence you posted. You see if this is also common then why is Esoglou posting comments in an encyclopedia article like this one below?????????????
  • Contrary to what Romanides said, it is Roman Catholic teaching that God loves all, even those who choose against him, such as the devil. [7]
Tell me what source you have for this comment? What Roman Catholic theologian made this statement? What source(s) make this statement? Since when is this type of comment appropriate for an Wikipedia article? LoveMonkey 14:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I am glad to have removed "Contrary to what Romanides said," leaving only: "It is Roman Catholic teaching ...", even before you made this complaint about it. Esoglou (talk) 15:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
When is the last time I got accused of posting Original Research, POV pushing? Edit warring? But this is very common behavior for Esoglou. Some how being disruptive and doing inappropriate edits is ok? I would have liked to see what editor User:Timothy.lucas.jaeger had to contribute but Esoglou ran him off from an article that is not a Roman Catholic article to begin with. LoveMonkey 15:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't know when was the last time. As for your comment on me, it is good behaviour to comment on edits, not editors. Esoglou (talk) 15:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes typical Esoglou accusing me of.
  • LoveMonkey, it was you who added the Romanides quotations to the article, no doubt a violation of copyright. Esoglou (talk) 13:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
And then tell me to do the opposite. LoveMonkey 16:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Why can Esoglou not stop creating his own refutation to John Romanides and use at least Roman Catholic theologians?[edit]

3. And again, the understanding of the problem of universals that prevails in the West is that of Aristotelian realism, which understands universals as existing only in the things that instance them, not in God.

[8]

LoveMonkey 13:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no need for this material to mention either Romanides or LoveMonkey. It is well-sourced material about Western ideas about the problems of universals and can remain, even when and if the copyright-violating quotation of Romanides is removed. However, in that case I would willingly remove it. Esoglou (talk) 13:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
So well known and sourced that you did not actually provide a source for the sentence here in the article? Really show me a source that mentions John Romanides and the sentence you posted. You see if this is also common then why is Esoglou posting comments in an encyclopedia article like this one below?????????????
  • Contrary to what Romanides said, it is Roman Catholic teaching that God loves all, even those who choose against him, such as the devil. [9]
Tell me what source you have for this comment? What Roman Catholic theologian made this statement? What source(s) make this statement? Since when is this type of comment appropriate for an Wikipedia article? LoveMonkey 14:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I have already responded to this question of yours, given identically above. Esoglou (talk) 15:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Why is an article about a Greek Orthodox theological subject being dominated by an Roman Catholic editor?[edit]

  • Why is Esoglou making very disproportionate (at best) Roman Catholic additions to this article?
  • Why is an article about a Greek philosophy and a Greek Orthodox concept (as it is used exclusively in the present) being dominated by the editor Esoglou?
  • Why are there recent, very long additions about people like Augustine whom in their writing never used the word (because Augustine could not speak nor read Greek). Being added to an article about the very essential difference between Roman Catholic and Orthodox theologies as specifically noted by scholars of Greek Orthodox theology? [10]
  • Why is Esoglou engaging in rewriting this article to say a concept that is almost exclusive spoken of in Greek?
  • Why do edits that elongate, obfuscate and confuse this topic about a theological concept so important to Greek Orthodox Theology that is mentioned by Greek Orthodox theologians in that way.[11]
  • Why is the actual text for the Roman Catholic church now equal to or more that the Eastern Orthodox? Even though the concept is not spoken of by the RC church per se? Not noted to have prominence within Roman Catholic theology as theoria?
  • Why or what evidence is there to believe (outside of what anecdotal evidence Esoglou added) that theoria is now somehow something so Roman catholicity, embraces in the same way the Eastern Orthodox do? (Which it does not.)
  • Why is Esoglou using this concept's article to ATTACK Greek theologians (John Romanides)?
  • Why is it Esoglou could not make his edits to the article Contemplation instead? Since he uses the excuse that the term Contemplation is the same as theoria even though that is so vague as to miss the entire point of why Greek Orthodox theologians such as John S Romanides and Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos use the term theoria instead of contemplation.
  • Why is it that it appears that Esoglou's edits confuse and mislead the whole point of the article and I can not find any Roman Catholic sources let alone encyclopedia and scholarly sources that treat this subject the way Esoglou has rewritten the article?
  • Why would it not seem that it is in Esoglou's best interests as a POV pusher to discredit this theological subject because it contradicts his narrative that there is no fundamental difference between the Eastern Orthodox church and the Roman Catholic church.
  • Why is it as the article is the specific difference it not to be believed that Esoglou is not POV pushing after he wrote this sentence in the article TODAY..


  • Contrary to what Romanides said, it is Roman Catholic teaching that God loves all, even those who choose against him, such as the devil. [12]


  • Why is it not in Esoglou's POV interest to either make the article incoherent, discredit the Orthodox theologians in the article or poison the well and have the article deleted wholesale?
  • Why (if anyone spends the time to read what has been said on this article talkpage) is it is not clear that Esoglou's behavior has been an attempt to tried all of these things and Esoglou is right now actively ruining the article and running contributors off of the article as his recent reverting and rewriting of the contributions made by User:Timothy.lucas.jaeger show.
  • Why does the article not reflection how this concept is being used and presented by Greek theologians but is now peppered with Esoglou's anecdotal original research? His speculation, opinions and interpretations?
  • Why is Esoglou behavior being allowed, for Esoglou to do this to various wikipedia articles without even once being banned for an hour let alone 24 hours? LoveMonkey 17:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

This article is not uniquely "about a Greek Orthodox theological subject". Neither Plato nor Aristotle were Greek Orthodox theologians, yet they wrote (in Greek) on theoria, which means contemplation. Roman Catholics too, when writing about contemplation, sometimes use the Greek word theoria although, when writing in English, they more often use the English word. All this is amply explained and sourced in the article. As for the phrase "contrary to what Romanides said", I removed this before LoveMonkey explicitly complained about it. That is enough to show that I would surely have done, if asked, what I even did unasked. There was no need for this drama. Esoglou (talk) 18:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Distortion. The term theoria not contemplation is used by Greek Orthodox theologians again the term contemplation which has it's own article is used by Roman Catholic theologians. The distinction (in a modern sense) is on purpose and has nothing to do with Plato. Esoglou is being completely inappropriate and dodging the truth of the matter which is that Esoglou can not post a single Roman Catholic theology article in English where the term theoria is used. I have already posted twice an article in english by a Greek Orthodox theologian using the Greek word in the English article.[13] Esoglou is showing that he is simply not informed enough or component enough to understand what is actually being said and or addressed. Esoglou keeps ignoring what is being said. LoveMonkey 18:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
The following, which are all mentioned in the article, are more than "a single Roman Catholic theology article in English where the term theoria is used": Christopher A. Dustin, "The Liturgy of Theory" in Bruce T. Morrill et al. (editors), Practicing Catholic (Palgrave Macmillan 2005 ISBN 978-1-40398296-4), pp. 257-274; Thomas Bénatouïl, Mauro Bonazzi, Theoria, Praxis, and the Contemplative Life after Plato and Aristotle (Brill 2012 ISBN 978-9-00422532-9); Frans Jozef van Beeck, God Encountered: A Contemporary Catholic Systematic Theology (Liturgical Press 2001 ISBN 978-0-81465877-2); Josef Pieper, An Anthology (Ignatius Press 1989 ISBN 978-0-89870226-2), 43; Eugene Victor Walter, Placeways (UNC Press Books 1988 ISBN 978-0-80784200-3), p. 218; Thomas Hibbs, Aquinas, Ethics and Philosophy of Religion (Indiana University Press 2007 ISBN 978-0-25311676-5), pp. 8, 89; Steven Chase, Angelic Spirituality (Paulist Press 2002 ISBN 978-0-80913948-4), p. 63; John Cassian, The Conferences (English translation by Boniface Ramsey, Newman Press 1997 ISBN 978-0-80910484-0), p. 47 - he wrote in Latin, not Greek, but used the word theoria, immediately explaining it as meaning contemplation; and other books dealing with Antiochene exegesis. Esoglou (talk) 18:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Not one of these books speaks to seeing God (theoria) in the context of Orthodox theology, as the seeing of the uncreated light. Not one. At best they warm over the Greek philosophy use of the term making theoria as part of scholasticism and scholastic systematic theology. Not one of these sources is even Greek themselves. As such how does Augustine and the Roman Catholic use not equate to undue weight? LoveMonkey 22:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Of course they don't say anything "in the context of Orthodox theology, as the seeing of the uncreated light". That's not what they are talking about. They are talking about theoria. Plato and Aristotle likewise spoke of theoria, and can be said to be the first to do so in a technical sense, but they didn't say anything "in the context of Orthodox theology, as the seeing of the uncreated light". There is more to theoria than that. Esoglou (talk) 09:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Of course they don't say its the same thing theoria for the Greek church because they say it is contemplation like the article on contemplation has. Of course this is the point that has been pointed out to you over and over and over again. But your the one that came to this article and added all of the content that is appropriate for the contemplation article to this one because you don't like what the article originally said and you knew by piling on more data in the intro to the article and through out the article that you would cause confusion about the article's true essence and nature and that you could then obfuscate. All of these things you are doing are edit warring. As the previous editor has been pointing out to you and you have been obstructionism with them. 14:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Copyright violation[edit]

The extensive word-for-word quoting from Romanides (and others) is surely a violation of copyright: "Copying material without the permission of the copyright holder from sources that are not public domain or compatibly licensed (unless it's a brief quotation used in accordance with Wikipedia's non-free content policy and guideline) is likely to be a copyright violation. Even inserting text copied with some changes can be a copyright violation if there's substantial linguistic similarity in creative language or structure (this can also raise problems of plagiarism). Such a situation should be treated seriously, as copyright violations not only harm Wikipedia's redistributability, but also create legal issues" (WP:CV).

"If you suspect a copyright violation but are uncertain if the content is copyrighted or whether the external site is copying from Wikipedia, you should at least bring up the issue on that page's discussion page, if it is active. In that case, please tag the page {{copypaste | url=insert URL here, if known}}, unless your concerns are swiftly resolved. Others can then examine the situation and take action if needed. ... You may also make a note of your concerns at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems" (WP:CV emphases added).

Perhaps the editor who inserted this extensive material will give an explanation that will show that the suggested further action is not necessary. Or perhaps someone else can give advice. Esoglou (talk) 08:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Franks, Romans, Feudalism, and Doctrine, Part 2" (self-published)
  2. ^ John N. King, Milton and Religious Controversy (Cambridge University Press 2000 ISBN 978-0-52177198-6), p. 1
  3. ^ Derek Attridge (editor), The Cambridge Companion to James Joyce" (Cambridge University Press 1990 ISBN 978-0-52137673-0), p. 57
  4. ^ Catholic Answers, "If God loves all his creatures, then doesn't he love Satan?"