Talk:Theoria (Eastern Orthodox Christianity)

People here defending wiki hounding

This article and also theosis and also Eastern Orthodox Roman catholic theological differences where articles I greatly contributed Eastern Orthodox sources and positions to. BEFORE Esoglou followed me to them after my disagreement with his edit warring behavior on the filioque and the East West schism articles. Richwales has made no public criticism to Esoglou for radically rewriting my contributions and blanket deleting of some them NO ADMINISTRATOR HAS. But some are real quick to jump on my talkpage and post comments about even the slightest possible policy infraction. [1] Wikipedia is not fair in its enforcement of policy and this behavior is ruining the project and running off contributors. Anyone can go to Esoglou's talkpage and see people complaining but unlike the rest of us Esoglou has yet to be blocked or even criticized for his behavior. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you.--Taiwan boi (talk) 01:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I refrain from making counter-accusations Esoglou (talk) 11:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I notice that several Wikipedians have cited as a very strong argument in favour of the candidature of the editor in question the diff that LoveMonkey gives here as a matter of complaint. That is sufficient answer to the complaint. Esoglou (talk) 16:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Unexplained deletion of sourced contributions

Is this edit defensible, which, with no more explanation than "revert again Esoglou radically rewrites blanket deletes Eastern Orthodox opinion Again Esoglou does this with no discussion talkpage in order to push esoglou's RCC POV", deletes well-sourced contributions, including valid responses to requests for citations? (It comes from someone who added even more material without prior discussion, including unsourced personal evaluations.) Esoglou (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

You have an established record of attacking Eastern Orthodox edits and replacing them with content which is POV, improperly sourced, or misrepresents sources, without a word of discussion with others. I have told you time and time again to confine yourself to edits concerning your own denomination, yet you continue with these disruptive edits. I support LM in this case.--Taiwan boi (talk) 01:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Now that you have let off your generic steam and repeated your imperious demand (wherever you got authority to make it) that a Wikipedia editor should "confine himself" to matters concerning a single denomination (of what denomination were those whom LoveMonkey deleted: Gregory the Great, Aquinas, Merton, Zagzebski, Harpur? of what denomination was Saint Augustine?), would you please address the particular case? Esoglou (talk) 11:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not discussing LoveMonkey's edits because I don't have any dispute with them. I have already made this clear. He does not have a record of misrepresenting the Catholic view. You have a record of misrepresenting the Orthodox view. That is why I tell you once more to confine yourself to edits concerning your own denomination.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Taiwan boi (talk • contribs)

So, does nobody defend LoveMonkey's deletion? Esoglou (talk) 14:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I already have, twice. Please read what I write. I don't see anyone here objecting to it except for you, and your bias against his edits is a matter of record.--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Please give me the diff to at least one of the two times that you defended this deletion by LoveMonkey. I cannot find them. I have only found your attack on me, not a defence of this particular deletion. Or do you believe that anything I write, even on, for instance, Thomas Aquinas or Thomas Merton, must necessarily be deleted on sight? Esoglou (talk) 15:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• I support LM in this case.
• I am not discussing LoveMonkey's edits because I don't have any dispute with them.--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Clear enough: "I am not discussing LoveMonkey's edits ..." You are not discussing this edit by LoveMonkey. Perhaps someone else will. LoveMonkey himself? Esoglou (talk) 15:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Please don't be obtuse. I have told you several times that I am discussing this edit by Lovemonkey. I have made this perfectly clear.--Taiwan boi (talk) 16:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

You have told me that you are discussing this edit by LoveMonkey. You have also told me you are not discussing LoveMonkey's edits. Let's leave it at that. Esoglou (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

That is false. I have told you more than once that I supported this edit by LoveMonkey. I never made the contradiction you claim.--Taiwan boi (talk) 16:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The record speaks. Esoglou (talk) 20:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of contributions - RfC

Is it legitimate in this particular case for an editor to delete all the edits made in response to the deleting editor's several citations requests? Esoglou (talk) 16:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC) (This is in continuation of the "discussion" immediately above. Esoglou (talk) 22:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC))

So its right off the bat an RFC when the reason given is that Esoglou blanket deleted and rewrote contributions without discussion on the talkpage. Esoglou has made edits that I have not reverted and rather than address Esoglou rewriting the Eastern Orthodox position (which is a conflict of interest and a direct violation of No POV) and creating WP:OR in posting Esoglou's opinion in those contributions Esoglou instead posts an RFC. LoveMonkey (talk) 21:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for responding at least a little more to the point than Taiwan boi did. Would you tell me how you qualify as "rewriting the Eastern Orthodox position" my response to your questioning the statements about the attitude to contemplation in the West, by providing citations from Thomas Aquinas, Thomas Merton, Linda Trinkaus Zagzebski, and James Harpur, and from Pope Saint Gregory the Great in response to your questioning the Western interest in "seeing" the Eternal Brightness? Esoglou (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Again Again Again Again. Why do you continue to think that what people think is what the Wikipedia project is about? It is about valid sources from whatever perspective giving clarity on that perspective. The tired old example of using a enemy's sources to validate a perspective is so obvious. You don't even know valid Orthodox sources and you have a history of creating your own research to undermine Orthodox theologians. Theologians whose work you have not read and would not know about if you had no edit warred against me. Here is an article from a Orthodox theology student about the exact same nonsense [2]. Esoglou is doing exactly what is talked about among the Orthodox. THE SAME BEHAVIOR instead of getting people as Orthodox to reconcile his actions only makes us feel more shut out and silenced. But Esoglou go right ahead on and keep ignoring what people are saying to you as you think your righteous in your head and that justifies your censoring, distortion and slander. Your way guarantees just like the article states that there will be no reconciliation as you continue to silence what is the Orthodox's position that they maintain as rightful points of objection. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

After that tirade about various other subjects, would you now give some explanation of why you deleted the replies to your requests for citations about Western views (which I gave using "valid sources from the Western perspective giving clarity on that Western perspective"!)? If you don't, I am surely free to restore them. Esoglou (talk) 16:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

LM gave you a perfectly good explanation. You are simply misrepresenting a position on which you are clearly uninformed. Not only that, but you are doing so after being asked repeatedly not to. Not only that, but you are deliberately targeting the views of a theological opponent, which exposes your POV editing for what it is.--Taiwan boi (talk) 17:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Taiwan boi, why do you insult me by saying that I am uninformed about Thomas Aquinas? About Thomas Merton? About Gregory the Great? How much of their writings have you read, or how much have you studied about them to enable you to make that accusation against me? Esoglou (talk) 17:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote. I never said you were uniformed about any of those writers.--Taiwan boi (talk) 02:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Deleting those writers is what this section is about. If you want to attack me for alleged ignorance of other matters, start another section for that attack. Esoglou (talk) 09:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Again and again and again and again. Esoglou wastes peoples time. GO READ THE LINK I POSTED ESOGLOU ITS ABOUT THOMAS AQUINAS AND ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY. You are frustrating editors by insisting on being heard while not wanting to listen. You have your opinion which you refuse to source and yet when I post an Orthodox theology student's opinion from Fordham you ignore it. AS USUAL. How is it that you want people to listen to you and your points and will not even go and read a current article about how Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy are not compatible theologically? Now to show other people who might be reading. The article link I posted early in reply to Esoglou that he completely ignored and disrespected (calling it a tirade).

"To Catholics who insist that we share a common faith, I wish to ask a question that may sound flippant or even abrasive. A common faith? Really? Are you ready to de-canonize Thomas Aquinas and repudiate his scholasticism? Because Orthodox faith is something incompatible with the "theology" of Thomas Aquinas, and if you don't understand this, you're missing something fundamental to Orthodox understandings of theology. And if you're wondering why I used quotes around "theology," let me explain. Or, perhaps better, let me give an example."

How the hell is anyone to talk to Esoglou? When he flat out disregards those sources out of hand? And then creates WP:OR to attempt to undermine them? Why can Esoglou not leave the Orthodox perspective alone (theological articles and all I mean I have not gone to the Immaculate conception and edit warred)? This article is not about the Roman Catholic ANYTHING. It was a theological article about what specific theological difference the Orthodox hold as their perspective AGAINST Roman Catholicism. Eosglou came into this article and rewrote AFTER IT WAS REWRITTEN FOR COPYEDIT. And merge allot of content into it from the ambiguous article on the subject of contemplation. In reality buried the Orthodox perspective wayyyy down in the article. Esoglou who is NOT an Orthodox theologian and could not name any Orthodox theologians before editing any of these articles and has since not explained why he is even editing this article. Is here taking this subject which in the modern world is about as the name theoria, the Greek Orthodox theological concept. NO ONE in the West calls contemplation anything but contemplation and Esoglou added TONS of content that is not at all the history of the term as it was used in the Greek church from Orthodox theologians he at best has a passing remark from Louth whom is not held in as high a position as Vladimir Lossky. Esoglou is misquoting misusing and distorted in order to hide or discredit Orthodox theologians and their teachings on the difference theologically between the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox and he needs to STOP. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

If you want to talk about all those matters, you are free to start a new section. This section is about your deletion of my responses to your citation requests. Esoglou (talk) 18:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thats it thats what you have to say about ignoring and disrespecting Orthodox sources? [3] Post here Esoglou what Eastern Orthodox books you have read about Eastern Orthodox theology. Post here what books you personally own about the subject. Post here where any of the Orthodox theologians that address the subject theoria deviate from what I originally posted and contributed to this article. AND DO THAT BEFORE ASKING ANYTHING OF ME. You are a POV pushing edit warring editor who wiki hounded me and that is how you found out about this article was you stalking me on wikipedia. You never knew about this subject before you followed my contributions and found it. And that means that you have no business editing it (other then to protect or push your POV) just like you have no business rewriting Orthodox perspectives like you did on the Roman Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences article. You are at the least engaging in a conflict of interest. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Still no explanation of why you deleted the particular edits that this section is about. And you have actually now gone and deleted yet more! Esoglou (talk) 20:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I gave an explanation and enough of one for other editors on this article to see what you are doing. I removed what you did and I have stated what you did. You ignore but want other editors to obe you and your requests and even when they answer you, you don't see it or hear it. Go back in read the edit summaries I posted. LoveMonkey (talk) 21:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

"You removed what I did" (my responses to your requests for citations), but why did you remove those citations? The only edit summary that you gave when removing them was "revert again Esoglou radically rewrites blanket deletes Eastern Orthodox opinion Again Esoglou does this with no discussion talkpage in order to push esoglou's RCC POV". It seems, then, that you believe it is correct to revert everything I write, even citations from Western writers provided at your own request. If that is not the explanation of why you removed the citations, what is the explanation? Esoglou (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Since no reason has been offered to explain the deletion of precisely these citations of Western writers, and since the editor who deleted them has proceeded to make further changes, I will now restore the deleted edits. If, as I hope, they are not deleted again, I will then remove the request for comment by others. Esoglou (talk) 11:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You have already been given an answer; it is dishonest for you to claim otherwise. If you replace your edit I will remove it again.--Taiwan boi (talk) 11:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Disconnect in the flow of the article about the role of Revelation in the East

Esoglou edit warring and misrepresenation based on his POV pushing biases aside this passage below needs to be somehow reflected in the article as unbiased as possible. As it captures the essence of the difference and how and where those differences converge. -To Be Transformed by a Vision of Uncreated Light: A Survey on the Influence of the Existential Spirituality of Hesychasm on Eastern Orthodox History by Gregory K. Hillis

Many of these intellectuals compared their plight to that of Hellenistic times, and to that of the West which was in the midst of a cultural renaissance. Such comparison led to a certain nostalgia and longing for the Hellenistic past, and as a result, Hellenistic thought experienced a resurgence within intellectual circles. While still remaining faithful to the Orthodox Church, these fourteenth century humanists endeavoured to interpret theology through the lenses of Hellenistic wisdom. In the words of Vladimir Lossky, "the old hellenism reappears in the writings of the humanists who, formed by their studies of philosophy, wish to see the Cappadocians through the eyes of Plato, Dionysius through the eyes of Proclus, Maximus and John Damascene through the eyes of Aristotle."[30] Therefore, this re-emergence of Hellenistic philosophy owed its origins to a pervading desire to return to an era of bygone greatness, and was not the result of Western influence on the East. At the same time, however, this re-emergence did pose a problem of 'westernisation' for the Eastern Church. By the fourteenth century, scholasticism reigned supreme in the West, meaning that theology largely became subject to rationalistic interpretation on the basis of Aristotelian presuppositions, and became somewhat divorced from personal experience of the divine. Likewise, the humanists in the East endeavoured to bring about a similar form of theological scholasticism whereby reason would be elevated over experience. Consequently, what emerged in Byzantium in the fourteenth century were two very different types of renewal. On the one hand, Byzantine monasticism inaugurated a renaissance of hesychasm - an existential spirituality based on the patristic and ascetic emphasis on theosis. On the other hand, Byzantine humanists inaugurated a renaissance of Hellenism whereby reason prevailed over experience, and patristic theology was subservient to rational thought. It proved to be inevitable that these two schools of thought would come into conflict in what has been labelled as the 'hesychastic controversy.' [4] LoveMonkey (talk) 20:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Section "Theosis" and verifiability

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. That is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true" (WP:V). The section headed "Theosis" needs adjustment to correspond to this core content policy of Wikipedia,

1. The claim is made that theosis is Greek for "reconciliation, union with God" and "glorification". The Greek word instead verifiably means "making divine".

2. The claim is then made that theosis "is expressed as 'Being with God' and having a relationship (God is Heaven, God is the Kingdom of Heaven) that is infinite and unending, glory to glory". Whatever this statement about how "theosis is expressed" means, it is unverified. The source given, a book by Cardinal Daniélou, nowhere uses the word "theosis" (at least, Google Books says that the word is not found in it) and was perhaps cited only because its title includes the three words "glory to glory".

3. A statement by M.C. Steenberg about Barlaam of Seminara is turned into a statement about "the West".

4. A statement follows that a list of Eastern Orthodox theologians hold that Barlaam's criterion "is at the very heart of many theological conflicts between Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Western Christianity". A text by Romanides is given as a source. This text might arguably be taken to support this statement with regard to Romanides himself and Gregory Palamas, but certainly not with regard to Lossky, Hierotheos, Hopko, Loudovikos, Stăniloae, Harakas, who are not mentioned in the text, nor with regard to Symeon the New Theologian, to whom Romanides attributes no statement regarding Western Christianity. A separate citation is given for Hopko, but that source, instead of speaking of theological conflicts, treats of the lack of a classification in the East of saints as "mystics", and of the "tremendous", "inexplicable" and "unfortunate" (as judged by "many Orthodox monastics, theologians and hagiographers") lack in the East of writings by women mystics. (Metallinos is also mentioned, with an extract from an anti-European a Eurosceptic speech by him.) Esoglou (talk) 15:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Point 1

LoveMonkey's replies to Esoglou latest attempt to take over Greek Orthodox theology article and rewrite it to reflect his Roman Catholic POV pushing.

---

Esoglou wrote
1. The claim is made that theosis is Greek for "reconciliation, union with God" and "glorification". The Greek word instead verifiably means "making divine".

---

LoveMonkey's response
WP:Undue weight and distortion. What why would I go to a Chicago University to validate what Greek priests and theologians teach? Esoglou is acting like the gnostics (which is the word for heretic). Arguing over the meaning of words. Creating or fabricating his own POV and insisting that this POV be included. This is exactly what Joseph P. Farrell wrote about in his book God, History, & Dialectic where whenever the church isn't enough and won't agree, people go and create their own authority and then claim that authority higher than that of the actual church. I mean all Esoglou has to do now is claim some sort of a conspiracy and he'll have covered all the bases. As in the East Mt Athos is the very example that one follows for the manifestation for the highest ideal of what is Orthodoxy. Here is what is taught at Mt Athos in Greece to the ascetics seeking theosis. [5] Now if one goes to that website and clicks on the definitions page they find the definition of theosis discussed under the title 'On Union With God and Life of Theoria' [6] and there stated as theosis, deification, becoming god by Grace, self-realization, the acquisition of the Holy Spirit, experience of the uncreated light; "glorification" being the term in the Old and New Testaments), which is a purpose of man's life, as presented to us by a saint who experienced it. If one goes to the full text of the book by Archimarite George (which you also can buy from Amazon) [7] Since Esoglou is not Orthodox and does not know any Eastern Orthodox text on the church's teaching of theoria and theosis Esoglou is making things up as he goes and using sources that contradict what is actually available for people to read provided by the Orthodox church. This here is an excellent example as Esoglou wishes to use a third party source to validate what Esoglou wants theosis to mean and direct people away from what the church says. I bet thats partially because allot of the Eastern Orthodox text available for people contains many criticism of Roman Catholicism and Western Christianity in general. All of this and Esoglou also wars against Orthodox sources as this one example here is how he does that. Since what is above is already in the article and Esoglou can not be bother to ACTUALLY read Orthodox SOURCES and see that he is attempting to undermine them even when they are speaking for their perspective. Esoglou has been doing this allot as a continuation of his war against Orthodox theologians, as anyone can see by his blanket deletion of Nellas' teachings on theosis from the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theological differences article. Esoglou actually did that with User:Richard 's help. Esoglou also wholesale deleted H. Tristram Engelhardt, Jr. contributions to that article when he had the bioethics thing deleted by him and Richard. [8], [9]. Here is a combination of those many diffs [10] Esoglou does not care to keep consistency with Orthodox sources. Esoglou constantly wants to source Orthodoxy tenets with Roman Catholic, Protestant and secular sources this is another example of Esoglou and respecting or allowing the Orthodox position to be represented by Orthodox. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This source andthis say theosis means "deification", another way of saying "making divine". This source says theosis "literally means to become gods by Grace", yet another way of saying "making divine". None of them says theosis is Greek for "reconciliation, union with God" and "glorification". So still not verified. Esoglou (talk) 17:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

They are already verified and you are being argumentative Romanides is already in the article plenty as is Lossky and both refer to theosis as this as do the sources I posted in my response. Again you refuse to read or ignore what people tell you and continue to feign or act ignorant when they answer your questions with answers you don't like or that don't fit your agenda in order to cover your edit warring behavior. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

What remains unverified is your claim that theosis is Greek for "reconciliation, union with God", and also for "glorification". Just quote from any reliable source a statement that theosis is Greek for "reconciliation, union with God" and from the same or another source a statement that theosis is Greek for "glorification". A source for even one of these two claims would be a help. Esoglou (talk) 19:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion your doing this on purpose go back above and read the sentence I have in italics (it has been in italics this whole time) I posted from the book written from the Ascetic from Mount Athos. As again everything your just posted has a source in my already posted statement above. Esoglou should not be arguing over information that is already available but does this as just one more thing to frustrate and edit war in hopes of wearing down editors Esoglou wishes to run off from Wikipedia. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Will you not accept or propose a sourced explanation of the meaning of the Greek word. I put up three translations, all well sourced, which Taiwan boi, then reverted. Based on reliable sources, there is no reason why they shouldn't be admitted to Wikipedia. In fact there is every reason why they should. Will you at least present here your own proposal for sourced translations. Taiwan boi objected to amending the article itself, until agreement is reached here. If Taiwan boi's notion is accepted, it applies to both of us, not to one only. So I must regettably revert your edits back to his. Esoglou (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Point 3

Esoglou wrote
3. A statement by M.C. Steenberg about Barlaam of Seminara is turned into a statement about "the West".

---

LoveMonkey's response
Distortion, misrepresentation. The article says that [11] but again Esoglou can not read the source he has to have someone else do that for him and point out how he is being dense and disruptive. As even the New Advent online confirms the Orthodox teaching that Barlaam and his followers (Barlaamites) are referred to Latinophiles. As the New Advent also states that Barlaam wrote (as an Orthodox Christian first) in defense of the West. Barlaam later of course became a Roman Catholic priest. Esoglou is acting as if Barlaam was not in alliance with Gregory Akindynos. And wishes to have statements of Barlaam maybe made in a vacuum. [12] Rather then statements of Barlaam as he is depicted in the East. As if there is not section in the article right now on how Barlaam was condemned at the councils of Constantinople for trying to take some of Augustines teachings and claiming them "Orthodox". So what is Esoglou's complaint that I have not added Romanides as a second source to the statement (which I am still unclear which one Esoglou is complaining about)?

9. The Ninth Ecumenical Council of 1341 condemned the Platonic mysticism of Barlaam the Calabrian who had come from the West as a convert to Orthodoxy. Of course the rejection of Platonic type of mysticism was traditional practice for the Fathers. But what the Fathers of this Council were completely shocked at was Barlaam’s claim that God reveals His will by bringing into existence creatures to be seen and heard and which He passes back into non existence after His revelation has been received. One of these supposed creatures was the Angel of The Lord Himself Who appeared to Moses in the burning bush. For the Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils this Angel is the uncreated Logos Himself. This unbelievable nonsense of Barlaam turned out to be that of Augustine himself. (see e.g. his De Tinitate, Books A and B) and of the whole Franco-Latin tradition till today"

Can somebody please explain what is wrong with how Barlaam is depicted in the article? Is Esoglou implying that Barlaam is not considered scholastic by the Roman Catholic church? Is Esoglou saying that the Catholic Encyclopedia statement "There was a very faint echo of Hesychasm in the West. Latin theology on the whole was too deeply impregnated with the Aristotelean Scholastic system to tolerate a theory that opposed its very foundation." Is being refuted or denounced somewhere by officials in the Roman Catholic church? If so whom are those officials? Please post they condemnation of this statement and stance and their clarification and correction of the actual Official Roman Catholic stance on the issue. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

No original research or synthesis please. Just report the verifiable fact that what was said was about Barlaam. Esoglou (talk) 18:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep ignoring what I have posted. Keep ignoring what I posted. As I have to repeat things over and over again in order for Esoglou to even notice what is being said. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you can agree to say: "One point of Barlaam's teaching, according to Romanides, "turned out to be that of Augustine himself and of the whole Franco-Latin tradition till today". Esoglou (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to remind you that, if you want the article to say this, you must source it with Romanides' statement that you have quoted above, but that is not at that point in the article. Esoglou (talk) 19:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Point 4

Esoglou wrote
4. A statement follows that a list of Eastern Orthodox theologians hold that Barlaam's criterion "is at the very heart of many theological conflicts between Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Western Christianity". A text by Romanides is given as a source. This text might arguably be taken to support this statement with regard to Romanides himself and Gregory Palamas, but certainly not with regard to Lossky, Hierotheos, Hopko, Loudovikos, Stăniloae, Harakas, who are not mentioned in the text, nor with regard to Symeon the New Theologian, to whom Romanides attributes no statement regarding Western Christianity.

---

LoveMonkey's response
According to an uninformed Esoglou whom even when shown that Esoglou is wrong and ignorant, this Esoglou editor then just moves on to yet another argument and continues in the same disruptive, frustration inducing edit warring POV pushing that he has in the past. Why is it that Esoglou Can't accept the statement? Why is it that Esoglou assumes anything at all?
Why is it OK for Esoglou to lie through misrepresentation since the actual statement in the article is

Theosis (Greek for "divinization", "reconciliation, union with God" and "glorification") is expressed as "Being with God" and having a relationship (God is Heaven, God is the Kingdom of Heaven) that is infinite and unending, glory to glory.[97] Since God is transcendent (incomprehensible in ousia, essence or being), the West has over-emphasized its point by qualifying logical arguments that God cannot be experienced in this life.

Makes no mention at all of Esoglou interpretation of this statement that he posted here on the talkpage which does not appear to have any connection to what is post above and in the article.
How Does Esoglou get from this.....
Theosis (Greek for "divinization", "reconciliation, union with God" and "glorification") is expressed as "Being with God" and having a relationship (God is Heaven, God is the Kingdom of Heaven) that is infinite and unending, glory to glory.[97] Since God is transcendent (incomprehensible in ousia, essence or being), the West has over-emphasized its point by qualifying logical arguments that God cannot be experienced in this life His interpretation?.
This? " A statement follows that a list of Eastern Orthodox theologians hold that Barlaam's criterion "is at the very heart of many theological conflicts between Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Western Christianity"
When the statement in the article makes no mention of Barlaam at all? LoveMonkey (talk) 17:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Where does he get it from? He just makes it up in his POV editorializing.--Taiwan boi (talk) 13:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Esoglou wrote
A separate citation is given for Hopko, but that source, instead of speaking of theological conflicts, treats of the lack of a classification in the East of saints as "mystics", and of the "tremendous", "inexplicable" and "unfortunate" (as judged by "many Orthodox monastics, theologians and hagiographers") lack in the East of writings by women mystics. (Metallinos is also mentioned, with an extract from an anti-European a Eurosceptic speech by him.)

---

LoveMonkey's response
So now criticism is hate speech? Metallinos is a citizen of a European Country Esoglou. Are you saying that people whom have been victimized are not entitled to address their victimization because doing so is now hate speech? Being critical is anti something which is implied "hatespeech". I thought the Roman Catholic church was against political correctness, well I guess only when it benefits them? I mean if someone molests a child is the child engaging in hate speech for reporting what happened to them? Other people that maybe work for the same company or have some of the same associations as the molester are they not also victims of what the molester may have done? By being indirectly defamed by the actions of the criminal? Should they to not speak out? And then in doing so are they to be seen as corrupt as well? If they then speak out are they then too also engaging in hate speech? Before Esoglou starts throwing around and implying anti anything speech Esoglou should look at his own associations. As this implied tactic (just like part of my statement just now) can been seen to have all kind of interpretations and allot of them not good. And none of them appropriate for this article and or this forum. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Let us suppose that this criterion "is at the very heart of many theological conflicts between Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Western Christianity". Let us suppose that all those mentioned did say this about the criterion. Let us suppose that all this is the truth. It is still not verifiable. As mentioned earlier, part of the problem with the section is precisely that it makes no mention of Barlaam at all, and instead applies, without verification, what concerned him not to him but to "the West". Esoglou (talk) 18:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that LM has been extremely generous, tolerant, and patient with Esoglou throughout this whole business, and has absolutely bent over backwards to find common ground. I believe his attitude is commendable, and would really like to see it reciprocated.--Taiwan boi (talk) 14:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Accusation

You forget to mention that you: a) make things up, b) falsify references, c) misrepresent sources, d) write POV editorializing.--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This is grave defamation. Esoglou (talk) 16:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

No it's not, it's well documented. You're still doing it on the immersion baptism thread. If you want to take it to an administrator please be my guest, I would be happy to show them a list of diffs.--Taiwan boi (talk) 22:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Then substantiate, for instance, your charge that I make things up. That is a charge not of some mistake that anyone, even you, can make from time to time, but of something habitual ("you make things up"). Substantiate it. Esoglou (talk) 22:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Easy, nearly every time you add your POV editorializing you add something you've made up, like claiming a source isn't being specific when it is, or claiming a source says X when it says Y, or claiming a source is an authority when it isn't even a WP:RS. I've given you any number of examples previously. I identify it explicitly every time you do it. You're a completely unreliable editor who habitually pushes POV, falsifies references, makes things up, writes POV editorializing, and misrepresents sources. You have no redeeming value whatsoever, and shouldn't even be allowed here, not least because of what one of your own co-religionists refers to as your "addiction" to Wikipedia.--Taiwan boi (talk) 05:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

So the accusation is based on a difference in valuation of what sources say. You claim, for instance, that the statement, "The word baptism is a transliteration of the Greek word baptizo which means to plunge, to dip, or to immerse", shows that the writer understood baptism by immersion to be baptism by submersion. My opinion is different. Since the Eastern Orthodox, no recently arisen small denomination, use the term "immersion" for their Church's practice of immersing children in baptismal fonts without having to submerge them beneath the water, and since there are Western scholars who sharply differentiate what they call "immersion baptism" from "submersion baptism", I hold that this insufficiently specific statement does not prove that "immersion" means "submersion" (in this case, or always - you are well aware that I by no means deny that sometimes "immersion" is used to mean "submersion"). I think you are mistaken and that you have done wrong by removing a questioning tag that you find conflicts with your personal POV, and by insisting that on this point the article should present your view alone. But I do not accuse you of merely making things up. I cast no doubt on your sincerity, on your good faith. Esoglou (talk) 10:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

No the accusation is not based on " a difference in valuation of what sources say". It's based on you habitually pushing POV, falsifying references (including deliberately misdating sources published 100 years ago as if they were published recently), making things up, writing POV editorializing, and misrepresenting sources. That's what it's based on. Of course you don't accuse me of making things up; you can't, because I don't. In contrast, I have a page of diffs recording your habitual bad behaviour, not to mention diffs showing that you have been given repeated warnings for bad behaviour, you have been involved in numerous edit wars, you changed your name to avoid detection after repeated clashes with other editors, you removed warnings from your Talk page, you were the subject of an RfC focusing on your bad behaviour, and I can find half a dozen independent editors who will testify to your habitual bad behaviour.--Taiwan boi (talk) 11:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to persist, I suggest that you present your supposed evidence on the appropriate noticeboard. What you have written here is evidence and publicity enough of your own attitude. Esoglou (talk) 12:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not "supposed evidence", you know these are facts. You've tried to hide the RfC, your warnings, and even changed your name, but it's a matter of record. And you hate it, don't you? You hate the fact that it's all out there and you can't wipe it away. You know there are half a dozen editors who will testify to your appalling behaviour, and it enrages you.--Taiwan boi (talk) 13:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry (sort of) to disappoint you. Esoglou (talk) 17:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments by LoveMonkey

Since Esoglou is not Orthodox and does not know any Eastern Orthodox text on the church's teaching of theoria and theosis Esoglou is making things up as he goes and using source that contradict what is actually available for people to read provided by the Orthodox church. This here is an excellent example as Esoglou wishes to use a third party source to validate what Esoglou want theosis to mean and direct people away from what the church says. I bet thats partitially because allot of the Eastern Orthodox :available for people contains many criticism of Roman Catholicism and Western Christianity in general. All of this and Esoglou also wars against Orthodox sources as this one example of how he does that. Since what is above is already in the article and Esoglou can not be bother to ACTUALLY Orthodox SOURCES and see that he is attempting to undermine them even when they are speaking for own perspective. Esoglou has doing this a continuation of his war against Orthodox theologians as anyone can see by his blanket deletion of Nellas' teachings on theosis from the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theological differences article. Esoglou actually did with User:Richard 's help. Esoglou also wholesale deleted H. Tristram Engelhardt, Jr. contributions to that article when he had the bioethics thing deleted by him and Richard. [13], [14]. Esoglou does not care to keep consistency with Orthodox sources. Esoglou constantly wants to source Orthodoxy tenets with Roman Catholic, Protestant and secular sources this is another example of that. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This attack by someone who "constantly wants to source Roman Catholic tenets with selected Eastern Orthodox sources" on me and on Richard doesn't seem to substantiate any of the charges made by Taiwan boi, who has not yet either backed them up or apologized. Esoglou (talk) 17:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

[15] How is it that the informed and all knowing Esoglou can cause this entire new set of Esoglou edit warring conflicts with other editors and be so completely ignorant? And what I mean by ignorant in this specific instance is two things. One the word theosis is not the only word for "making divine" in Greek. If Esoglou had read my edit summaries [16] and actually (knew what he was talking about) on why I changed the term in the article from "divinization" back to "theosis" he would see that "theosis" is not "making divine" but a type of "divinization". And in Greek there are other words for "making divine" like the article I wrote here for Wikipedia "henosis". [17] Also there is the other type of "making divine" called Apotheosis. Esoglou can play all the hairsplitting games he wants but when Plotinus spoke of "making divine" Plotinus was speaking of henosis [18]. But thats my second point. The Greek Orthodox Church do not see the term theoria as meaning the same thing to the Greek philosophers as it meant to the Early church. That is why it is confusing and inappropriate for Esoglou to have added the philosophical history to this Greek Orthodox theology article. Why is Esoglou allowed to frustrate and behave in such a way and no one puts warnings about his feigning ignorance to justify his edit warring on his talkpage? LoveMonkey (talk) 19:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Esoglou deleting my attempts to source article

Recent edits by Esoglou that have caused other editors to ask Esoglou not to directly edit the article until a consensus for Esoglou edits have been reached on the talkpage here.

1. Esoglou ignores me providing him with the sources in good faith here that Esoglou requested on the talkpage and rather than add them himself he goes into the article and adds citation tags again ignoring what was already addressed and answered in good faith here on the talkpage. [19]
2. After I start adding the sourcing to the article Esoglou deletes,reverts the sourcing. And deletes a citation request I added to the article. [20]
3. After I restore some of the content Esoglou deleted, reverted, Esoglou saying that I have to get consensus on the talkpage to source the article, again deletes the sourcing content. [21].

I do not have to have consensus to source the article. Me and Taiwan have asked Esoglou to stop editing on the Eastern Orthodox sections of the article. There as far as I know is no need to have consensus before sourcing. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no need to have consensus before sourcing. LM is not required to establish consensus before sourcing. Esoglou should stop editing the Eastern Orthodox sections of the article because: a) he doesn't understand EO beliefs, b) he invariably misrepresents EO beliefs, c) he introduces POV editorializing to denigrate EO beliefs.--Taiwan boi (talk) 02:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Taiwan boi. LoveMonkey (talk) 03:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Renewed attempt at discussion

LoveMonkey, you have no right of ownership to the article or to any part of it. You cannot exclude another editor who provides sourced material. The material you provide must obey the same conditions of other editors in being clearly backed up by reliable sources: it must reflect them faithfully and not be your own original interpretation.

Now why not start cooperating by discussing the opening phrase.

I propose this: "''[[Theosis]]'' (Greek for "making divine",<ref>[http://artfl.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.27:3:174.lsj Henry George Liddell; Robert Scott [1940], A Greek-English Lexicon]</ref> "deification",<ref>[http://www.greekorthodoxchurch.org/theosis_purpose.html Archimandrite George, Mount Athos, ''Theosis – Deification as the Purpose of Man's Life'' (extract)]</ref><ref>[http://www.greekorthodoxchurch.org/union_with_god_kallistos_katafytiotis_angelikoudis.html Translator of Kallistos Katafygiotis, ''On Union with God and Life of Theoria'']</ref> "to become gods by Grace")<ref>[http://www.greekorthodoxchurch.org/union_with_god_kallistos_katafytiotis_angelikoudis.html Archimandrite George, Mount Athos, ''Theosis: The True Purpose of Human Life'', Glossary]</ref> Have you any objection to that.

You are now proposing this (why don't you do it on the Talk page, as I requested above?): ''[[Theosis]]'' (Greek for "divinization", "reconciliation, union with God"<ref>Fellow Workers With God: Orthodox Thinking on Theosis (Foundations) by Normal Russell pg </ref> and "glorification")<ref>Theosis as the Purpose of Mankinds existence by Archimarite George [http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/general/theosis-english.pdf]</ref><ref>2. The leadership of the Roman Empire had come to realize that religion is a sickness whose cure was the heart and core of the Christian tradition they had been persecuting. These astute Roman leaders changed their policy having realized that this cure should be accepted by as many Roman citizens as possible. Led by Constantine the Great, Roman leaders adopted this cure in exactly the same way that today’s governments adopt modern medicine in order to protect their citizens from quack doctors. But in this case what was probably as important as the cure was the possibility of enriching society with citizens who were replacing the morbid quest for happiness with the selfless love of glorification (theosis) dedicated to the common good. SOME UNDERLYING POSITIONS OF THIS WEBSITE REFLECTING THE STUDIES HEREIN INCLUDED. by [[John Romanides]] [http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.00.en.some_underlying_positions_of_this_website.htm]</ref> You have not given the page of the book that you claim says that the Greek word theosis means "reconciliation, union with God". I presume your good faith, and so I suppose you are correct, but I would ask you to quote the exact phrase with which the statement is made. I thought you were mistaken about the first of the two sources that you give for the statement that theosis is Greek for "glorification". That source certainly says that theosis means "deification". But it seems that it gives "glorification" as an equivalent, even if not as the meaning of the word. So I do not think it worth raising any objection to. The second source is unclear. It uses the word theosis to explain "the selfless love of glorification". But I will not object to your interpretation of this as a statement about the meaning of the Greek word theosis. But don't you think that the English for the Greek word is best sourced from a Greek-English lectionary? So what is your objection to "making divine"? And what is your objection to "deification", which in the sources that I cite is stated to be the meaning of the Greek word? Esoglou (talk) 19:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

This is the beginning point and repeat of the cycle or pattern of behavior that Esoglou does in his edit warring and has done on other articles like the East-West schism, the filioque (where he had a fellow editor do a MASS BLANKET DELETION and when I tried to restore it I was blocked for 24 hours) and also the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theological differences article which has Esoglou posting half truths and edit warring to maintain those half truths like him deleting the negative or critical things that Chrysostomos says of Augustine while keeping the comments of Chrysostomos that paint Eastern Orthodox critical of Augustine as Americans outside the Orthodox mainstream (Esoglou did the same thing on this article). These comments here of Esoglous are another example of what I mean when I say that Esoglou does not listen and causes a great deal of disruption and frustration edit warring against editors and ignoring what they post when it gives an answer that Esoglou doesn't like. Then once Esoglou is caught he all of the sudden admits that he caused all of this work and time for editors, people whom have tried to collaborate and answer him in good faith. Editors give up and leave out of frustration (who has this kind of time to spare?) and so Esoglou feigns incompetence and ignorance in order to wear down and frustrate away editors whom oppose his white washing POV pushing conduct. Esoglou does this and then proceeds to try and blame his edit warring, massive rewriting, blanket deletion and all around argumentative, disruptive and ignoring behavior on opposing editors. If anyone should doubt then read over his behavior on this article in just that past 48 hours. And tell me that Esoglou is not edit warring. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree entirely with LM.--Taiwan boi (talk) 02:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

An edit conflict prevented me from getting this in first. I do not withdraw it.

My thanks are due to LoveMonkey for letting me edit the article and for responding with citations to my requests. It is good to be able to work together with me responding to his requests and him to mine. Thanks, LoveMonkey. Esoglou (talk) 21:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Esoglou has now went and rewrote more [22]. LoveMonkey (talk) 02:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I have corrected his attempt to distort the article.--Taiwan boi (talk) 03:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• I think you all need to find a mediator to settle this. I propose someone start by taking this to the content noticeboard.

  Let me propose something else: LoveMonkey and Taiwan boi, your personal attacks on this talk page, going back at least three sections, are unacceptable. Esoglu, please lay off the sarcasm. Do I need to cite some of the personal insults?

  argumentative, disruptive and ignoring behavior

  the informed and all knowing Esoglou

  You're a completely unreliable editor who habitually pushes POV, falsifies references, makes things up, writes POV editorializing, and misrepresents sources. You have no redeeming value whatsoever, and shouldn't even be allowed here, not least because of what one of your own co-religionists refers to as your "addiction" to Wikipedia

  Such comments are simply outrageous and unwarranted, and the next one will be met with at least a level-3 "personal attack" warning template. FYI: "Level 3 – Assumes bad faith; cease and desist. Generally includes 'Please stop'." This behavior cannot continue. You all feel strongly about the topic? Transfer that into having the best possible article on the topic, and keep in mind that this project is a cooperative effort. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any emotional investment in this subject at all, I couldn't care less about the subject of this article. What I do care about is limiting Esoglou's disruptive behaviour. I have been following his edits for well over a year, and I have personal experience of him which reaches well back into 2009, so I know exactly what I am talking about. Not only that, but I know four other editors who have had the same experiences as I have with Esoglou, and who share the same view, most of them having had over a year of experience with him. Have you followed him as closely as I have? Do you have more experience with him than the four editors to whom I can refer you?

Do you want to see a list of Esoglou's disruptive behaviour? Do you want to see the previous RfC which was prepared as a result of his behaviour? Do you want to see the previous name under which he used to edit, and the trouble he became involved in under that name, and how he has repeatedly removed warnings from his Talk page to conceal notices given with regard to his behaviour? Do you want to see all the diffs showing edits making statements which were not only completely wrong but which weren't even referenced (such as here), all the examples of POV editorializing, use of unreliable sources, removal of WP:RS from articles, repeated edit warring and misrepresentation of sources? Please don't start making accusations of personal attacks until you have actually spent some time on the background of this dispute. I can substantiate every single one of my statements with diffs.--Taiwan boi (talk) 03:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Please show me the kind of English in which "You have no redeeming value whatsoever" is not a personal attack. Drmies (talk) 03:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Please show me the Wiki policies under which POV editorializing, use of unreliable sources, removal of WP:RS from articles, adding completely unreferenced sources to articles, WP:OR, repeated edit warring and misrepresentation of sources, has any redeeming value whatsoever.--Taiwan boi (talk) 03:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

BTW, the link for the RfC is something that was prepared in user space, two years ago, which apparently went nowhere. That's evidence of one disgruntled editor who apparently didn't see the need to go live with it. There is no RfC for User:Esoglou or User:Lima in the archive, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive. Drmies (talk) 03:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Please actually read what I write and link to. I said myself that the RfC was prepared, not that it was submitted. I also gave you a link to where the editor who prepared it explained why he didn't go through with it. I note with interest that you make absolutely no comment on the behaviour documented there. Is that kind of behaviour acceptable? Yes or no? If it is, then would you object to me doing it?--Taiwan boi (talk) 03:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Your comment Drmies (Please show me the kind of English in which "You have no redeeming value whatsoever" is not a personal attack) appears to be sarcastic, but your asking us to play nice. Could you show us by example how you think we should respond and also address Esoglou's deleting my sourcing twice I contributed in good faith? [23], [24]. How should Esoglou behavior be properly addressed? LoveMonkey (talk)

I intended no sarcasm. I meant that quite literally. Drmies (talk) 03:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind commenting on LM's questions? "Could you show us by example how you think we should respond and also address Esoglou's deleting my sourcing twice I contributed in good faith? [25], [26]. How should Esoglou behavior be properly addressed?"--Taiwan boi (talk) 03:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Once is enough, thank you. I am not about to envelop myself in Eastern or Western orthodoxy, or redo the Great Schism all over again. If you have a content problem that apparently cannot be resolved with civil discussion on a talk page, then yelling insults is not going to help anyone, and it's certainly not going to help the article. I have no comment whatsoever over the content of those edits: from a quick glance, it seems to me that good faith edits are made on both sides. If talk page discussion does not help, some form of mediation is the answer--if we're still talking about content. Behavior should be addressed somewhere else, such as WP:AN/I. If someone is preparing an RfC, fine--let the process take its course. But keep the personal insults off the talk page, at least, and that goes for Esouglu's sarcasm also--unless I read the comments made here incorrectly, and they were sincere. I'm not here to work on this article, unless it is in the general sense, in an attempt to have editors adhere to rules of civility.

But your question is answered, it seems to me: content dispute? Wikipedia:Content noticeboard, or Wikipedia:Mediation; possibly Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Behavior, bad faith, vandalism, removal of sourced comment, POV editing, etc etc.? Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, or possibly also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Good day. Drmies (talk) 03:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I have tried the various boards they do nothing but ignore and defer. Make excuses and post warnings to me but not old protected Esoglou. [27], [28] Now I'll take you to task for your assumptions like I haven't tried to use the appropriates "channels" to task. I have been collecting evidence but I bet your not here to do the right thing. LoveMonkey (talk) 05:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Drmies, my expression of thanks, to which you referred above, was made with absolute sincerity. It was so pleasant to see that the citations or adjustments that I provided in response to LoveMonkey's "cn" tags were not immediately deleted, and to see my requests for citations (or adjustments) being answered instead of being deleted out of hand. That, I felt, was the way to improve the article collaboratively. I regret that what I wrote could have been interpreted as sarcastic. Esoglou (talk) 07:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the impression of sarcasm in my expression of thanks was due to its present positioning. As even above is evident, I wrote it to follow immediately my appeal to LoveMonkey to work together, and I wanted to thank him for an apparently positive response. An editing conflict meant that LoveMonkey inserted a more belligerent comment before I could post my thanks. But, as I said ("I do not withdraw it"), I decided to post my thanks in spite of that comment. It seems that I should either have inserted it where I first intended it to be or have omitted it. Esoglou (talk) 09:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

It would be good if you showed LM the same courtesy. He has been bending over backwards to achieve consensus and discuss edits, and has made concession after concession to you, yet you continue to disregard his concerns and make no effort to respond in kind.--Taiwan boi (talk) 08:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

It would also be good for Drmies to return and allow me to provide evidence of the things I have stated about Esoglou's behavior. As right now it appears that Drmies has assumed that I and Tb where just throwing allegations rather than reflecting on actual behavior. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

POV edit warring and pushing

This article was written as a Greek/Eastern Orthodox theology article and now has been rewriting by Roman Catholic editors to be a Greek named article about contemplation (ambigious). Editors here are FORCING and have forced the use of Western, RCC and Protestant sourcing on a Eastern Orthodox theology article. Edit Esoglou is using wikipedia to make original research statements that the Roman Catholic church would never make unless they seek to ENRAGE the Greek Orthodox. Here is an example.

" In a rather advanced phase of contemplative prayer (called in Greek theoria) the soul becomes "enveloped" by the Divine Nature."

Thomas Merton makes no such statement. Esoglou wrote that out of complete contempt. LoveMonkey (talk) 03:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Drmies, your comment?--Taiwan boi (talk) 03:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

LoveMonkey didn't specify what article he was speaking of. It is Theosis.

He is unaware, no doubt sincerely, that as soon as I saw he had questioned the statement that he has given as an "example", I checked the alleged source, which I found to be invalid, and I deleted the statement as unfounded. That was two days before LoveMonkey made the above complaint.

It was not I who inserted the sentence to which LoveMonkey objected. The last part, about the soul becoming "enveloped" by the Divine Nature (a phrase that I find strange), was inserted on 29 July 2010 by a still active anonymous editor in Cambridge, Maryland. I assure you that neither on 29 July 2010 nor at any other time was I in Maryland. The first part was inserted by User:Trc on 11 June 2004. This part is well sourced, and could be restored.

For some reason, LoveMonkey mentions Thomas Merton. The source that was given for the statement that I deleted was not Merton, but George M. Sauvage.

I prefer to make no comment on why LoveMonkey wrote: "Esoglou wrote that out of complete contempt." Esoglou (talk) 08:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

So thats Esoglou's answering for making a statement that the Roman Catholic church teaches the same theology as the Eastern Orthodox in specific the theoria of the uncreated light. Where does it do that Esoglou? Again this is Esoglou's POV and original research as he can not provide official Roman Catholic doctrine. A statement that will enrage the East as it is not a documented tradition as it would be anecdotal at best. Esoglou is making statements in these articles from his own opinion that are going to cause allot more problems than what is in the mix right now. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

This further remark, similar to many preceding, surely calls for no response from me. Esoglou (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

If the comment is not an official position of the Roman Catholic church that can be validated from an Official Roman Catholic source then it is your Point of View. Thats what I mean when I make that statement in reflection of your behavior. It is Original Research in that Esoglou from his POV assumes that what Esoglou posted about theoria is true and then when it gets pointed out what Esoglou is doing he starts pointing out superficial issues to draw attention away from his frustrating POV pushing and edit warring that is an attempt to counter the Eastern Orthodox position. Note Esoglou has not provided any sources of what he has studied about Eastern Orthodox theology. Nor has he posted the sources he owns. No one is calling him on this there appears to be allot of policy banter but again I am the only getting reprimanded when I feel that I have posted genuine grievousness about the things Esoglou has added to the articles and sourced from a sources that makes no such statement. Rather address this I instead get checked for "Clean hands" this is hypocrisy. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Why a different and distinct article for Eastern Orthodox theoria?

Because theoria is not a feeling or some internal epiphany one gets from philosophizing about God (like pagan mysticism i.e. gnosticism). Theoria is God appearing to people LITERALLY. It is to see the uncreated light of God, LITERALLY. This is not taught in Western Christianity. It is the Eastern Christianity theological essential. And that is being buried here by Roman Catholic POV editors. LoveMonkey (talk) 03:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, listen up everyone. This POV-pushing, anti-Catholic rhetoric stops here and now. I was just alerted to this matter and this is supposed to be about Christianity. You know. Love, peace, Holy Spirit, Triune God, etc? Seriously, all of you, just log off for a day or two and calm down. PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, which "POV-pushing, anti-Catholic rhetoric" is that? Could you identify it please?--Taiwan boi (talk) 04:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

This is addressed to all involved editors: Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• More precisely: this section. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Esoglou editwarring just today.

1. Diff 1[29]
2. Diff 2[30]
3. Diff 3[31]
4. Diff 4[32] LoveMonkey (talk) 15:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Multiple articles covering Palamism

NB: I am NOT, at this time, proposing a merger of any articles. However, I do think we should look at the inadequacy of coverage of Palamism in multiple articles.

Palamism used to redirect to Tabor Light (which was, in my opinion, the wrong place for it to redirect)

In addition to the article on Gregory Palamas, we also have articles on Theosis (Eastern Orthodox theology),Hesychasm,Essence-Energies distinction and Tabor Light.

It seems to me that all of these articles (except for the biographical one on Palamas himself) are just parts of the overall doctrine known as Palamism. We could either merge all of these articles into one big one titled Palamism or we could at least construct an article titled Palamism that introduces each of the subtopics in summary style and then links to the main article on each subtopic.

I think that having so many articles gives the reader a fragmented view of Palamism and requires him to find and read several articles in order to construct an integrated and complete picture. It is much like the four blind men describing different parts of the elephant.

To address this problem, I've created an article titled Palamism. At the moment, it is not much more than a collection of lead sections plus the section titled "Development of the Doctrine" that I originally assembled for this article from Hesychasm andGregory Palamas. I hope this new article can serve as an "umbrella" summary article for all these detailed articles that describe different parts of the elephant.

--Richard S (talk) 21:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I just happened to look on here after quite some time Richard, and I suggest not even thinking of a merger. The unfortunate situation, as I see it is the following:

• This article itself looks like it was hit by a hurricane and an earthquake at the same time. I think it was shorter before from what I remember, but in any case, now it seems to have been the subject of a lot of debate. I have not (and will not) even read the debates to see who was saying what, but the article seems to be suffering not from a lack of facts, but the lack of harmony.

• The articles on Hesychasm, Tabor light, etc. have somehow been saved from the hurricane and actually help readers. This article is so long and twisted that it does not help any Wikipedia reader in my opinion.

Therefore, until this disaster has been attended to by the United Nations, the Red Cross and other relief agencies (of which I am not a member) let us let the poor readers have some more usable and shorter articles that can teach them things, instead of inviting them all here. History2007 (talk) 12:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes I say that the article be separated back up and left as a Eastern Orthodox theology article. It is bad enough that Richard and Esoglou as putting their POV on this article. And the contemplation article covers for the hisoty of the philosophy and its philosophy history what Esoglou has forcing into this article. How is it that one can make any sense of Eastern Orthodox theology when two VERY AGRESSIVE editors whom are not knowable of these subjects is making edits that obfuscate the Greek understanding. I would like to include the randomness of Maixmos and the modern manifestation of those ideas as expressed in the math of Markov and Kolmogorv and Pavle Florovsky and in more modern time Nicholas Metropolis and Taleb. But there can not be a EO Sumbebekos[33] article with editors like Esoglou on here obfuscating the subjects so that people can not understand the Eastern Orthodox perspective. These two "editors" have been edit warring against Byzantine philosophy being mentioned in the Gregory Palamas Essence Energy distinction article and why would Orthodox even try with the sarcasm and obfuscating of editors on Wikipedia. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The article is on theoria, a matter that concerns much more than the Eastern Orthodox Church: as the citations show, it was even being discussed centuries before Christianity. The article has on the Eastern Orthodox Church's view of theoria a section two and a half times as long as all the rest of the article together, and which it would be well to cut down in size and make more readable. Esoglou (talk) 15:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

At 138kb, the article is way too long and thus could benefit from being split up. The Eastern Orthodox section is 98kb long and thus is already at the limit of what a long article should be. My rough rule of thumb is that articles really need to stop growing around 100kb.

This suggests that there could be two articles (Theoria (Eastern Orthodox theology) and Theoria. The general article on Theoria would include a truncated summary of the more specific article on Theoria (Eastern Orthodox theology).

I acknowledge that History2007 was not complaining about the length of the article but about a lack of cohesion and cogency. Splitting the article will not necessarily fix that but it may help. It will at least address LoveMonkey's complaint about material that is unrelated to the Eastern Orthodox concept of theoria.

I will also take this opportunity to take exception to my being maligned for interference in articles and discussions that I have not been involved in.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed move to Theoria (Eastern Orthodox Theology)

Per discussion immediately above, this will allow a split of the current article into two articles: Theoria (Eastern Orthodox theology) that focuses specifically on Eastern Orthodox theology and Theoria which covers the general topic of Theoria including a summary of the more detailed article on Theoria from the Eastern Orthodox POV. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)