|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
The various events, parties, etc. in the Arian Controversy have been dispersed among several loosely-connected or unconnected articles. In some cases, e.g. the old "Auxentius" article, one article has confused two completely different people; in other cases, e.g. the parts of the old Auxentius and "Junior Auxentius" articles, two articles have covered the same person, similarly with Anomean and "Eunomianism," and so on.
The first problem, imho, is to identify the important people and events. This will help us see what other articles are available.
- Merging Arius and Arianism makes perfect sense, particularly since its not clear "Arianism" is the proper title.Gvharrier 00:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- Briefly checked Philostorgius' history, throughout (should return to this).
- Checked Socrates Scholasticus' history, book I and book II up through chapter 43. Jacob Haller 17:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
The dates are iffy and both Wikipedia and the ancient sources seem to contradict themselves about these. Properly untangling these would go way beyond the scope of this article and might involve WP:OR. Jacob Haller 10:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Sardica and Philippopolis - Socrates Scholasticus, book 2, chapter 26 dates these to 347.
- 2nd Sirmium (trial of Photinus) - Socrates Scholasticus, book 2, chapter 29 dates this to 351.
- I am now using Beavers' Chronology of the Arian Controversy to clear up the dates. Jacob Haller 19:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Lists of people
I think it would help to move the lists of people in each school from this article to school-specific articles. However, a general list of participants may be helpful. Jacob Haller 00:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
This page vs. the Arianism page
Is there any particular reason this page and the Arianism page should be separate? Is not the controversy between Arianism and Nicene Trinitarianism the most important legacy of Arianism today? --Jfruh (talk) 04:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I cannot see any reason at all for keeping this article as separate from the article Arianism; the latter deals in some detail with the Arian controversy. Can anyone suggest a reason for not merging them? JamesBWatson (talk) 11:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
This concerns POV tag cleanup. Whenever an POV tag is placed, it is necessary to also post a message in the discussion section stating clearly why it is thought the article does not comply with POV guidelines, and suggestions for how to improve it. This permits discussion and consensus among editors. From WP tag policy: Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort. Better yet, edit the topic yourself with the improvements. This statement is not a judgement of content, it is only a cleanup of frivolously and/or arbitrarily placed tags. No discussion, no tag.Jjdon (talk) 22:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- No. Statements that "X is a heresy" are non-NPOV in and of themselves and POV-tags for such statements should not require any additional explanation.
- Or, to put it another way, the purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts and describe opinions, not to take sides. When sections, or even passages, take sides, they violate NPOV and it should not take any special explanation here of why each passage violates NPOV. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 19:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- The statement that something was a heresy is not expressing a POV. It has nothing to do with anyone's belief or opinion. It is stating a historical fact. No academic text in either history or theology disputes the use of the word 'heresy' to describe a theological movement that was declared such by historical figures. No reasonable argument can support the tag: the movement was, in actual fact, declared a heresy by Church authorities, and accepted as such by the main community of worshippers. This is basically the definition of a heresy. -JM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 23:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- That's easy enough to say in cases like this, where the Arian church no longer exists. But surely the Arian church considered the Nicene church to be a heresy -- would we then categorize Nicene theology as heretical as well? If not, why do we priviledge the Nicene POV over the Arian one -- just because there aren't any more Arians? What about more modern situations, where, for instance, Protestants consider Catholics to be heretics and vice-versa? "Heresy" is an intrinsically POV word -- it says, "your theology is incorrect." And theological correctness is something that Wikipedia editors can't and shouldn't try to determine.
- To be sure, the article can and in fact should say that the contemporary Catholic church considered Arianism to be a heresy, and that most modern churches that consider themselves to be Christian do so as well. I just object to Wikipedia saying in its own voice that Arianism is heresy. Doing so implies that Wikipedia has theological opinions, which it doesn't. --Jfruh (talk) 17:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
It is believed that Arius' doctrines were influenced by the teachings of Lucian of Antioch, a celebrated Christian teacher and martyr for the faith.
Other than a brief introdcution, a table of contents, and links to other articles, the above is the beginning of the article. Prior to this, there is no mention of who Arius was, or what his doctrines were. This is a poor way to start such an article! It may be that these are mentioned in one of the other linked articles, but there should be a least a brief summary of those to give the reader of this article some context. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 16:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I also had a hard time making any sense of this article. Arianism made things much clearer for me. Maybe these articles can be merged at some point in the future?184.108.40.206 (talk) 03:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
POV informations added
Anonymous user under IP 220.127.116.11 added biased text under "Was the Logos created in time?" section, written in the Watchtower Society point of view. Need to check --18.104.22.168 (talk) 12:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
POV information added.
I tagged several POV/neutrality issues in this article. The entire second half of this article "Arian Controversy" needs to be rewritten or deleted. It is obviously written by a Jehoveh's Witness with a strong dislike of, well, Trinitarian Christianity. This isn't an article on Trinitarian Christianity. This isn't an article on Jehoveh's Witness Theology. This is an article on the "Arian Controversy", so statements like "The Bible confirms that Jesus is a Mighty God. Jehovah is the Almighty God. His son Jesus is Lord. They are different. This is easy. Unless you have an agenda." do not belong in this this article. This is persuasive speech (without any citations!)
Another example of the author's bias: "Actually, Trinitarian inspired sculptures of this God depict three connected individuals and four legs among the 3 persons of the Trinity. This is not the God I worship or the God of the Bible." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilrandall (talk • contribs) 04:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)