Template talk:Christian mysticism

Rename template to Meditation?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Aristophanes68 (talk) 19:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

---

As you can all see, the template refers to itself as being about meditation and never uses the word mysticism. Recently, someone removed the template from the Christian mysticism page, and I wonder if maybe the two topics are different enough that we need to rename the template itself to Christian Meditation. Thoughts? Aristophanes68 (talk) 23:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oh, it's been moved--no discussion? Okay. Thanks! Aristophanes68 (talk) 23:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:Christian meditation → Template:Christian Mysticism — I strenuously disagree with this no-consensus move. The template is clearly about Christian mysticism. All the people listed, for instance, are known as Christian mystics, not meditators! Please read their articles! Ignatius of Loyola, Gregory of Nyssa, Bernard of Clairvaux, Guigo II, Francis of Assisi, well, the whole list is right in front of you. This list is not just about meditation!!! Please see Category:Christian mystics for an exhaustive list. And please restore this template to its rightful name. Elizium23 (talk) 00:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Elizium23, no worries, Carl is a reasonable person, and I think we can talk to him about it. I left him a message as follows:

I saw that you moved/renamed the template to "Christian meditation" from mysticism. But that makes it technically not quite correct, for two reasons:

• meditation as such is defined to be due to Guigo II, in the 12th century, and hence Gregory of Nyssa and Bernard of Clairvaux were mystics pre-12th century, but were not into meditation by the definitions in the articles about Guigo. Meditation is actually a component of mysticism.

• although some of the people on there such as Teresa of Avila were deeply into meditation, others such as Francis de Sales or Therese of Lisieux were considered mystics, but not really big on meditation as such.

So I think it will be best to move it back. I have been intending to work on Christian mysticism which needs much help. We managed to get Christian meditation to Good article status, but the mysticism article qualifies for a "bad article" flag really. But right now, I do not have time to do mysticism, but hope to work on mysticism later this year. However, if you want to clean mysticism up, please do. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 00:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that if it's going to be named "mysticism," then it should read that it's part of a series on mysticism, not meditation. If we move it back to mysticism, then I recommend we change the wording of the template to match. Aristophanes68 (talk) 00:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem. A few keystrokes I think. History2007 (talk) 00:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Do people agree that the template itself should be changed to say Mysticism? Aristophanes68 (talk) 06:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

It says mysticism, as you wanted. Now that it has been moved back to where it was, do you want to remove the move request etc.? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 09:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing. I hope it do the tags correctly--I've been editing here almost 5 years and I've never fully learned how to use most of these templates. So if I screw it up, please correct me. Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 19:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

SOS on mysticism

As I looked at the articles in this template, a few need an ambulance. Christian meditation is a good article, but Contemplative prayer needs help and Christian contemplation should probably merge into it. And Christian mysticism itself is asking for an ambulance, if not an undertaker. History2007 (talk) 11:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Christian mysticism has been edited A LOT lately, but mostly in taking out material. We'd love to have folks contribute more positive materials. Should I add a "needs immediate attention" tag to any of the project banners? Aristophanes68 (talk) 19:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there a "call an ambulance" banner... We need that one. But seriously, it is an important topic, and I am glad this incident happened because I was going to work on it, but had been distracted. Now I am thinking about it. However, any knowledgable help on it will be great. History2007 (talk) 20:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

how to redirect a template tag --> Christian mysticism --> Christian Mysticism

I accidentally typed {{Christian mysticism}} (lower-case m), and I think there should be a redirect to the correct template (there already is a redirect for Template:Christian mysticism when typed into the search bar, but not one for the {{}} form), but I'm not sure if templates have different formatting for redirects.... Help? Aristophanes68 (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• Cancel that--I figured it out! Aristophanes68 (talk) 22:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Template won't go underneath other boxes

Checkout Bonaventure--why is the template staying to the left of the philosopher infobox? I tried adding it to Francis of Assisi and it did the same thing with the saint infobox. Why is it not dropping beneath the previous box and aligning to the margin? Aristophanes68 (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that! Aristophanes68 (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 24 June 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. This was a long and frankly boring discussion to read, so I won't add to it with a long closure. Suffice it to say there is a consensus against changing "Christian" to "Catholic" in the title. The question of adding "sidebar" was not really addressed. Jenks24 (talk) 12:04, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

---

Template:Christian mysticism → Template:Catholic mysticism sidebar – This consists of two component changes:

1. "Christian" to "Catholic": Same as User:Chicbyaccident's wp:BOLD, reverted, but entirely sensible move: "According to its contents." I'm actually surprised anyone thought it was controversial. Everything here is Catholic: all content from after the Protestant Reformation is Catholic, all content from after the East–West Schism is from the Catholic side, and the Catholic Church holds pre-Schism and early Christian orthodox (little O) theology as its own. Every item on the list of "Theologies and philosophies" has a history primarily, heavily, or at least significantly tied to Catholicism. There's even a link to Catholic spirituality and a section on "Contemporary Papal views". The only thing I've noticed that's out of place is the link to Theosis (Eastern Orthodox theology), which should probably be switched to Divinization (Christian) anyway, regardless of this move. There's an utter lack of any Protestant or non-Catholic Eastern Christian perspective; this template clearly specializes in Catholic mysticism.
2. Addition of "sidebar": Simply to remove the sidebar–navbox–other guesswork when adding this template.

As a sort of un-COI disclaimer, if you will, please note that I have never edited this template, and as such am not POV-pushing for my own edits to be reflected in the name. I'm simply observing the disparity between the over-generalized name and the specialized content.

Update: I've followed through on my comment on theosis/divinization by switching them. This remains the only change I've made. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 17:51, 24 June 2016 (UTC), edited 16:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 19:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

See also: § Blatant POV, Theosis

• Oppose change to "Catholic" mysticism. Eastern Christianity has especially preserved a mystical emphasis in its theology such as Hesychasm. The problem with the template is not the name, but the small number of links on mysticism from an Eastern Christianity viewpoint. The bias is likly due to the small number of EO wiki-editors.

References

tahc ^chat 19:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

@Tahc: Okay, so that's two links, out of the 99 links on this template (yes, I counted—it's 99, margin of error ±1). Hardly inclusive of Orthodox mysticism. If there's so much, why doesn't it have its own series, or at least significant coverage within this one on par with the Catholics? And what a disservice it would be to this template to start mixing and matching, when it's clearly a specialized template on Catholic mysticism that could be useful as such!

You copied your response out of Christian mysticism#Eastern Christianity, and you seem to think that Catholic ≠ Eastern Xian. You neglect that the Eastern Catholic Churches are a thing, with their own liturgical rites and practices! Hesychasm's unpopularity even among Eastern Catholics notwithstanding, saying "Eastern Christianity has stuff too!" does not on its own distinguish it from Catholicism. So, with respect, I ask that you either show a significant number of non-Catholic Eastern Xian mysticism links that can be neatly included without exploding this template to twice its current, already monstrous size, and give a good argument on why this extensive, specialized template should be muddied; or else please seriously consider flipping your vote. Thank you. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 18:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Your aruments run counter to each other. (Of course I never implied Catholic ≠ Eastern) but if Catholic overlaps Eastern Christianity then that by itself would be a reason to keep the tempate as a combined-- Christian mysticism, not one Catholic and one Eastern.

Also, I told you why there isn't significant amount of coverage on Orthodox mysticism-- Wikipedia has few small number of EO wiki-editors, a form of systematic bias.

Futhermore, I reject your assumtion that the other 97 articles are about non-Eastern froms of Christian mysticism.

Even if we had many articles on Catholic mysticism and many articles Orthodox mysticism I would reject formming separate templates because (1) the various forms of Christian mysticism are not radically different from each other and (2) there would be many links sharred between the two templates. This template is "clearly a specialized template on Catholic mysticism" only in your eyes. tahc ^chat 21:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Look at the "People" section, especially post-Schism and post-Reformation, and tell me it's not 100% Catholic content with a straight face. And reconcile the links to Catholic spirituality and papal teachings. And reconcile the just-over-2% ratio of Orthodox to Catholic, and the 0% ratio of Protestant to Catholic. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 15:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it probably is 100% Catholic-- but I would also expect that is the only section(s) that are 100% Catholic. Would you like to have this template on Christian mysticism only go up to 1500 (or some other date) and then another template Catholic mysticism since 1500? tahc ^chat 16:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

No, I'd like to call this one what it is—Catholic mysticism. It's all Catholic, so let's stop tip-toeing around it. If there's so much Orthodox content, there should be a separate series for that. If there isn't, some should be made, and then it should still be given its own series. Why should the reader have to guess whether each link is Catholic or Orthodox? It's a matter of clarity, ease of use, and accessibility, not POV. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 16:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, do you expect to find non-Catholic content in a section labelled "Contemporary papal views"?? And let's go through the "Theologies/Philosophies" section:

1. Appophatic:Early Xian (incl. in Catholic).
2. Ascetical: Heavily Early/Catholic, with the only Orthodox content being entirely unsourced and possibly OR.
3. Cataphatic: Heavily Early/Catholic, with only a line on Orthodox.
4. Hellenistic: Entirely Early (incl. in Catholic).
5. Mystical: Entirely Catholic.
6. Renaissance: Evenly split Catholic/Orthodox.

So Catholic mysticism clearly wins here. How about the "Practices" section?

1. Asceticism: Entirely Early.
2. Contemplation: Heavily Catholic.
3. Hesychasm: Orthodox. (Found one!)
4. Lectio Divina: Explicitly Catholic (Benedictine).
5. Meditation: Much more Catholic than Orthodox.
6. Monasticism: Split, but much more Catholic than Orthodox.
7. Divinization: Split. (Finally found a hint of Protestantism!) Note, I substituted this for Theosis. If it stays at "Christian mysticism", it was too specific, being a sub-category of divinization. If it moves to "Catholic mysticism", then it wasn't Catholic. Win-win.
8. Quietism: Almost entirely Catholic.

Now will you take my so-called "assumption" seriously? Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 16:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• First of all this is not a contest to see if we see you can label more of the content as aligned with one denomanation or another.
• Second, anything that is part of "Early Christianity" or otherwise both Catholic and Orthodox is a clear reason to keep the whole template labled "Christianity". To have 100 Catholic links labled "Christianity" creates no error, but to have one theologies label "Catholic" that is not just Catholic implies they are not part of the broader Christian mysticism. It would even be misleading to label early Western mysticists (of which there are few) as Catholic, because they are would not have ment the same thing by that term as we mean by it today.
• Third, your sorting of Theologies/ Philosophies/ Practices shows your bias. To summarize:

• 10 are "Early" or otherwise both RC and EO (but often of origin in the East): Apophatic, Ascetical, Cataphatic, Hellenistic, Asceticism, Lectio Divina (Benedict of Nursia is from the East and venerated in EO, RC, OO Churches, etc.), Meditation, Monasticism, Divinization Furthermore, Contemplation is important in all branches of Christianity, even Protestantism. The short article just happens to quote mostly from RCs-- but does quote an Oriental Orthodox.
• 1 is seemingly entirely RC: Mystical theology (but I see that Teresa of Ávila is also venerated in the Lutheran Church and Anglican Communion) and 1 is mostly RC: Quietism
• 2 are seemingly entirely EO: Theosis and Hesychasm and 1 is mostly EO: Neoplatonic tahc ^chat 22:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I never denied that they are shared between C and EO, and I know it's not a "contest". My point is that, in totality, the template is about Catholic mysticism, not general Xian mysticism. A hypothetical Orthodox template could repeat the relevant links; there's no problem in doing that (except maybe with "Mystical theology" and "Quietism"). My point is that what we have is Catholicism in the header, Catholicism in the people section, Catholicism-heavy content in the philosophies and practices (i.e., not enough EO content to make the claim that the template must of necessity expand to include all Xian perspectives), and in-your-face POPERY in the last section for crying out loud! Just because someone put two primarily EO links does not mean the template is really about Xianity in general. Those are quite simply 2 links that don't belong. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 23:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, the issue of the evolution of the meaning and usage of "catholic" is irrelevant for the Early period. Excluding what the CC sees as heresy, all early Xianity is included within the Catholic tradition. Of course the Orthodox claim most of the same writers as their own, too, but that doesn't negate the Catholic claim. Put that together with the rest of the template content, and it's perfectly acceptable to refer to it as Catholic. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 23:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

To have an EO mysticism template is a terrible idea. You would then have a bunch pages with two very similar templates one right above the other-- and very few links different between the two, until you go more than halfway down the template. We would then give editors the chance to fight over which template goes first. And the benifit of having two such templates: ZERO. tahc ^chat 14:01, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

No it's not. In the vast majority of those pages, the discussion of Catholic and Orthodox views are in separate sections. So each section would have a series sidebar. That wouldn't be the end of the world. Bottom line is, readers shouldn't have to guess whether the people are C or EO, or scratch their heads and wonder where all the Protestants and Orthodox went. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 15:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

You think people are guessing whether the people are RC or EO so you propose mislabling them as one, or both. Maybe people should just read the articles before pre-judging which modern label they would or should have picked. tahc ^chat 15:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

No, everyone in this template is claimed within the Catholic tradition. That doesn't preclude inclusion in Orthodox or Protestant traditions, but since the list is a list of Catholics, and the rest of the content is either explicitly Catholic or Catholic-compatible, it's obvious that it's not a template on general Christian mysticism, but rather on Catholic mysticism. What about hat is so hard to understand? You want to throw non-Catholic people into the list, unnecessarily muddying the waters. There's no good reason for it. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 15:33, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: @Chicbyaccident: You made this move WP:BOLDLY the first time. Would you like to weigh in on this discussion? Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 16:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I think your remarks are excellent and I agree completely with you. I have updated the appearance of the template. Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear you agree. Perhaps you might make a !vote so it "counts"? Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 23:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Chicbyaccident Could you jump in on the active discussion in the level-2 section below? It's been just me and Tahc, and it doesn't reflect very well on the nomination argument to have just me going back and forth with the opposing editors. Another perspective would be helpful. Thanks. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 22:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose, there are those Eastern Christian mystics running about. I'm surprised some of the other Christian faiths don't have more mystics of note. I'm partial to Padre Pio and Jeanne of Arc, and a few other Catholic mystics. Randy Kryn 20:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: a good example of a Christian mystic (his poetry is clearly mystical) is 10th century Armenian Saint, from eastern Anatolia, Gregory of Narek, who Pope Francis made a Doctor of the Church. Gregory was not in communion with the Catholic Church, i.e. he was not what Catholics generally think of as Catholic, since he was a member of a non-Chalcedonian Church – the Armenian Apostolic Church. Gregory is not restricted to either the Armenian Catholic Church or restricted to Catholic Church or restricted to the Armenian Apostolic Church. Retaining Christian and not replacing it with Catholic may allow the category to be more open to develop organically with input from contributors familiar with non-Western Christian mysticism. In my opinion, a Russian Orthodox/Eastern Catholic cross-over example might be Saint Sergius of Radonezh. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 13:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support. I see no reasons why those opposing can't make templates for their proposed perspectives. In any case, if the proposal of renaming isn't realised, then I think Jujutsuan should go about and create a Catholic template, and then this template may well remain as another focus? Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
• Very Strong Oppose: Anyone with the most basic understanding of Christian history knows that there were always groups of people and movements before the Schism of 1054 that cannot be neatly categorised as either "Catholic" or "Orthodox". Afterwriting (talk) 22:59, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment, there is actually no article with the name Catholic mysticism, I just created it and redirected it to Christian mysticism, so that is more or less where the action is. Changing the template is like putting the mystic before the horse, its title would have to redirect to Christian mysticism anyway. Randy Kryn 21:20, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is out of chronological order. Participation is welcome by anyone wishing to comment. This box is simply for organization.

---

Except that all—every last one—of the mystics listed in the template are venerated in the Catholic Church as saints, Church Fathers, and/or Doctors. Argument destroyed. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 03:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

1: The Catholic Church doesn't venerate Origen or Pseudo-Dionysius or Church Fathers in general-- calling someone a Church Father is just a statement about when they wrote-- and Origen is considered by many to have been held in anathema, while others dissagree.

2. Your aguments based on the POV of the Catholic Church could only trump other views if we had already agreed that this was an article on the POV of the Catholic Church, but it is neither "on the POV of the Catholic Church" nor an article. In these cases, Wikipedia takes a WP:NPOV. tahc ^chat 13:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

1. Excuse me, "regarded". That covers the saints, the Doctors, and the non-saint Fathers. Better? You don't have to be a saint to have your theology included in the Catholic canon (not that canon... you know very well what I mean).

2. This template is already Catholic-specialized. Two stray links, one of which has already been substituted (unless someone undid the Theosis/Divinization (Christian) swap) do not negate that. You're clinging to NPOV like your life depends on it, but it's quite an inappropriate justification here. The template was named badly. Get over it. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 23:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Out of chronological order discussion thread ends here.

• Since Jujutsuan wants to claim as Roman Catholic everyone in the template before the East–West Schism of 1054, he would apparently create a template that is 98% identical to this one. In addition to being highly POV, it would not leave this template any room to "remain as another focus". You would just get lots of articles two 98% identical templates.
• You might have noticed I already proposed we create a template for late Catholic mysticism, which would leave the rest as a more general Christian mysticism template that would work well with it-- but Jujutsuan claims that a system not based on Catholic lables would be "arbitrary".tahc ^chat 18:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I never said the Orthodox have no legitimate claim to the pre-Schism content (they absolutely do), along with any uniquely Orthodox post-Schism content, but that's no argument against including pre-Schism content in a Catholic mysticism sidebar. Is it POV to have a Christian mysticism template separate from Islamic mysticism? No? Why not? Because they're not the same religion, despite what they share (belief in God, the early prophets, Jesus had some religious role, etc.). Just like Catholicism and Orthodoxy are not the same, despite what they share (belief in the Trinity, the Resurrection, the sacraments, etc.). Obviously the latter pair share more, but they're still different. (Try telling a knowledgeable Orthodox they're "basically Catholic", or vice versa—be prepared for a verbal smackdown.) And no, the separated templates would be far from "98% identical".

• One would be this template minus one article (hesychasm) and with another substituted (divinization for theosis), leaving 98 articles remaining from the original 99.
• The other would be this template minus "Catholic mysticism", monstrance, mystical theology, quietism, possibly Lectio Divina, the entire 65-article people section from the 11th century onward (maybe only 60 if the Orthodox one were to keep the 11th–12th cc. segment), and the 2-article "papal views" section, leaving only 27-32 articles remaining from the original 99.

Answer me this: How is that "98% identical"? Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 18:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I never said such about such templates. I said a Template:Christian mysticism and a Template:Catholic mysticism would be around 98% identical.

The Template:Eastern Orthodox mysticism has always be your idea, and an idea for which you have no good reason. tahc ^chat 19:17, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

No, I said a system that picks an arbitrary date would be arbitrary. You really want articles to have "Early Catholic" or "Christian" AND "Late Catholic" mysticism sidebars, just so that all of Catholic mysticism could be included?? A C/EO split with redundancies makes sense; a pre-/post-Schism split doesn't. It wouldn't be the end of the world for a couple of articles to be repeated. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 18:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Anyway, a Template:Catholic mysticism has been created. Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Per its talk page, I've redirected it here. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 18:26, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

No, you are claiming any split by date is arbitrary because you are a also claiming every possible date would be arbitrary.

No, I cannot say that I want a two mysticism sidebars. I am saying it would be a much better compromse than any of your Catho-centric ideas.

Should we also have a Template:Oriental Orthodox mysticism, Template:Anglican mysticism, and Template:Protestant mysticism? It would be arbitrary to create templates for some denominational families and exclude all the others. tahc ^chat 19:06, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, yes I am claiming that any split by date would be arbitrary. Absolutely I am. That's what I've been saying the whole time. Reread the thread if you're confused. Splitting by date would, for no reason, cut off parts of one tradition from other parts of the same tradition. Splitting by denomination lets each have one whole, cohesive template to itself. People expect splits by denomination (which is really a split by separation of topics), not arbitrary splits by date—"Hey, where'd all the Patristic theology go? That's part of the history of Catholic mysticism!" they'll wonder, for example.

It's not "Catho-centric". It's content-centric. Either find a list of Orthodox or other non-Catholic content, or just admit that the overwhelming majority—no, very nearly the entirety—of this template is all legitimately claimed by the Catholic tradition, with the omission of non-Catholic views post-Schism and post-Reformation making it a Catholicism template—with exactly two strays that somehow made their way in. Two strays out of 99 does not a pan-Christian template make. Would you suggest adding non-Catholic canon law to {{canon law}}? I'd hope not—it's clearly about Catholic canon law, and that's not POV. It's just narrow/specific. There's nothing wrong with that.

No, it doesn't make sense to make all of those; there aren't a great number of Oriental mystics, though if there are, then make one. As for the Protestants, mysticism generally isn't their thing (with a small handful of exceptions). So that leaves us with Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and (maybe but probably not) Oriental Orthodox. Putting a bunch of redlinks to nonsense tempates does not work against my argument. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 19:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

No, I am not confused that you claim any and every date would be arbitrary-- I am just stating it explictly since you had not.

No, splitting by date would not cut off parts of one tradition. The Christian Church has changed over time so that it is quite different today than it was in early centuries-- which means that the "Catholic" church is very different today than the early Christian Church. In fact the Catholic Church today is more different from the early Christian Church than the Eastern Orthodox Church is from the early Christian Church.

No, there have been very many Eastern mysticists-- but since the East is slow to change-- most Eastern mysticists are from the pre-1054 era.

(Even if we assume for simplicty that only Catholic Christians learn or want to learn from Catholic mysticists), orgainizing these links in a content-centric could only be by denomination if these links were claimed by only one denomination or (in the case of people) they themselves claimed one denomination. Obviously only few links of the first half are of this sort. We don't care if the Catholic Church today "claims" John Chrysostom-- what matters is that John Chrysostom never "claimed" the Catholic Church over and against the Eastern Orthodox, etc. Likewise many or all of the last half are could or would "claim" the Catholic Church over and against the Eastern Orthodox, etc. Since a huge number of the links are not about Catholic Christians or ideas, to be content-centric, we have to either (1) label it all Christian and be done with it (2) split into another template the people who could have possiblly claimed to be "Catholic" over and against other lables.

(Now if we know that nonCatholic Christians learn from "Catholics", then we have even greater reason to lable the whole template what it is-- Christian mysticism.) tahc ^chat 22:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Aha! You've just revealed your own POV! No, splitting by date would not cut off parts of one tradition. The Christian Church has changed over time so that it is quite different today than it was in early centuries-- which means that the "Catholic" church is very different today than the early Christian Church. In fact the Catholic Church today is more different from the early Christian Church than the Eastern Orthodox Church is from the early Christian Church. Try telling the Magisterium—who has the real-world authority to say what does and doesn't count as part of the Catholic tradition—that the Apostolic Fathers, the Church Fathers, Augustine, Athanasius, Chrysostom, Aquinas, et al. aren't part of the Catholic tradition and see how far you get. Hint: you'll get exactly nowhere. They were, are, and will continue to be considered part of the Catholic theological corpus, however many schisms and reformations may come. Universal recognition doesn't matter. If that were the case "God in Christianity" couldn't be included in any Christian template since atheists, Muslims, and Hindus don't agree with the premise. Whether or not the Catholic/Christian Church has "changed over time" is 100% irrelevant. Now, that doesn't mean the Orthodox can't correctly claim whomever they want as part of their tradition. They can, and do, and not incorrectly.

So, you're saying Orthodox mysticism is extinct for the past 1,000 years? That sounds like a cop-out, and I'm not buying it. There have to be notable post-Schism Orthodox mystics. There just have to be.

Your simplicity argument doesn't work, at all. There's absolutely no harm done in repeating links in multiple infoboxes. I guess "Trinity", "God the Son", and "Holy Spirit (Christianity)" can't be included in denominations' series boxes, then? See {{Catholic Church sidebar}}, {{Anglican Communion}}, and {{Christianity}}. Surely the first two aren't wrong to include those links, even though the broader template has them. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 23:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

You are trying to make some sort of point based on Catholic theology, but Wikipedia is not based on Catholic theology.

I didn't claim that there were no Orthodox mystics now. My claim is that the important Orthodox 'writers in mysticism were mostly pre-1054.

There is harm done in repeating links in multiple navboxes. It is Wikipedia:Spam. Infoboxes are something else. {{Christianity}}, {{Anglican Communion}}, and {{Catholic Church sidebar}} are not normally put in the same article. tahc ^chat 01:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not. It's based on facts established in sources. And the sources establish that all of the writers listed are part of the Catholic tradition, whether or not they self-identified with the Church in communion with the See of Rome, pre- or post-Schism, or pre- or post-Reformation. If the Catholic tradition contains certain writers, it contains them. Very simple. Others can contain them as well, but that doesn't mean Catholicism doesn't. The "but the Church has changed!" and "but 'catholic' didn't mean 'Catholic' back then!" arguments simply. don't. work. What part of this don't you understand?

Is that a hypothesis/conjecture or a definitive statement of the situation? Have any RS to confirm it?

Regarding WP:SPAM: First, reread it; it doesn't apply here. This isn't an attempt at promotion of Catholic theology, it's an attempt to (1) not exclude from Catholicism what is rightly labelled part of the Catholic tradition, regardless of whatever other labels it might simultaneously have, and (2) to make the name of the thematic template match the overwhelming tendency of the content. Second, it's a guideline, not a policy; exceptions can be made if only unreasoned stubbornness doesn't prevail. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 03:07, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose on the Orthodox technicality. Why not rename it to Catholic and Orthodox mysticism? There would be value in limiting this to historical/traditional Christian mysticism, and excluding modern, random, new-religious-movement stuff that is nominally Christian.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

  Because the present name is fine and all-inclusive. There isn't even an article entitled 'Catholic mysticism'. Why exclude modern mystics who followed firm Christian views (in fact, Edgar Cayce fits that description)? Christianity doesn't end in some olden-days, but includes modern adherents, some of them prominent "mystics". Randy Kryn 20:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I would ask you both to please read the discussion down below. For some reason Tahc doesn't want it reunited with the rest of this discussion. It addresses the "Orthodox technicality" as you call it. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 20:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Neoplatonism

It might be off-topic, but why is the article Neoplatonism and Christianity included here? Neoplatonism was an ancient philosophical school whose ideas and terminology have had an influence on Christianity, through the works of writers such as Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite. It has influenced Christian mysticism, particularly during the Middle Ages, but also Christian philosophy and theology. It is not only a matter of mysticism. Dimadick (talk) 00:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Just because it's more than about mysticism, doesn't mean it's not relevant to mysticism. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 00:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@Dimadick: I think it belongs in the template. According to Catholic Encyclopedia, "Christian thinkers, almost from the beginning of Christian speculation, found in the spiritualism of Plato a powerful aid in defending and maintaining a conception of the human soul which pagan materialism rejected, but to which the Christian Church was irrevocably committed."[1] –BoBoMisiu (talk) 22:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Blatant POV, Theosis

One can make a Wikipedia template about all parts Christian mysticism-- or one might possibility gain WP:consensus for a mere Christian mysticism template that excludes all denomination-specific articles-- but one cannot just exclude articles because they are not part of your own favorite denomination. This is blatant WP:POV; WP:Wikipedia is not censored. Don't bother claiming again the the template is "obviously" about Catholic mysticism already. If it were true we would not need the "Requested move 24 June 2016" above, for which you obviously fail to have consensus. tahc ^chat 16:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

We only "need" it because you fail to see the obvious and forced me and Chicbyaccident into RMing this rather than keeping Chic's WP:BOLD move. You and your stubbornness are the only real obstacles to the move. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 13:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

+1. @Jujutsuan: Why not create Template:Catholic mysticism then? Chicbyaccident (talk)

Because it would be this template exactly, minus less than 5 of its 99 links. Useless and redundant. This one simply needs to be renamed and the less-than-a-handful of stray links removed. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 20:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

If Tahc would like to produce some of these fabled Orthodox/non-Catholic mystics, he's free to do so; then we can have an Orthodox template and a Catholic template. And even an Oriental template, and a Protestant template, etc. etc. if such articles actually exist. But this template should NOT be muddied by mixing denominations. Again, there's no harm in repeating thinkers shared across Schism and Reformation lines in multiple templates, but there is a problem in either lumping everyone together or cutting the templates off by date and breaking denominations up. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 20:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you, but since tahc doesn't agree? Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure why one editor who likes to argue a lot and misapply policies that aren't relevant (WP:NPOV, for example, has nothing to do with this) should have any more of a say than either of us. And surely not more than both of us. IMO Afterwriting only came on for the chance to oppose something I proposed (he doesn't like me like that), and other than him it's just been me, you, and Tahc. So at worst we're tied, at best we're "winning". I've already posted notices about this discussion at the Xianity, Catholicism, and Orthodoxy projects, so I'm not sure how to get more people involved in the discussion. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 21:05, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

If you fail to understand the Wikipedia policies-- such as WP:POV-- then you might think that the policy(ies) do not matter here. I cannot make you understand them, if you do not want to understand them. Yet, you do not want to understand them because you already think that they do not apply. tahc ^chat 23:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

So the Almighty Tahc is immune from misunderstanding? I must be the one misunderstanding since you disagree with me? Nope. In your own words: "I cannot make you understand them, if you do not want to understand them... You already think that they do ... apply." Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 23:20, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF. I do not think such sarcasm is AGF.

No, I do misunderstand things sometimes. I am, however, willing to talk about a policy (or other things) until we see how it is viewed differently by you, myself, and others who use the policy. I don't see yet your willingness to discuss how POV applies here. I only have seen your view stated as the "obvious" view. You might also try re-reading the whole page on WP:Neutral point of view. If anything on that page supports your take (that the policy doesn't apply) they you can quote that part to me here. tahc ^chat 23:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

There was nothing sarcastic about my previous comment. This is a case of WP:SUBPOV, applied to templates rather than to articles (FWIW, WP:NPOV itself nowhere directly addresses templates). You are trying to overcompensate for what you perceive to be my and Chicbyaccident's Catholic bias; but with the exception of less than a handful of strays out of nearly 100 included articles, the de facto subject of this template by virtue of its apparent intent and, more importantly, its actual content, is a point of view. Catholic mysticism is distinct enough from other Christian mysticism, and sufficiently comprehensively covered in Wikipedia, to merit its own page (template) according to this policy. Similarly, if there really are enough articles, Orthodox, Protestant, etc. mysticism would each deserve their own templates. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 19:38, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

References

The template is all on Christian mysticism, but since one can see it as mostly on Catholic mysticism, your view is that it should be "fixed" by making it (so one can see it as) all on Catholic mysticism. But why would it help anyone to exclude all links that are not (at least partly) Catholic? This is the question you do not answer.

Now some Catholics might think it is great to remove links articles that are not Catholic-- or links that are not Catholic enough. To state this another way-- a change of template format may be "good" from a certain Catholic POV, but not from a NPOV.

You claimed earlier it could help people wanting to know the "denomination" of the template-- but that is not the purpose of navboxes. Navboxes are for navigation to pages you could be already be looking for. The limited information in navboxes is often misleading.

All this is a key example of that fact. A navbox listing people as Catholic or not is exactly what we should avoid. Even if there was some advantage to doing this-- and there is not-- the denomination identity of people and ideas would need to be unambiguous and from a NPOV. Labeling people like John Chrysostom and Origen as Catholic is completely incorrect, much less unambiguous and NPOV. They are just Christian writers in mysticism who are not specifically anathematized by Catholicism. This misinformation does not even help Catholics. tahc ^chat 20:52, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

1. First off, your argument that it "wouldn't even help Catholics" is nonsense. If Catholics want to know about Catholic mysticism, one of the first places they'll start is with the Church Fathers, a grouping that includes people like Chrysostom et al. The Church Fathers are considered to be part of the Catholic tradition. Moreover it is absolutely fundamental to the Catholic Church's self-definition and theology that it is the original Church that has existed since AD 33, and that no other Church outside of its communion can make that claim. This works in reverse also to assert that the Early Church was the Catholic Church. Others might well disagree, but you cannot object to the fact that Catholic mysticism and theology includes the Fathers, regardless of whoever else might legitimately include them in their own theology. You can't tell the Church to remove the first 3 centuries of its theological tradition to suit your warped view of NPOV. So stop saying they're not Catholic; it's a distinction without a difference you're making, and an intellectually dishonest one at that.
2. As far as I can see, only the theosis article ought to be removed. But reviewing it more closely, it could even be permitted to stay, as it does address Catholic views. (Note that the hesychasm article does as well.) This makes the template 100% Catholic-compatible but only roughly 30% Orthodox-compatible, and roughly 40% Protestant-compatible.
3. So, why exactly does this template omit Orthodox mystics after the Schism, and Protestants after the Reformation, and other schismatic sects' mystics before the Great Schism?? Where are the Donatists and the Gnostics and the Nestorians and the Arians and the Palegians and the Docetists? This template is clearly Catholic in focus.
4. Towards your argument that "that's not what navboxes are for": do you really think anyone reading about SS. Catherine Laboure, Pio, Faustina, or Lucia of Fatima are looking for Anglican or Nestorian mysticism? The template guides the reader down the path of the Catholic mystical tradition, with abrupt roadblocks at the moments in history when schisms separated Catholics from other Christians. Where are the Lutherans and the Anglicans and the Calvinists and the Cathars and everyone else? Where is the last millenium's worth of Eastern Orthodox? The last millenium-and-a-half's worth of Oriental Orthodox? Nowhere. If anyone is trying to "correct" the template, it's you. I just want to correct the name based on what is the—I'll say it again—obvious reality: This template is built to trace Catholic mysticism in particular. The link to Catholic spirituality, the section on papal teachings, and the utter absence of anyone the Catholic Church wouldn't accept as her own (with Origen being the only wishy-washy one, but still never anathematized) prove it.
5. Finally, I don't see why you insist on leaving this thread separate from the RM even though that's obviously what we're discussing. By your own logic of "don't edit others' comments" I could fault you for adding the section header between comments. Why is that okay, but my edit was not? Read WP:REFACTOR and re-read WP:TPOC, carefully; the rearrangement I made and which you reverted was completely appropriate. It's called resectioning. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 21:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

You have avoided my question-- again-- as to why would it help anyone to exclude all links that are not Catholic? You have also avoided my whole disscuss about the WP:NPOV policy. Instead you spent your "ink" largely on unimportant side-issues. Are you really trying to discuss how POV applies here or just "score points"? tahc ^chat 02:18, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

1. This template already makes that exclusion. See my comments about letting hesychasm and theosis stay. At this point I'm not suggesting removal of any links. Yes, I changed my mind on that point after further review.
2. No, I haven't avoided discussion. I've already identified the relevant policy: WP:SUBPOV. There's nothing anti-NPOV about a SUBPOV. These so-called "side issues" aren't unimportant; they're direct responses to your own arguments. (Unless, of course, you're admitting that your arguments have been unimportant.) I'm not interested in discussing WP:NPOV further until you can illustrate how it supersedes WP:SUBPOV—you yourself have not actually cited any portion of NPOV; so far you've just name-dropped it as if that were supposed to end the argument. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 17:20, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

1. WP:NPOV as a policy applies to all parts of Wikipedia content-- namely to write "from a neutral point of view... representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias"-- including templates. The subsection WP:SUBPOV is merely a partial exception for some articles and is hence called "Articles whose subject is a POV".

2. Even if the partial exception WP:NPOV was about templates too-- you need to be able to address all of the POV policy. You cannot ignore the parts I bring up just because they don't help your view. The requirements of WP:NPOV are not met by this navbox.

3. You seem to be saying that since the Hesychasm and Theosis (Eastern Orthodox theology) articles include Catholic viewpoints somewhere in the articles, the best label for the template that includes them is (still) "Catholic mysticism"-- but you give no reason for this option.

4. While could claim a template on "Catholic mysticism" could or should retain these Eastern Orthodox items-- someone else will certainly come along and remove them from any template called "Catholic mysticism". We would then have to either let them stay removed-- or change the template back to "Christian mysticism" to explain why they belong. If they are removed then you still have a template matching your original opinion-- and you still give no reason for this option either. tahc ^chat 18:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

1. My only response to this is that you're exhibiting classic WP:WIKILAWYERING behavior. So what it only mentions articles explicitly? The spirit of WP:SUBPOV still applies to templates.
2. You haven't brought up any specific parts. In your own words, you have given no reason for your claims. You can't namedrop a long policy that doesn't directly address the situation, not cite any specific provisions therein, and then tell me I haven't addressed your concerns. The policy I cited, on the other hand, is short and entirely self-explanatory. So, I'm all ears.
3. Because hesychasm and theosis (especially hesychasm) was a controversy in which the Catholic Church and its mystics were involved. Theosis' "Western attitudes" section is mostly about Catholic views, and hesychasm's "Roman Catholic views" section is quite substantial.
4. Then their objection would be unfounded, since each article addresses its subject within the context of Catholicism. Non sequitur that we'd have to change the name back. You have given no reason for this frankly ridiculous claim. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 23:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll give you a perfect illustration of why hesychasm and theosis should stay. Why does {{Eastern Christianity}} include a link to filioque in its theology section? Because of the filioque controversy, in which the Eastern churches were involved. Inclusion doesn't imply that any or all of them accepted it, but it was significant to the history of Eastern Xian theology, so it says. So too with the links to hesychasm and theosis, which have significant controversies or theological attention paid to them within Catholicism. Sure, not as significant as the filioque controversy, but then mysticism isn't the most historically important topic within Xianity in general, so it's proportional. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 23:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Catholic mysticism

Template:Catholic mysticism has been nominated for merging with Template:Christian mysticism. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.tahc ^chat 16:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

• Objection. However, it seems too late. Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes. If you go to that discussion, you will see the discussion end 24 July 2016. tahc ^chat 00:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Systematization

@Mauro Lanari: I guess this systematization is fine too. I can't really judge; my expertize is with Buddhism, and I came to this topic this time because of Plotinus, wondering what his method for theoria is (maybe you know more about that?). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Even I can't really judge: my experience is extensive, but not so much to be able to answer all questions that only now I'm reading here above. Maybe it's better to wait for the opinion of some other editor. BTW. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 19:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

You wanted to run fast in a topic which would require the opposite. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 11:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't notify you. I did some reading, and found that "passive asceticism" is about abstination etc., while "active asceticism" is about contemplative techniques. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:57, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

POV

I just removed this box from a page while too POV. I think there are, however, more than this single POV issue with this box. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Excessively tall image

The image is excessively tall, which causes the sidebar to take up a lot of space on articles where it displaces images and other templates. Is there not a more suitable image with square or landscape proportions? – Scyrme (talk) 15:27, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

@Scyrme, I'm finding myself agreeing with you. I'm tempted to remove the image entirely; other major sidebars have no image (see {{Human history}} & {{Medieval music sidebar}} or a very general/small image (see {{Philosophy sidebar}}). Aza24 (talk) 20:49, 2 August 2024 (UTC)