→Undue weight: Reading the article gave me a headache; it needs a radical pruning. |
→Undue weight: comment to LoveMonkey |
||
Line 124: | Line 124: | ||
:::::Thanks, [[User:BoBoMisiu|BoBoMisiu]], for your diagnosis. I think it is spot on. Given the obvious superiority of the article [[History of the Filioque controversy]], I think we can delete a big chunk of this over-big article. I think removing all references to Cleenewerck will result in an improved article, and I will be happy to help you also in de-romanidifying this article, which will give it a far less cranky tone. [[User:Rwflammang|Rwflammang]] ([[User talk:Rwflammang|talk]]) 21:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC) |
:::::Thanks, [[User:BoBoMisiu|BoBoMisiu]], for your diagnosis. I think it is spot on. Given the obvious superiority of the article [[History of the Filioque controversy]], I think we can delete a big chunk of this over-big article. I think removing all references to Cleenewerck will result in an improved article, and I will be happy to help you also in de-romanidifying this article, which will give it a far less cranky tone. [[User:Rwflammang|Rwflammang]] ([[User talk:Rwflammang|talk]]) 21:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC) |
||
::::::There is an enormous amount of sources that more-or-less duplicate almost identical content. For example, this article doesn't need primary Greek or Latin sources that are contained in scholarly secondary sources with translations. The article is not, in my opinion, {{tq|"count Catholic sources vs. Orthodox sources"}} but a source over-weight problem. I cleaned up quite a bit but there is still over 90 references not wrapped with citation templates – some are links with a title that will easily [[WP:LINKROT]]. There are over 250 cited works – an uninformed reader has no hope of understanding the basics, e.g. that there are two theologies and each has a different interpretation of the phrase. I have a fair understanding and I was left with a headache after reading this article. It has many good references and much good information, but it fails to just explain. It needs a radical pruning. –[[User:BoBoMisiu|BoBoMisiu]] ([[User talk:BoBoMisiu|talk]]) 20:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC) |
::::::There is an enormous amount of sources that more-or-less duplicate almost identical content. For example, this article doesn't need primary Greek or Latin sources that are contained in scholarly secondary sources with translations. The article is not, in my opinion, {{tq|"count Catholic sources vs. Orthodox sources"}} but a source over-weight problem. I cleaned up quite a bit but there is still over 90 references not wrapped with citation templates – some are links with a title that will easily [[WP:LINKROT]]. There are over 250 cited works – an uninformed reader has no hope of understanding the basics, e.g. that there are two theologies and each has a different interpretation of the phrase. I have a fair understanding and I was left with a headache after reading this article. It has many good references and much good information, but it fails to just explain. It needs a radical pruning. –[[User:BoBoMisiu|BoBoMisiu]] ([[User talk:BoBoMisiu|talk]]) 20:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC) |
||
:::::::{{ping|LoveMonkey}} look carefully at what I did before you trash the sources. –[[User:BoBoMisiu|BoBoMisiu]] ([[User talk:BoBoMisiu|talk]]) 21:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:15, 12 November 2015
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The grammar of this article is unreadable.
This article is a mixture of run on sentences and incomplete sentences. It needs to be fixed and is too long and technical for a casual editor to fix. If there is no fix I would advocate for implementing WP:TNT CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- Responsibility for the most recent incomprehensible grammar and incomplete sentences rests on a Russian editor who is making contributions in machine-made (Google Translate) English. Earlier incomplete sentences, such as those that began and ended with an "As" clause, but which now have perhaps all been cleaned up by other editors, were the work of someone whose first language must, like Russian, have no definite article, but whose English has over the years improved from living in the eastern United States. They are both very active, although one proclaims himself retired. Even if you were to start all over again, they would continue to edit. Would you be so good as to do some work on the text? Help is certainly needed. Esoglou (talk) 18:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- I will attempt to help, but I cannot decipher the meaning of much of the content to which I refer, so my only option would be to delete it. That is why I referred to WP:TNT as I believe that most editors cannot read this article and therefore cannot improve it. I made this request to hopefully avoid WP:TNT. Can I ask, why someone is contributing to english wikipedia with "machine-made (Google Translate) English"? It seems that they should be contributing to the wikipedia for the language which they speak. The Google Translated sections are, in my opinion, causing more harm than they are doing good. CombatWombat42 (talk) 19:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- I did recommend to the Russian editor to contribute instead to the Russian Wikipedia, also because of his inability to comprehend and provide reliable secondary sources in English. Deleting the incomprehensible does seem to be an option, but I don't dare do it myself. Perhaps give him until tomorrow to respond to the requests for clarification and then, if there still is no other solution, begin to delete, a bit at a time, whatever cannot be understood. Esoglou (talk) 20:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- Post here a bit at a time the content that is contentious so that we can re-word it. The Russian editor here is the one that works on the Russian Wiki and did this article there. They have a very good understanding of Christian history and Orthodox theology. Instead of slinging mud lets post the content and start rewriting it. I would ask the Russian editor to post to the talkpage but his issue is that Esoglou is edit warring against him and that when one editor is engaging in WP:OWN then it is almost impossible to get consensus first. 20:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoveMonkey (talk • contribs)
- Unsourced material, as you know, may be deleted and remains deleted until support for its statements is presented as found in published reliable sources accessible to English speakers. Much of the article can legitimately be deleted for lack both of such reliable sources and of article text intelligible to speakers of English. As each bit is deleted, one or more editors can try to restore it in intelligible English and with sources that correspond to WP:NONENG. So if CombatWombat42 wishes, he may go ahead at any time. He may prefer to deal first with the off-topic parts of the recently added discussion of the 381 and 382 Councils of Constantinople. Esoglou (talk) 13:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- I did recommend to the Russian editor to contribute instead to the Russian Wikipedia, also because of his inability to comprehend and provide reliable secondary sources in English. Deleting the incomprehensible does seem to be an option, but I don't dare do it myself. Perhaps give him until tomorrow to respond to the requests for clarification and then, if there still is no other solution, begin to delete, a bit at a time, whatever cannot be understood. Esoglou (talk) 20:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- I will attempt to help, but I cannot decipher the meaning of much of the content to which I refer, so my only option would be to delete it. That is why I referred to WP:TNT as I believe that most editors cannot read this article and therefore cannot improve it. I made this request to hopefully avoid WP:TNT. Can I ask, why someone is contributing to english wikipedia with "machine-made (Google Translate) English"? It seems that they should be contributing to the wikipedia for the language which they speak. The Google Translated sections are, in my opinion, causing more harm than they are doing good. CombatWombat42 (talk) 19:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Councils of Constantinople in 381 and 382
Since there is no certainty that the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, to which Filioque was added, was composed at any of these councils, there is no reason to give such detailed information here about either the 381 council, or the two councils held in 382, one in Rome, the other in Constantinople, or the synodical letter of the 382 Council of Constantinople. It is enough to give information about the Creed and about the contested belief that it was composed at the 381 council. Agreed? (This is apart from the question of the unintelligibility of the material, which is another reason for deleting it.) Esoglou (talk) 13:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- Do you want to delete the information about the message of the Council 382 years for another reason. In the Catholic literature, wrote that in Rome learned of the Creed only 451. But it is not. In a message to the Council, the 382 just says that faith and documents were published by the Council of Constantinople, in Rome can read them in Rome sent three people to do this. In the 4th century in Rome at the Creed without the Filioque, and used it before the 11th century. But there are works of Augustine, who lived in Africa in the 4-5 century. In his works, the Spirit proceeds from the Father: "printsipaliter" and from the Son: "media". Goths and Franks when added Filioque at 7 and 8 th century did not make any difference. They have exactly the same way the Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son. Therefore, the insertion was made Filioque into the Creed. Necessary to search for the cause of the Filioque. For this purpose, 382 year changed to 451 years. And they say that in the West have used only the books of Augustine. But this is not true. The Creed was already known in the West. Augustine wrote his books later. Terminology Augustine had a local character in the 5th century, it is only North Africa. At 6 - 7 century Christians of Africa have moved to Spain because of the Arab invasion. In Spain, in the 7th century would have added the Filioque, but no difference in the procession, which was in Augustine. After that, pressed by the Arabs, the Spaniards came to the kingdom of the Franks. Franks took over the Filioque from the Spaniards in the 8th century.In the 11th century, Pope at the coronation of the King of the Franks introduces Filioque.Wlbw68 (talk) 01:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- You seem to to have misinterpreted "accepted" as meaning "learned of". Rome, not being that far from Constantinople, learned of the 381 eastern council in 381: it didn't have to wait until it received a letter sent in 382 by a different council. There is no clear evidence that the 381 council decreed the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, the first mention of which appears 70 years later. The letter that the 382 council sent to Rome certainly did not mention it: it summarized the faith professed by the eastern bishops as: "According to this faith there is one Godhead, Power and Substance of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost; the dignity being equal, and the majesty being equal in three perfect essences and three perfect persons".
- Thank you for stating with regard to Augustine: "In his works, the Spirit proceeds from the Father 'principaliter' and from the Son 'media'" (emphasis added). Esoglou (talk) 07:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
This page is riddled with WP:NOT#FORUM, WP:NOTSOAPBOX, and WP:ORIGINAL issues.
I can barely read this article, but what I can read has issues with WP:NOT#FORUM, WP:NOTSOAPBOX, and WP:ORIGINAL CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- You are taking this all a bit too personal don't you think? Post here what theological studies you've read and that you would like to contribute to the article and or how what is already in the article does not confirm and or comes in conflict with yours sources. If not then your soapboxing and your here to pick a fight. LoveMonkey 20:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- I am very upset. Here are removed entire sections.(Esoglou) For example section Cappadocians. My text was deleted. It's just not fair. Prior to that were removed two of my quotes. This is a quote Gregory the Theologian and Blachernae Council (1285 year) decision. No sense to write in Wikipedia. Now the text distorts the situation. Wlbw68 (talk) 04:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- On the Cappadocians, the English Wikipedia requires intelligible statements based on sources that are intelligible for English speakers. The Blachernae Council's condemnation was of Bekkos ("the same"), who, like his supporters, was a Greek; presenting it as a condemnation by "the Greeks" of the West was WP:SYNTH. Esoglou (talk) 06:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
The Greeks set out his view on the Filioque on Blachernae Council. This is very important. Why did you deleted a quote Gregory the Theologian? Cappadocian doctrine was set forth and this quote and it was all very clear. You specifically delete the doctrine of the Cappadocians and information that Creed was based on the doctrine of the Cappadocians. The article does not pose the question of the Filioque, it is one-sided. Your actions are dishonest. The article is spoiled.Wlbw68 (talk) 07:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- If it is/was spoiled, it became so when additions in incomprehensible English were added. No intelligibly sourced quotation of Gregory of Nazianzus has been deleted. No intelligibly sourced doctrine of the Cappadocian Fathers was deleted. You surely know that only edits based on reliable sources are admitted to Wikipedia. The article is about the Filioque and references are now made to statements by the Cappadocian Fathers that reliable sources (not just a Wikipedia editor) say are related to the Filioque question. As for the quotation you gave as from the Blachernae Council, look it up and you will find that it was a condemnation of certain Greeks by other Greeks. Did you fail to notice that the whole document is headed Ἔκθεσις τοῦ Τόμου τῆς πίστεως κατὰ τοῦ Βέκκου (Exposition of the Tomos of the faith against Beccus), and that your quotation, given under number 4 (δ') in the document begins with the words Τοῖς αὐτοῖς (To the same), referring to Ἰωάννῃ τῷ Βέκκῳ καὶ τοῖς ἐξακουλοῦσιν αὐτῷ (To John Beccus and to those who follow him), mentioned under number 1 (α')? It is of these that the council said that it "cut them off from the membership of the Orthodox, and we banish them from the flock of the Church of God": you surely don't think that the Blachernae Council felt that until that moment the Latins were members of the Orthodox and part of the flock of the Church of God! If you want to say that "the Greeks" rejected the agreement made at the Second Council of Lyon, do so, but you must cite for it a reliable source that says so. There are many such sources. Use them. Esoglou (talk) 11:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Personally, you do not understand the meaning of quotations and so delete them. I understand you correctly, is not it? But the case is different. You understand that the quote Gregory the Theologian against the Filioque and so it is removed.
Here it is: "But Monarchy(μοναρχία) is that which we hold in honour. It is, however, a Monarchy that is not limited to one Person, for it is possible for Unity if at variance with itself to come into a condition of plurality; but one which is made of an equality of Nature and a Union of mind, and an identity of motion, and a convergence of its elements to unity—a thing which is impossible to the created nature—so that though numerically distinct there is no severance of Essence. Therefore Unity having from all eternity arrived by motion at Duality, found its rest in Trinity. This is what we mean by Father and Son and Holy Ghost. The Father is the Begetter and the Emitter; The Son is the Begotten, and the Holy Ghost the Emission. Therefore let us confine ourselves within our limits, and speak of the Unbegotten and the Begotten and That which proceeds from the Father, as somewhere God the Word Himself saith." Gregory the Theologian Oration XXIX. The Third Theological Oration. On the Son. Λόγος κθ΄. Θεολογικός Γ', Περὶ Υἱοῦ. Συγγραφέας: Γρηγόριος Ναζιανζηνός
God the Father is the "only the beginning" or "Monarch» (μόν-αρχος) in the Trinity for the Son and the Spirit.
The same is the second quote.
The Greeks refused decisions from the Second Council of Lyon and the Council of Blachernae in 1285 decided: "To the same, who affirm that the Paraclete, which is from the Father, has its existence through the Son and from the Son, and who again propose as proof the phrase "the Spirit exists through the Son and from the Son." In certain texts [of the Fathers], the phrase denotes the Spirit's shining forth and manifestation. Indeed, the very Paraclete shines form and is manifest eternally through the Son, in the same way that light shines forth and is manifest through the intermediary of the sun's rays; it further denotes the bestowing, giving, and sending of the Spirit to us. It does not, however, mean that it subsists through the Son and from the Son, and that it receives its being through Him and from Him. For this would mean that the Spirit has the Son as cause and source (exactly as it has the Father), not to say that it has its cause and source more so from the Son than from the Father; for it is said that that from which existence is derived likewise is believed to enrich the source and to be the cause of being. To those who believe and say such things, we pronounce the above resolution and judgment, we cut them off from the membership of the Orthodox, and we banish them from the flock of the Church of God."The Council of Blachernae in 1285ΡG 142 "Ἔκθεσις τοῦ Τόμου τῆς πίστεως κατὰ τοῦ Βέκκου" col. 240 δ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wlbw68 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC) Wlbw68 (talk) 18:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- What does the first quotation say about Filioque? Does it say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son or does it deny that by saying the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone? It says neither. So it says nothing about Filioque. You imagine that the expression μοναρχία contradicts Filioque, but that is just your (mistaken) opinion. Read the paragraph in the article that begins with "The monarchy of the Father is a doctrine upheld not only by ..." and learn. And you should know that arguing for a particular interpretation (your own) of a primary source is synthesis. Wikipedia allows only what is explicitly stated in the source, not original research.
- Тhe first quotation say that the Father is Monarchy. Monarchy is Mon (μονο) + archy(αρχος), μονο = one,
αρχος = source. The Father is one sourse. But the Sun is not sourse. Then Gregory says: "The Father is the Begetter and the Emitter; The Son is the Begotten, and the Holy Ghost the Emission. Therefore let us confine ourselves within our limits, and speak of the Unbegotten and the Begotten and That which proceeds from the Father, as somewhere God the Word Himself saith.(even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father - Ioannem 15:26)"
- The Holy Ghost proceeds only from the Father. Wlbw68 (talk) 16:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- It is your opinion that the Father's monarchy means that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. Siecienski and Moltmann say that upholders of Filioque also uphold the monarchy of the Father. Siecienski and Moltmann are reliable source for Wikipedia. You are not. Esoglou (talk) 08:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- Theodoret: Si vero tanquam ex Filio, aut per Filium existentiam habere , hoc ut impium blasphemum rejiciemus. habeat. Credimus enim domino dicente: Si vero tanquam ex Filio, aut per Filium existentiam habere , hoc ut impium blasphemum rejiciemus. habeat. Credimus enim domino dicente: Spiritus que ex Patre procedit sed et sacratistimo Paulo dicente fimiliter: "Nos autem non spiritum mundi accepimus, sed Spiritum, qui ex Deo patre est"
Cyril says: Procedit unim ex Deo et Patre Spiritus sancti secundum salvatoris vocem. http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/04z/z_1692-1769__Mansi_JD__Sacrorum_Conciliorum_Nova_Amplissima_Collectio_Vol_005__LT.pdf.html col. 123 Wlbw68 (talk) 16:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- This, as I have already had to tell you, is the English Wikipedia, not the Russian nor the Latin. Either present an English translation or take to the Latin Wikipedia your quotation of Theodoret, whose writings against Cyril of Alexandria, such as what you quote, were condemned by the Second Council of Constantinople in 553. Yet you omit from your quotations from Mansi 5, column 123, important parts of Cyril's response to Theodoret, in which he says: "Erat enim et est eius Spiritus, sicuti certe et Patris", which means: "For he (the Spirit) was and is his (the Son's) Spirit, as he certainly is also the Father's." And you took out of context the quotation that you do give (mistyping "enim" as "unim") of Cyril's response. Without a break, that quotation continues: "sed non est alienus a Filio: omnia enim habet cum patre, et hoc pie edocuit, dicens de Spiritu sancto: Omnia quaecumque habet Pater, mea sunt. Propterea dixi vobis, quia de meo accipiet, et annuntiabit vobis", which means: "But he (the Spirit) is not unassociated with the Son, for the Son has everything in common with the Father: he himself taught this, when he said of the Holy Spirit: 'All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you'." Cyril explicitly applied that phrase from John 16:15 to the Holy Spirit ("when he said of the Holy Spirit"). Discussing whether Cyril was nevertheless saying that the "everything" that the Son has in common with the Father and receives from the Father does not, however, include being that from which the Holy Spirit proceeds, as you believe, would be making this a forum. That is precisely what CombatWombat42 is rightly complaining of. Esoglou (talk) 08:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- Council did not condemn the objection of Theodoret and Cyril answer to the ninth anathema. You do read the papers Council? - No, you have not read. Council documents not in English translation. They are in Greek, Latin, Russian. Theodoret and Cyril professed that the Spirit proceeds only the Father. The Spirit does not get the essence of the Son. He has being from the Father. You specifically delete all of the theme testifies for the fact that the Spirit proceeds from the Father only. For this purpose, you have removed from the topic quote Gregory the Theologian. LoveMonkey was right when he wrote that article is not objective and is incorrect. All the best to you.Wlbw68 (talk) 13:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- I hope I am correctly interpreting your hard to understand English.
- Cannot you read Latin or Greek? Your quotation from Mansi comes from Theodoret's responses to Cyril's twelve chapters or anathemas (and surely you realize that the ninth is part of the twelve) against Nestorius and Cyril's counter-responses, all given in Mansi, beginning at columns 85-86: Κυρίλλου Ἀρχιεπισκόπου Ἀλεξανδρείας πρὸς τοὺς τολμῶντας συνηγορεῖν τοῖς Νεστορίου δόγμασιν, ὧς ὀρθῶς ἔχουσι, κεφάλαια ιβ' /Cyrilli Archiepiscopi Alexandriae, adversus eos, qui audent Nestoris dogmatibus, ut rectis, patrocinari capita duodecim
- What makes you think there is no English translation of the acts of the Second Council of Constantinople, and that it is available only in Greek, Latin and Russian? Take Schaff's English translation, which has been available for well over a century. It can be consulted also here and here. A more modern translation is also available. The council's Sentence and Anathemas are also given in a translation perhaps easier to understand here.
- The Sentence of the Synod includes the phrase "those things which Theodoret impiously wrote against the right faith, and against the Twelve Chapters of the holy Cyril" (end of page 310 of Schaff). The thirteenth chapter or canon or anathema of the council says (in the Schaff translation): "IF anyone shall defend the impious writings of Theodoret, directed against the true faith and against the first holy Synod of Ephesus and against St. Cyril and his XII. Anathemas, and [defends] that which he has written in defence of the impious Theodore and Nestorius, and of others having the same opinions as the aforesaid Theodore and Nestorius, if anyone admits them or their impiety, or shall give the name of impious to the doctors of the Church who profess the hypostatic union of God the Word; and if anyone does not anathematize these impious writings and those who have held or who hold these sentiments, and all those who have written contrary to the true faith or against St. Cyril and his XII. Chapters, and who die in their impiety: let him be anathema." Esoglou (talk) 19:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- The second quotation says that Beccus and his followers were wrong in claiming that Filioque is proved by the Fathers' statement that "the Spirit exists through the Son and from the Son"; it does not say that "the Greeks refused decisions from the Second Council of Lyon". Just cite some source - any reliable source - that does say the Greeks rejected the declarations of Lyon II about Filioque. Esoglou (talk) 19:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Unreadable grammar
- I can't really follow the threading of this discussion which is part of the problem. Another problem is this should be discussed in the section "The grammar of this article is unreadable." Finally Wlbw68, you seem to be taking edits to the article personally, I do not intend it that way. I have done my best to clean up grammar but some of it is so unparseable it looks like a jumble of words to me, a native speaker of english, therefore I believe it is well withing wikipedia policy to delete it and ask for it to be written in a way most people can understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CombatWombat42 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- Strongly agree with CombatWombat42, this article is muddled by incomprehensible grammar, clearly biased edits, aggressive arguing and poor threading in the talk page. ~ Joga Luce(t)(c) 08:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Someone (CombatWarrior? Joga inex Luce? another editor?) should simply act on CombatWarrior's suggestion: delete unreadable passages, a few at a time, and let anyone who supports what he or she thinks they mean restore them after rephrasing them in intelligible English. Having been involved in the discussion about the content, I don't want to do that myself. Esoglou (talk) 13:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Strongly agree with CombatWombat42, this article is muddled by incomprehensible grammar, clearly biased edits, aggressive arguing and poor threading in the talk page. ~ Joga Luce(t)(c) 08:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Icon
I don't think that the illustration for this topic is appropriate. Rublev's icon illustrates an event from the Old Testament. It is a stretch to conclude that the angels in the painting are related to the "filioque" controversy. Guastafeste (talk) 14:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree. The beautiful icon Rublev's Trinity adds nothing to the substance of the article. The article is about the nature, meaning, purpose, history and implications of the Filioque Clause. A more apposite image may be the image of Benedict and Bartholomew holding hands at a meeting where they recited the creed together - without the Filioque Clause in the effort to move to repair the great schism.
Philip Barrington (talk) 03:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC) May 16, 2015. Philip Barrington.
- I removed the image from the article. It really has no connection to the Filioque controversy. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Undue weight
As this currently 42 page long article stands, it has 3 pages on the current Western positions, and 7 pages on the current Eastern position. Is this nuts? Last time I checked, this was a Western doctrine, and not an Eastern one. Or does anyone think that the Incarnation of Christ article could be improved by a seven page digression on the Islamic position? Rwflammang (talk) 23:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
- Balance is called for, yes. But the real point is that it is a western doctrine, and not an eastern one. It was divisive, and had consequences that helped cause the separation of east and west. Surely balance calls for adequate coverage of the divergent views (and even the ones that can be held in common). If the article is out of balance, I see nothing to prevent it being edited to bring it into balance. But page count is not the base metric I would use. The real measure lies in what it takes to give a complete coverage. A balanced view comes from understanding diverse views. When the article does that, it's good. If it doesn't now, let's edit. Evensteven (talk) 02:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- And yet the doctrine of purgatory is also divisive, yet I do not see that the Protestant section of that article is twice as long as the Catholic section. The Incarnation of Christ is also a divisive doctrine, still I don't see an Islamic section which is twice as long as the Christian section. The page count needed to give a complete coverage of a doctrine for a church which does not believe in it should be very short indeed. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, and not an argument for or against a theological doctrine. Rwflammang (talk) 19:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- You're just arguing size in a vacuum with no facts to back them up. Perhaps you should count Catholic sources vs. Orthodox sources and see how due/undue the weight really is, rather than just making vague accusations? Elizium23 (talk) 19:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- There is absolutely nothing vague about my accusations. This article sucks because it goes on and on about the Eastern views of this Western doctrine, without ever convincing the reader of the relevance of such views. I am not complaining about source counts, but page counts, and that is because page counts are most definitely the problem here. Rwflammang (talk) 22:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- You're just arguing size in a vacuum with no facts to back them up. Perhaps you should count Catholic sources vs. Orthodox sources and see how due/undue the weight really is, rather than just making vague accusations? Elizium23 (talk) 19:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- I render no opinion about the current state of the article. I do render the opinion that page count is not the proper metric. A section needs to be as long as it needs to be in order to cover its area. Filioque has many implications, and it is not easy to describe either Catholic or Orthodox positions (in and of themselves) much less to cover their responses to the others' positions. I will argue that the proper length is that length that covers the topic, not some artificial quantity of words. If we can find ways of saying the same things more concisely, that's a job to do just by editing, and well and good. If there is anything POV in there, including arguments for or against, it needs to be neutralized. And solid proper coverage of Catholic and Orthodox positions in and of themselves ought to do much to diminish any need for "point / counterpoint" (in other words, arguments). Once one understands the primary issues, it takes much less effort to contrast the positions. And I am very much in favor of minimizing the infamous "debate/argument/controversy/belief/opposition" contention that abounds both here on WP and in the world in general. The very nature of that continual dissent and scoring of points drains the content of the writing, whereas we are trying to be informative. No one is informed by an argument, except to the idea that people like to fight. It is my opinion that this business of page count is a bit of score-keeping. I would rather that we focus on the article's information, keeping it neutral, presenting a mass of information as concisely as possible. For there is little known in the west about Orthodoxy in general, making that job all the more difficult. Difficult, maybe, but that doesn't necessarily mean it needs to take up more room for that reason. All the writing in the article should be kept to the same standards of brevity, and that should be possible. But nothing should be suppressed just because someone doesn't want to hear it. I think we have plenty of WP guidelines to provide the standards we need, including undue weight. However, I will not agree that weight ought to measured by page count. Rwflammang, I have yet to hear what you would like to do to improve the article. Let's see some edits. Or let's hear (here) about some passage(s) that you feel throw things out of balance. (What to cut? What is argumentative? What is wordy?) Pick the spots and point out their flaws. Then we'll have something to work on. Evensteven (talk) 21:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- One more thing. It is not doctrines that are so divisive. It is people. Let us do what we can to work together despite having different opinions, and express that attitude in the article, and then we will help to show that it is normal for people to have different opinions, but that they need not divide themselves over them. I think that would also be a useful piece of information to reveal to those who don't understand it. Evensteven (talk) 21:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Rwflammang, Evensteven, and Elizium23: I think Filioque § Summary should just be in a good lede. ... and a beginning at trimming the history out of this article. Moreover, there is a History of the Filioque controversy that should contain most of the content instead of this article.
- There is too little political background, e.g. Michael III the Drunkard's influence over the church and uncanonical deposition by an enraged Michael of the legitimate Patriarch Ignatius I of Constantinople (ultimately for not giving communion to Michael's drinking buddy who had seduced a relative) and the uncanonical replacement with Patriarch Photios I of Constantinople, who was already a great layman who studied at Abbasid Bagdad. Photios had specific practical reasons to argue about papal authority, i.e. that the papacy has no authority to tell Photios that his appointment was clearly uncanonical – since Photios could not argue that his appointment was in any way canonical – Photios needed to legitimize himself. Photios died in union with the papacy but left a legacy of a culturally anti-Latin theological rationale, that was used by a then culturally and linguistically homogenous (since the 7th century Muslim conquests) Byzantine monastic hierarchy from within a geographically much smaller Eastern Roman Empire, of anything that deviated from standard Byzantine ideas in later centuries to rationalize schism and accept imposition of caesaropapism.
- I agree with Evensteven that
"solid proper coverage of Catholic and Orthodox positions in and of themselves ought to do much [...] Once one understands the primary issues, it takes much less effort to contrast the positions"
; in this and the history article.
- I agree with Evensteven that
- Removing the content by Cleenewerck, who is in my opinion a questionable WP:SELFPUBLISHED WP:FRINGE author (see "The catholic Church as a hologram" in the referenced work His broken body talk and was involved with a pseudo-state with "sort of a camouflage passport" talk), and content sourced from geocities etc.; reducing the extensive quotes in references from websites. E.g. romanity.org which seems questionable to me – it includes pages such as "Examples of the science of the ethnic cleaning of Roman history and a vision of the future United States of Franco-Romania" which is fringe revisionist history about such things as "the real name of France is Franco-Romania. This should be the name of not only of United Europe, but also of her descendants in the Americas, Australia and New Zealand. So this reality should give us The Real United States of Franco-Romania with [...] one united currency." Also on the same page, "an electrical short circuit between the blood system [...] and the spinal fluid" causes certain behaviors. Yes, those are the kinds of authors that populate this article and should be removed. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 03:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC); modified 03:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, BoBoMisiu, for your diagnosis. I think it is spot on. Given the obvious superiority of the article History of the Filioque controversy, I think we can delete a big chunk of this over-big article. I think removing all references to Cleenewerck will result in an improved article, and I will be happy to help you also in de-romanidifying this article, which will give it a far less cranky tone. Rwflammang (talk) 21:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- There is an enormous amount of sources that more-or-less duplicate almost identical content. For example, this article doesn't need primary Greek or Latin sources that are contained in scholarly secondary sources with translations. The article is not, in my opinion,
"count Catholic sources vs. Orthodox sources"
but a source over-weight problem. I cleaned up quite a bit but there is still over 90 references not wrapped with citation templates – some are links with a title that will easily WP:LINKROT. There are over 250 cited works – an uninformed reader has no hope of understanding the basics, e.g. that there are two theologies and each has a different interpretation of the phrase. I have a fair understanding and I was left with a headache after reading this article. It has many good references and much good information, but it fails to just explain. It needs a radical pruning. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 20:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)- @LoveMonkey: look carefully at what I did before you trash the sources. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 21:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
- There is an enormous amount of sources that more-or-less duplicate almost identical content. For example, this article doesn't need primary Greek or Latin sources that are contained in scholarly secondary sources with translations. The article is not, in my opinion,
- Thanks, BoBoMisiu, for your diagnosis. I think it is spot on. Given the obvious superiority of the article History of the Filioque controversy, I think we can delete a big chunk of this over-big article. I think removing all references to Cleenewerck will result in an improved article, and I will be happy to help you also in de-romanidifying this article, which will give it a far less cranky tone. Rwflammang (talk) 21:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)