Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy

Eastern Orthodoxy WikiProject
General information Main project page talk Christianity project page talk Participants talk Project category talk Article requests/to-do talk Departments Assessment talk Notice board talk Outreach talk Templates {{Orthodoxy-stub}} {{WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy}} {{User WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy}}

Improving Orthodox Church in America Archdiocese of Canada

I have tried to improve the verifiability of Orthodox Church in America Archdiocese of Canada but have reached the limit of my expertise (or lack thereof). I would appreciate anyone who has more experience with the OCA in improving this article. ThermoBoard (talk) 12:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Russian Orthodoxy#Requested move 6 June 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Russian Orthodoxy#Requested move 6 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 22:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

The term "Glorification"

I have asked a question at Talk:Glorification#Split about the meaning or meanings of the term "Glorification" in Orthodox Christianity. Informed answers appreciated. jnestorius^(talk) 23:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Request for help: articles related to Trinity / Arianism / Nicaea need attention

Hello! A cry for help from a friendly Roman Catholic:

Over the past two years, a vast number of articles related to the Trinity, the Arian controversy, and 4th century Church history have been overhauled and/or bloated with material of a decidedly pro-Arian/anti-Trinitarian slant, including Homoousion, Arian controversy, and dozens more. The main user behind this transformation is AndriesvN, an extremely prolific Arian apologist who runs the blog revelationbyjesuschrist.com, one of whose stated purposes is to "oppose the Trinity doctrine." See his contributions for a sense of their scope and character.

While the user in question often adds serious content and cites legitimate scholarly works, it's consistently written with undue weight for his own viewpoint and in a polemical tone that fails to meet Wikipedia's Neutral POV principle, and often is improperly cited and/or mixed with original research from his blog. He's also shown himself averse to constructive criticism, as seen from his talk page.

While I've attempted to fix some of the more egregious revisions (e.g. those to Athanasius of Alexandria), as a Wikipedia rookie and full-time theology student I lack the bandwidth to revise and factcheck all the articles in question, and for this reason I'm appealing for your help, especially those of you with a background in the Church Fathers. I've also asked WikiProject Catholicism for help, as I figure this is a perfect opportunity to unite East and West in common cause. ;)

Your assistance with reviewing, revising and factchecking these articles is greatly appreciated. Thank you!

- HieronymusNatalis (talk) 08:53, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi

I can completely understand your frustration. Others have also complained about my edits. However, almost all the authors I quote are Catholics and Trinitarians. The story runs as follows: Over the centuries, the church has copied almost exclusively only 'orthodox' writings, the main author being Athanasius. Before the 20th century, scholars have based their explanation of the Arian Controversy largely on Athanasius. However, in the 20th century, a large store of 'new' ancient documents has become available. This has resulted in significant progress in research and the scholarly books of the last 50 years, beginning with people such as Simonetti, bishop RPC Hanson, and Lienhard, but later including archbishop Rowan Williams, Lewis Ayres and Anatolios, describe the Controversy very differently. All or most of these people are Catholics and Trinitarians. For example, Athanasius wrote and the church believed that Arius developed a new heresy opposing orthodoxy, that the anti-Nicenes in the rest of the century followed Arius, and that Alexander and Athanasius defended orthodoxy. But scholars now confirm that the orthodoxy, when the Controversy began, was subordination, that Arius was a conservative, that Alexander and Athanasius taught a Sabellian-like 'one Person' theology, and that Arius was really insignificant in the bigger scheme of things. In many respects the traditional account is the opposite of reality. The scholars I quote accept the revised version of the Controversy and remain Catholics and Trinitarians.

I understand your frustration and I also do not want to mislead people. I would propose that you select a single aspect on a single page where you believe I misstated the truth, the truth being represented by the writings of the scholars of the last 50 years and put that here so that other people may judge. If there are specific quotes you want to verify, I can provide you with (limited - copyright) scanned copies.

If you want to read something, I recommend the book by Lewis Ayres, Nicaea and its legacy, An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology, 2004. Ayres is a Catholic theologian and Professor of Catholic and Historical Theology at Durham University in the United Kingdom. AndriesvN (talk) 11:02, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi AndriesvN, thanks for the kind response. I'm not critiquing the works you're citing or even the content: "While the user in question often adds serious content and cites legitimate scholarly works, it's consistently written with undue weight for his own viewpoint and in a polemical tone that fails to meet Wikipedia's Neutral POV principle."

Explanation of Neutral POV: "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. The aim is to inform, not influence. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information and not to promote one particular point of view over another."

Granted, none of us here are neutral, neither you nor I nor anyone reading this, and even our interpretation of the "scholarly consensus" is going to be filtered through our own viewpoint. (On that note, I'd point out your claim that Arius's view was simply the "orthodoxy" of his day and Alexander and Athanasius as quasi-Sabellians clashes with e.g. Chadwick's The Early Church (Penguin, 1993, p.124ff) and Mark Edwards' essay on Nicaea in the Cambridge History of Christianity (2008, p.552-67), who both take a more nuanced view.)

None of this is to say your contributions should be suppressed, but simply that they be scrutinized and balanced out through the kind of critical review that's standard on Wikipedia. Which is precisely why the editing system exists: so that the interaction of our different viewpoints leads to a more objective and nuanced and less polemical article. And that's all I'm calling for in the above post: that the extensive additions you've made to articles be reviewed and revised by critical third parties as is the norm for all Wikipedia articles. - HieronymusNatalis (talk) 15:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

You imply that I am not neutral. If it is true, as I believe, that the Church had distorted the history of the Arian Controversy over many centuries to reflect the view of the eventual winner, and I attempt to present the true history, is that being biased?

You wrote: "I'd point out your claim that Arius's view was simply the "orthodoxy" of his day and Alexander and Athanasius as quasi-Sabellians clashes with e.g. Chadwick's The Early Church (Penguin, 1993, p.124ff) and Mark Edwards' essay on Nicaea in the Cambridge History of Christianity (2008, p.552-67), who both take a more nuanced view.)"

I have now read Edawards' chapter on Nicaea carefully and I would not say that Edwards is more nuanced. I'd say that he avoids the topic:

Similar to Athanasius, he discusses Arius’ extreme views in substantial detail, giving the impression that he is discussing the views of the Eusebians (the anti-Nicenes, misleadingly called 'Arians'). However, Edwards is vague about Alexander. The fun part of the Arian Controversy is precisely what the Nicenes believed (Alexander, Athanasius) and the fact that their theologies allowed them to ally with the Sabellians.

Nevertheless, Edwards confirms that the majority view, in contrast to Sabellius’ ‘one hypostasis’, was that the Son is a distinct hypostasis and that that is what Arius also believed. Alexander did not condemn Arius on that point but on Arius’ view that the Son was produced out of nothing, a view that the Eusebians did not share. Edwards says that Alexander thought that Arius denied the divinity of the Son

Edwards avoids Alexander’s theology but does say that Arius accused Alexander of Sabellianism and that the bishops who voted for Arius were particularly concerned with the threat of Sabellianism. Edawards further implies that Alexander described the Logos as “an effusion of the heart” and merely as an epiphenomenon or function of the Father.” Edwards here discusses the Nicene Creed but never mentions, as Hanson and Ayres do, that Alexander allied with the Sabellians at Nicaea.

So, I don’t think Edwards is impartial. He seems to be seeking for ways to defend the traditional view against the findings of the last 100 years. If you would like to communicate in more detail about Edwards' chapter, please email me as andries770@gmail.com. I will now also read year reference to Chadwick.

Regards AndriesvN (talk) 05:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I have now also worked through chapter 8 - Constantine and the Council of Nicaea - in Chadwick’s book. Given that it was first written about 60 years ago, it is amazingly up-to-date and insightful in many respects. However, if Edwards is vague concerning the theologies of Arius and Alexander, Chadwick does not address it at all. Chadwick discusses mostly only the events. But it is also easy to see how the scholarly view of the Controversy has shifted over the past 60 years. For that reason, despite the clear brilliance of the author, I would hesitate to quote from this book.

We must distinguish between scholars who made the Arian Controversy core to their studies and those with a wider interest. The latter group (‘Summary accounts’ according to Ayres or ‘Elementary textbooks’ according to Lienhard) typically complies with the traditional account. The first group is where one would expect to find development.

Concerning Wikipedia editing, it will be nice to have an independent arbiter to make the final edits. However, realizing that other people may and probably will destroy my work in an instant, I add ample quotes from recognized scholars in footnotes in the hope that future editors would at least read these quotes. However, you understand the implications and the emotions around this issue, causing a huge barrier to even the consideration of falsity in the traditional account. AndriesvN (talk) 04:25, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

You've repeatedly misrepresented Hanson, and even linked to your own website in the Sabellianism article. Arsenic-03 (talk) 15:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)