Talk:Arius/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Thalia

I see this: "Among the few remaining works credited to him are his letter to Alexander of Alexandria, his letter to Eusebius, and Thalia, a popularized work combining prose and verse." Do we have a link to the Thalia? Someone present a link to it because I haven't been able to find it (other than commentary by Athanasius et al on it, which is not the same). If this is not true, and we do not have copies of the Thalia, then this needs to be changed. 24.247.157.122 23:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the statement might be misleading to some who reading: "Among the few REMAINING works credited to him" suppose that the original manuscripts remain. This is not true. (However, are there ANY original manuscripts of ANY ante-nicene Father?) The works only "remain" as copies which many researchers and historians consider as "preserving" then. For example Harnak says: "The fragments of the Thalia and the two letters of Arius which have been preserved are amongst the most important sources". But when he says that he is not talking about manuscripts written by Arius but about copies of these texts that are found in various dialogs and criticisms. This is a bit like the words of Celsus. We can reconstruct a great deal of his anti-Christian writings by editing them from the work Contra Celsus. In the case of Arius, much of the commentary by Athanasius is considered skewed and biased. However, one substantial section is considered by most historians to be an honest and relatively complete quote. That commentary is the source of what remains of the Thalia. The letters of Arius are also quoted by others and are considered genuine. --Anon 64 02:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

To simplify this we should simply say 'Athanasius (Arius' opponent's) rendition of the Thalia'. 24.247.157.122 23:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, that does not seem simpler. It is wordier. But the more important question is, "Is it more accurate?" (we could work on wordiness later). It doesn't seem to be more accurate according to historians. They do not describe it as the "rendition" of anyone. They believe that the non-fragmentary parts are accurate transcriptions or recordings of Arius' writing.

I should also point out that the we would have to use similar complex and confusing wording with every quote because the problem is not just Thalia but all sources.

It appears to me that nearly every one of the concerns you have raised deal with the problem that there are no original manuscripts and that all we know of Arius springs from the writings of his adversaries. This is the point of the caveat section called "Historical Sources". If this section is not sufficiently strong enough or worded correctly, perhaps that is where you should focus your attention. This will produce a much cleaner article than quoting a source and then denying that source immediately every time we want to say something about Arius. However, you must keep even that caveat clear of POV. It is ok to say, for example: All of our information about Arius is suspect because it comes from the writings of his opponents." but you should also provide the other side of the coin: "Most historians believe that some of his works, particularly his letters and fragments of Thalia have been reported correctly and these are the sources that this biography relies upon". This lets the reader know both sides and decide how they want to take it.

I am curious -- do you agree that with the next comment that this article inherits too much anti-Arius bias from the sources? Or do you think that it is, as someone else has said "Too Anti-Catholic"? Frankly, I do not see it as either anti-arius or anti-catholic, but it is a little bit pro-arius. If you are curious about my POV, I think both Arius and his opponents were wrong. I also think Arius was not the originator of his ideas but was, instead, the first vocal, eloquent and somewhat systematic expounder upon the concepts. Hope that helps you see that I do not carry the "orthodox" biases that you have imagined of me. I just want wikipedia to be a good encyclopedia. --Anon 64 13:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me this page needs a little balance. I think this article inherits too much anti-Arius bias from the sources. While his ideas may not have carried the day, this is not the Encyclopedia of Orthodox Christianity :) Gwimpey 01:41, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, as the person who wrote the original article, I invite you to make the necessary changes to make this article more NPOV. (About the only item I thought needed to be included was the account of his death -- which, while horrific & disgusting, was infamous, & omitting it would be in a way, bowing to another POV.) -- llywrch 02:30, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

There are many, many works from this time period that only survive in quotations of others. The text has been fairly well established by G.C. Stead (Journal of Theological Studies (New Series) 29 (1978), pp. 20-52. By comparing Athanasius verison with snippets from others and different metrical patterns, he found that Athanasius' version was not far off. There's no reason to object to saying that Thalia is a "remaining" work; obviously the original manuscript is gone.

Arianism & Islam

I've observed that scholars hold the view that Muhammad's christology is quite identical to that of Arius. Thus it is actually possible to regard Islam as a direct or indirect offspring of Arianism. I'm not able to substantiate this information for the time being, but would like to put some attention to the matter. --Xact (talk) 10:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

That would be a really good question to put on the Islam / Muhammad discussion page. 134.215.248.63 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC).

Let's see, a rational person in 600 begins by noticing that the Trinity is a crazy tackon to an otherwise robust religion. Begins from that point, and adds on Quran. It could work. You would definitely appeal to people who are disgusted by Trinitarianism. 69.51.152.180 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC).

Plagiarism, boredomism

Is it me or does it seem like people keep copying and pasting/plagiarising from excessively dry and boring copy in some text books? Is there something wrong with writing copy that is original and fresh, while accurate? 24.247.157.122 00:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Additionally; someone keeps copying and pasting third party material (Carroll), one point of view in this hot debate; we have access to original materials, why are we posting some third party's original material when we have access to the same original texts as these 'scholars'? 24.247.157.122 05:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you might be new here, so I am including some references to Wikipedia policies. If you do not like these policies you should seek to change them

There is nothing wrong with quoting a source like Carroll. Wikipedia expressly forbids original research by policy. WP:NOR states: "Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position." For that reason we must use other sources for information. This is appropriate and when we use other sources we must cite them per WP:CITE. To you this may be plagiarism but that is how it is on Wikipedia. But you are free to cite better sources!

Furthermore this is not a hot "debate" either. You are simply removing content without justification. You have not debated. You have not offered any reason for your changes. You are just reverting. Repeatedly deleting content without justification is very little more than vandalism WP:VAN.

Again, concerns of plagiarism are NOT Valid for edits. A concern about copyright might be (it would depend upon whether copyright was actually violated). See WP:C. A concern that the content is incorrect would be valid. Maybe you feel that somehow the words you are deleting are wrong. Then describe what is wrong with them and show your case. A concern about non-neutral point of view is also valid. Not sure how you can have a neutral point of view since we have NO INFORMATION about Arius except that which comes from his enemies, but if you have such a complaint then make it and SHOW YOUR SOURCES. Your information must be verifiable per WP:V and from reliable published sources per WP:RS. The policy on Wikipedia is that if there is a problem with point of view, both views are given space to provide balance. See WP:POV. If your concern is about the style of writing, well I have already pointed out that the style is a bit dense and needs re-working, but that should not be at the cost of DELETING information. 64.178.145.150 13:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Conversation on Carroll Cites

So then, you have 'he is described as tall and lean'; as we have all the texts Carroll et al have access to, which text does this come from? Is this from Alexander's criticism, Athanasius' criticism- which?

You have me confused with someone else. These are not my contributions. However, if you notice the description is cited. It is given as: Carroll, A History of Christendom, II, p. 10. You are complaining about the physical description but you are reverting much more than that.

You paste this in here and act like it has some special significance when we can actually put the original source in here.

Then please do so, instead of deleting content.

I can copy and paste one of ten thousand differing corner pastors' writings on the end of the world and their personal beliefs- but this is inferior to the source material. Since we have access to the source material (Alexander's criticisms, Athanasius, etc) that is far superior to you regurgitating one author's POV.

Again, you have me confused with someone else. These are not my edits. But if you have better information then use it.

This is like publishing a description of George Bush: 'he is described as lean and lanky and somewhat non-intellectual'; this is completely useless- who described him as such?

You may consider it useless, but that does not make it useless. I for one, do not find it useless. Apparently neither did the original editor.

Well, since we all have the same materials, it would be 'Gary Trudeau describes him as "lean and lany.." etc. Instead you use the passive voice and present it is fact when it is pure speculation.

It is not speculation that this is the quoted description. Are you arguing with Carroll?

Your hiding behind 'must not have original material' does not justify the inappropriate use of one person's commentary when original sources are far superior. 24.247.157.122 00:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

As I have said before, if you want to post other original material go right ahead. But do not delete content on a whim. If some original source differs in that information, then present that difference. If you can show that the information is speculative and not based on a witnesses description that would make sense too. I really do not care if the information is deleted if it is unsubstantiated or if it is untrue. But I do not want content deleted on a whim. OK? So check Carroll and see where he got his information and if you can offer a reason it should not be presented here, then make that case. This is not hard.

64.178.145.150 03:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's your source: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0931888212/sr=8-1/qid=1149642075/ref=sr_1_1/102-2098811-1187330?%5Fencoding=UTF8 "Carroll's Catholic alternative to Christian History"; that makes a _great_ source for commentary on Arius.

Hi. I was the one who put the quotes from Carroll. I was reading the book at that time and I thought they might be useful for Wikipedia. I'm not a historian; I didn't really think there was anything specially significant about the quotes; the book just happened to be the one I was reading. From what I read in the guidelines, sources for Wikipedia are generally secondary. But if you have primary sources, that would also be cool.--Nino Gonzales 03:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to read the original texts also. Unfortunately, someone burned them because they didn't like what they said. I'm giving up on this article it's like pushing a boulder upstream; any bit of sanity is pushed into the mire by the historical orthodox.

24.247.157.122 03:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Calling people names is contrary to wikipedia rules and is also rude. Please review WP:AGF. And then, if you think something is wrong with the article perhaps it should be fixed. What do you think is the evidence of bias and how should it be fixed? Do you think that it is unbiased to be historically unorthodox? --Anon 64 13:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC) 64.178.145.150

Bias

What is bias? Bias is Theodosius telling his followers to destroy the Library of Alexandria; we wonder why the texts are so sparse from that time and why it is such a revelation when we find a text buried in the sand... Bias is that z-factor that throws what would otherwise be the case off. In this case bias is a large number of partisans who do not like history or for that matter reality and would like to rewrite it- just as Theodosius managed to rewrite it. 24.247.157.122 01:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Bias is coming to the article with a pre-determined perspective that you then place into the article. I am trying to read what you mean. It appears that you are upset with the lack of original historical sources, and that the remaining sources were controlled by the opponents of Arius. (This fact is mentioned in the article). Do you propose that we make up historical facts to counteract this problem that you have detected? --Anon 64 14:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that this historical bias (whether by Carroll, Athanasius, Epiphanius, et al) is presented as de-facto. Just as in the Jesus page, cases of '[all]Christians believe in the Trinity' has been replaced with 'most Christians believe in the Trinity' because doing otherwise presents a de-facto picture of Christianity that is misleading. In this page we are getting copy pulled from these biased sources that make no attempt to be objective, and the pasters provide it standalone- without context. --24.247.157.122 15:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Who cares if Athanasius is biased. We know that in fact, Arius did hold an extreme view of the trinity contrary to common church doctrine because we see many people such as Athanasius and Constantine making a fuss over it. This is indicative of the recorded, accurate belief that Arius was a heretic in the eyes of the church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.133.49 (talk) 03:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok. you claim that the historical bias is presented as "de-facto". Can you show the bias and can you show the correct, objective view? What sources will you use that demonstrate the correct view? As an aside, please note that some critics of this article have said that it is too "Pro-catholic". Others have said it is too "anti-Catholic". kinda makes you go ... hmmmmm.... --Anon 64 01:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Section Removal

Why was this section so hastily removed: Disclaimer - Any modern history of Arius life must be taken with some grain of salt. As all written record of Arius has been destroyed over the past millenia by his opponents in the Catholic Church, who deem him heretical, and most current histories preserved of him have been preserved through the Catholic Church, indirect analysis of texts seems to present the best view to that time. Scholars are already aware of a number of historical forgeries created in the Early Catholic Church's period of dissent to support their theological position. Analyzing texts then with a keen awareness of the authors of those texts, and with a grain of salt that the texts may have been modified, can help in historically reconstructing a picture of Arius and his world.

Looks like it makes sense to me and summarizes the problems with describing historical figures. 69.51.152.226 14:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It was an unattributed rant in favor of one POV. It is a truism that all historical sources have problems with bias, incomplete preservation of materials, & incorrect interpretation. And it is also a truism that critics of the Catholic Church have not always been objectively portrayed in the historical records -- although some have received a more fair treatment than others. However, what was written above falls either under the cite sources or no original research restrictions of Wikipedia. Find a published authority to substantiate this POV.

And if you look at the Edit history of this article, it has been worked on by a number of people, none of whom have expressed an exceptional fondness for the Catholic Church. -- llywrch 21:14, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I will give a brief and simple summary of Arius' doctrine. His basic concept is that Christ was not a God of supernatural origins but a man. A man, however, so spirtually perfect that God "adopted" him as his son. Thus he is the son of God through his total commitment to a spiritual life embodied by such virtues as; love, peace, charity...and UNCONDITIONAL FORGIVENESS (A quality which few self-proclaimed Christians on this discussion page seem to possess). (User: Dynamisto, May 6, 2006)

It looks like trying to describe Arius is like trying to describe a black hole; because you cannot see the center, having been destroyed, you look at the bending or absence of light there and the effect upon the surrounding systems; in this case, you see the profound effect on the early Catholic Christian Church, and the anti writing which was allowed to survive by that church to glean some information about the nature of Arius. It seems this should be toward the top of the article to preface everything that follows- just as a scientist would explain his mechanim for deducting the properties of a black hole at the beginning.75.41.24.104 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 18:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Why the (anti) Catholic focus?

In the opening paragraph of the article I recently replaced "...which some Christian sects regard as a heresy" with "...which most Christian churches regard as a heresy", which I believe to be a more accurate statement.

This statement has recently been changed to "...which Roman Catholic descended Christian churches regard as a heresy". Why? Arius' views are also rejected by the Greek Orthodox church, so the modified text seems unnecessarily restrictive. (And to regard the Greek Orthodox church as a "Roman Catholic descended" is problematic.) -- oz1cz 11:26, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that when we start saying ambiguous terms like 'most' people have edit wars about the erelative numbers; first question, what constitutes a Christian Church? Second, now that you have arbitrarily determined the definition of a Christian Church, have you polled that dataset to see what the results are? Either question is ambiguous and loaded. The idea is that everything descended from the formalized Church that Emperor Constantine I endorsed has been affected. Also, note that the Eastern Orthodox church does not agree with the Roman Catholic church in the sense that they do not have a common Easter, another of the Nicaean tenets. 69.51.152.226 17:10, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

First, I agree that "most" is often a difficult word to prove. However, in this case there is little doubt that it is a correct term. One billion Catholics easily qualify as "most Christians". Although, admittedly, not as "most Christian Churches".

Secondly, the "Church that Emperor Constantine I endorsed" is not the same as the Roman Catholic church. The schism between the Roman Catholic church and the Greek Orthodox church did not occur until several centuries after Constantine I. This means that the text as it stands can be interpreted to mean that the Greek Orthodox church is not opposed to Arianism.

Thirdly, the fact that Greek Orthodox Easter falls on another date than the Roman Catholic Easter is a result of the Gregorian calendar reform and has nothing to do with the attitude of the churches towards Arianism.

Therefore, at the very least, the wording should include the Greek Orthodox church, and I would suggest words along these lines: "...which mainstream Christian churches regard as a heresy" or "...which churches descended from the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches regard as a heresy". (The expression "Roman Catholic descended Christian churches" is also a rather unwieldy expression; but that's another point.) --Oz1cz 18:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How about just adding a new section listing all the branches of Christianity that specifically reject Arian beliefs? I'm a Lutheran and I know our creed and history, but not many others do... I think it would be helpful for most of my fellow pew-sitters if they came upon this article they would see not just "most Christians" nor "Roman Catholic descended Christian churches" (because frankly most still wouldn't know if Lutherans qualify in either of those statements), but an official list where it says that Lutherans as well as many other branches do reject this notion... followed by a list of all the branches that accept it. David Bergan 21:40, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For some reason this article attracts a lot of anti-Catholic attention. In any case, from about the 4th century until the 19th (at latest), no avowedly Christian group agreed with Arius' definition of Christ -- one of the few things all Christian groups did agree on. However, in recent times a number of sects -- Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, & perhaps Unitarians -- have since adopted a Christology that is identical to what Arius is believed to have professed. (I find it facinating that the difficulties of forcing ancient Greek scientific concepts onto theology is still an unresolved issue today. ;-) -- llywrch 19:37, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Unitarian I know (actually a Unitarian Universalist... since those two "denominations" merged last century) says that the Unitarians always were Arian. Supposedly it traces back to Arius's splinter groups. David Bergan 29 June 2005 05:11 (UTC)

A Powerpoint presentation which apparently presents the Unitarian view of Arius and Athanasius: Arius and Athanasius --WillJ 70.168.185.11 04:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to say that something is anti-something else. Is someone anti-Hutu when they protest the mass genocide in Rwanda? The dead cannot speak for themselves. No, we are anti-in justice, anti-falsehood; it may be that alnost two thousand years after the fact we have more information than did people from 600-1950; this gives us more exposure to topics that are important. Our greater knowledge now of the past should let us revisit many things we take for granted. A village in Rwanda which has no surviving Tutsis should not sleep quietly in the repose of peaceful ignorance of stark injustice. 69.51.152.226 29 June 2005 00:44 (UTC)

Which particular "greater knowledge" are you thinking of? What piece of information do we have here in 2005 that they didn't know in 366 concerning Arius's beliefs? Just curious. David Bergan 29 June 2005 05:11 (UTC)

Well, in 366, not much more; however, as evidenced by Theodosius' part in the destruction of the Library of Alexandria, a lot of the history passed down to 600 to 1950 was squelched and hidden. From 600 on Western Europe carried a biased history. Today we can look at the writings of Athanasius and clearly see bias and what we today would call hatred. We know from modern textual criticism that a lot of what some of our theological leaders, such as Martin Luther, worked upon were in fact carefully crafted forgeries (see 1 John 5:7, 1 John 5:8). Today we are less likely to see Arius as having been destroyed by divine force, recognizing the signs of poisoning- something people in a superstitious time in our history would be less capable of. 69.51.152.226 5 July 2005 17:45 (UTC)

Hi David, I am also Lutheran. I never had any problem reciting and believing the Nicene Creed, but maybe I never understood it the way Arius's enemies understood it. If my pastor had said to me, "The creed means that Jesus isn't the son of God, he's more like the twin brother of God, and if anyone says otherwise we'll run him out of town and burn his books" then I would not have agreed with the Nicene Creed. Jesus made it very clear that he is the son of God, not the brother. --WillJ 70.168.185.11 04:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

homooosios

Paul of samosata had agreement with those who used the word meaning "similar" I think you mean. Which is why they deposed him. The correct word for similar is Homoosios. Otherwise an excellent article.

Des Watson

Same substance = homoousia; similar substance = homoiousia; Similar = homoios. Robert O'Brien 20:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe that Arius was correct

As a Roman Catholic, I have questioned the Churches Doctrine of the Trinity for most of my life and have always been criticized and threatened with excommunication. Last year, I wrote a ten page letter and had it printed over ten weeks as a paid advertisement criticizing the brlief the Jesus was divine and that his mother, Mary, was the mother of God.

I have researched Scripture and I am currently working on twenty-five letters which appear Monday Through Friday beginning five weeks before Good Friday and ending on Good Friday. The letters will appear daily as a paid advertisement. I fully expect that the Priests of the Church will attempt to inform their parishioners that they are not to read the letters.

One of the issues that is covered in the letters is the position of Arius with which I fully agree. In addition, the letter will also include the excommunication of Nestorius for criticizing the dogma calling Mary the mother of God.

Keep up the good work. I just discovered this site and I may be back. God bless.........

Sure he was, awesome guy ! It is a shame the church was forced to accept the Trinitarian heresy. Sherpa (talk) 10:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

They Weren't forced to accept it. They benefited from it -- with Nicaea, and Jesus being consubstantially divine with God, then Jesus' appointee on the Earth, the Pope, is divinely ordained, giving the Church the same authority as the divine Phaoroes or Caesars for controlling the masses. Trinitarianism gives a powerful political stance. 76.236.182.173 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC).

Page could stand a re-write

The information here is good. I would not eliminate the data nor would I change the thrust of what it says, but I would make the page more "user friendly" with more modern turns of phrasing and language. There might also be some additional recent scholarship that could add some interesting ideas. I do not have the time right now though. 64.178.145.150 04:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

To Anon 24

I have not plagiarized anything. In Wikipedia, you are not allowed to do "Original Research". Hence you must rely upon other sources, subject to the constraints of not violating copyright. It is appropriate and correct to cite these other sources. If the other source is not copyrighted, you may quote it extensively. However, I did not create this content. It has been here for a long time. It deserves better treatment than to be eliminated, particularly since it is valid history. You should not delete things that are part of accurate history. If you do not like how something is worded, then propose other wording. Why do you not try to make a case for your changes?64.178.145.150 13:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Socrates' Quotation

Proper use of ellipses is not "misquot[ing]" Socrates. (In fact, the quoted translation makes use of ellipses before my emendation.) I edited the comment about "a terror arising from the remorse of conscience" because Socrates could not possibly have known Arius' psychological state; Socrates' comment is clearly an unsupported attack on the character of Arius and does not belong in a neutral article concerning him. Robert O'Brien 02:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that proper use of ellipses is reasonable in quotes. But the word "proper" is important in that sentence. One should not remove content to eliminate meaning but rather to focus on the point and purpose. Sometimes, quotes may contain unrelated material that comes in commentary, or there may be an introductory phrase that is separated from the main passage by a section that is not particularly related. Other than that though, ellipses are not "proper".

I agree that Socrates probably did not know this, but I do not agree that he could not possibly know. We do not know what Socrates knew or did not know. It may be reasonable to suppose he did not know this, but do we know whether this was something that Arius said at the time? Socrates does not say either way. However, (Neutrality) does not require that we must decide this. We must only report what Socrates said. We let the reader decide. The standard in wikipedia is to preferentially not remove content or information. Instead, to provide other reasonably sourced statements in opposition.

So you may know, I am not in favor of Socrates views or history. But it is what exists. I do not believe in censoring it. And it does not violate wikipedia NPOV to quote him. However, if you have some other source, then quote that as well.

Getting back to the original view of "proper" it is not proper to remove this in the name of some sort of censorship in wikipedia. --Blue Tie 03:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The Pope learned the hard way that sneaking in commentary disguised by quoting someone is bad policy; here you are doing it again by 'quoting' someone and hiding behind the quote; is Wikipedia a dictionary of quotes? Once the Hutus massacred the Tutsi in Rwanda, do you go quote the surviving Hutus about why the Tutsi were massacred? Does that make a neutral story? But you are quoting the side that was not eradicated and claiming it was neutrality here. 24.247.157.122 00:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The Pope is not operating on wikipedia. However, we are. Wikipedia has standards and definitions of NPOV. If you feel that the article violates WP:NPOV then please show that with convincing evidence and resolve it by presenting the other side of the coin using Reliable Sources . That is how it works on wikipedia. Please note that wikipedia specifically denies that things must be "right" or "true" (wikipedia specifically denies that it presents "Truth") but rather that they must be NPOV, Verifiable and presented from the most reliable sources available. --Blue Tie 04:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

POV issues

To describe doctrines as 'orthodox' or 'heretical' is generally POV. Direct quotation, indirect quotation, and similar cases may be exceptions. I'd like some input on removing POV problems. Jacob Haller 22:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The article states: "Moreover, Lucian is not stated, even by Alexander himself, to have fallen into the heresy afterwards promulgated by Arius, but is accused ad invidiam of heretical tendencies." I don't think this falls into the indirect quotation case; I suggest replacing "fallen into the heresy" with "held the same doctrines." Jacob Haller 22:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The whole article is apparently copied from the Catolic Encyclopedia & the Dictionary referred to. The fault is the original WP decision to accept such sources. I deleted a few sentences that you can see on the diff--the worst ones i could quickly find. I am prepared to do some more deleting but do not have time to rewrite. Of course we are 16 centuries too late to correct bias in the facts--but we can certainly at least make it look like a less dramatically unfair presentaion (or maybe not--we should perhaps leave it in all of its primordial spelndour?DGG 04:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there POV issues with sections of this article, and a re-write (or at least some pretty big revision) doesn't seem like the worst idea. However, I disagree about the use of the words "heresy" and "orthodox." When used by themselves, with no qualification, then yes, POV. But I feel that both are perfectly acceptable when defined and given context; e.g., "arianism was declared to be heresy by the council of Nicaea." Personally, I find it harder to give that sort of context to "orthodoxy" without sounding clunky, but would not object to that use of the word if I saw it. Just my own 2 cents. Pastordavid 22:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Pastordavid, and also: what's so bad being a heretic? Heresy is worse in the minds of those selfdeclared "orthodoxes", than in the mind of those labeled "heretics". (Excepting possible persecutions from Sir Righteous, of course). Rursus 23:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

To call something orthodox is literally to call it correct teaching, or to call it true, and to call something unorthodox, let alone heretical, is therefore to call it un-true. AFAIK, wikipedia policy in theological debates is to present the beliefs and history of each side, and not to say that one side was right or that the other sides were wrong. Declaring someone orthodox or heretical is POV. Jacob Haller 00:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll agree with you on "heretical", but not on "orthodox". While "heretic" and its variations tend to carry negative connotations (akin to the more modern "cultist"), "orthodox" simply has come to mean mainstream or standard. This is especially true in theology and religion where people both casually and academically refer to "orthodox Christianity" (small "o"). "Unorthodox" in common speech simply refers to an unusual, or non-standard, manner or action. So, you have my support that "heretic"/"heresy" is POV, "orthodox" is a perfectly acceptable and oft-used expression for the mainstream. However, I will even qualify my agreement on "heretic" by saying when used by, particularly Arian's critics, the word is appropriate so long as the context is clear. Vassyana 16:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth I'll lend my qualified support to these "orthodox" vs. "heresy" opinions. IMHO using a term that has slightly too positive a connotation is ok as long it is a technical term and what is meant by the term is clarified up front. A severely loaded positive term would be inappropriate but I do not believe "orthodox" falls into this category. By contrast one should be careful about using terms with negative connotations even if they are "technical" terms. The term "heresy" certainly has some significantly bad associations in English and those bad connotations wrt to Arianism are certainly POV. Using this term here is almost like creating a subtle "strawman" argument. The only valid use here is to say that Arius and his followers were "regarded" as heretics by the Nicean establishment. --Mcorazao 20:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

See Also Links

I can't find the relevant policy or MOS statements. However, that Arius is relevant to Liberal Christianity (I'm not hoing to debate that) or Anomean Christianity (not really) does not imply that Liberal Christianity or Anomean Christianity is relevant to Arius. Both of these came after he died, so neither of these had any effect on his life, or his doctrines.

Anomean Christianity is another tradition, not derived from Arius' teachings, but categorized with Arius' tradition by more recent historians looking at the fourth-century controversies from an Athanasian perspective, and other historians who don't care to clarify the terms.

Simply put, (1) these links go the wrong way (2) relevance is impossible in this direction and, at least in the latter case, debatable in the other. Jacob Haller 19:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how your reasoning lays out valid concerns. See also is simply a section for related interests that are not wikilinked in the article. The importance of the subject to the linked article is no more or less valid as a rationale than the importance of the linked article to the subject. All that is required is that they are related and not repeat wikilinks in the article text. Also, you may disagree with modern scholarship about whether or not the Anomeans were Arianists, but your opinion is not relevant. As a final note, please do not use {{disputed}} for such content disagreements. It is meant for claims contained in article text needing a citation. Vassyana 20:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

As an external comments, I'd say that see also is explicitly for tangentially-related articles. That is, article that are linked in the article should not be linked in the "See also". Additionally, the relation should be clear and direct enough between the original and linked article. After a quick review,it appears clear to me that Anomoean is quite clearly subordinate to Arianism, and has no place in this particular article (unless there is more direct link between them,in which case it would probably be in the article anyway). Circeus 18:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

An idea: How about develloping a bit about the extent of the influence of Arius' philosophy, that way, all these links could probably be included in the article to begin with. As it is, I utterly fail to see the link as being worth an edit to begin with, considering the current disputed state of the article as a whole, and the thing verges on Lamest edit wars inclusion.Circeus 18:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• I think that Arius has influance on unitarian churches, so we should add it in see also. Good luck , --Hasam 10:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Hasam

• I think also that impossible to ignore that Germanic Christianity related to Arius thiology. --Hasam 10:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• It isn't true. Arius expressed some earlier theological positions. Wulfila adopted some similar theological positions, but there is nothing to suggest that this was because of Arius, if anything, it is despite Arius. Moreover, Wulfila's influence is specific to Gothic Christianity and other eastern traditions. The Gothic conversion and the western conversions were almost completely independent. Jacob Haller 16:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Some of the new links being added in by Hasam seem to be too vaguely connected to be appropriate. --Blue Tie 10:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Arius and Origen

All sides portray their positions as clarifications of core Christian tradition, and prevailing Christian doctrine, the latter including the works of Origen. Most of Arius' own works have been lost but some other anti-Nicaean works survive, which show that their authors saw their positions as a development of the tradition, which makes it biased POV to assert that Arius' development is a rejection of Origen's theory, while asserting that Athanasius' development is a defense of the latter.

From what I've read, this summary seems reasonable:

• Origen: the Logos was/is eternally generated.
• Arius: generation is a form of creation.
• Athanasius: generation is not a form of creation.
• Eunomius: generation is a form of creation.
• Auxentius of Durostorum: generation is a form of creation.
• Everyone involved: the Logos was/is eternally generated (before or outside all time). Jacob Haller 21:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Arius and Melitus?

I find the article as structured says Arius was ordained through the effort of Melitius. I also find in the Coptic Encyclopedia a statement that he was, in fact, ordained by Peter of Alexandria. Any idea how to reconcile? My own inclination would be to say that Peter ordained him, as he seems to have been in Peter's diocese, and my source states that the ordination was by Peter. John Carter 20:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

If the current statement is not directly sourced and you can source yours, replace the current statement with yours and a reference footnote. --Blue Tie 22:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment - Historical revisionism?

It has been suggested that the article as currently constructed may place undue weight on some sources, and little or no weight to sources which contradict them. Several sections have been marked for POV and accuracy. There is a question on the page whether a rewrite may be in order.

Comments

The article as it now stands seems to be placing a disproportionate emphasis on what seems to me to be an attempt at revisionist history. For instance, the article as presently constructed pays little or no heed to the Synaxarion of the Coptic Church, seemingly dismissing many statements included there which seem to be directly contradictory to the theory espounsed by the wtiters of the books cited in the article as it now stands. In fact, it completely ignores the fact that that document and other documents of the Coptic church expreslly state that Achillas's predecessor as Pope of Alexandria, Pope Peter of Alexandria, excommunicated Arius and declared him anaethema, instead starting with the statements recorded by Socrates Scholasticus. I personally believe that we might best start over completely, with perhaps an article which is initially written by what seems to me to be the consensus majority opinion of the students of the period, including the Coptic Synaxarion and other sources, and then, maybe, reading the sources cited for what seem to be the dissenting opinions included in the article as it is currently constructed and adding that information to it, pointing out the differences between the sources as required. By doing so, we would thus have what seems to me to be the prevailing historical opinion on the subject in place, and could then more easily add the information which seems to disagree with it either directly following or in a separate section. Would this be acceptable to the rest of you? John Carter 18:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Sources Section I can't see what the NPOV problem is. I can see splitting this into sources for his life and sources for his theology, noting the limitations for the latter at the beginning of Arius' doctrines, but using more sources for the former, in the description of his life.

The problem here as I see it is not the content itself, but maybe the fact that by the way the article is currently structured, with this section leading, it seems to implicitly state that the sources which do survive, upon which the "majority" view of history is based, are glossed over, in effect saying that they are unworthy of even individual citation. Before we start saying that the traditional historical sources are unreliable, we should at least indicate what they are. John Carter 20:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest tossing the section into the discussion of Arius' theology. There are some questions about Arius' life - whether the Arius of the controversy was the Arius in the Meletian schism - which seems likely but isn't 100% agreed-on - but these can be handled on a case-by-case basis. Jacob Haller 20:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Controversy Section This violates NPOV by describing Arius as a heretic in the "voice of Wikipedia" instead of in the "voice of Alexander, the Council of Nicaea, etc." In my understanding, "Neutral Point of View" means "describe the events, and the sides, but don't take sides." Let Alexander, not the article structure, oppose Arius.

Actually, there are many more disputed sections. Jacob Haller 19:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Theology Sections I would suggest trimming these to a summary, and moving the full-length sections to Arianism or an appropriate school-specific page (Arian Arianism?) since Arianism tends to accumulate material about other non-Nicaean theologies of the period. Jacob Haller 21:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

After the Council of Nicaea - much of this seems to relate more to Arianism than Arius per se, and might better belong there. I do note that the possibility of poisoning is referenced elsewhere, so I can see mentioning that, although my own source here provides no details, which would be great if they were available. John Carter 21:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I've marked other important articles for several sections, and suggested merging After the Council of Nicaea into Arian controversy or possibly Arianism, if we can separate it into one version, mostly on Arius' life, and another version, mostly on the controversy, of which the latter could be moved. Jacob Haller 21:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I've got some material gathered together about Arius personally from several sources, and hope to be adding it as soon as I finish updating the project directory. I've also gotten together some info about the other "players" in Arianism and hope to be adding to those articles as well. I do think that this article will be best used as a biography of Arius himself, and the others on the various other aspects of Arianism. This article will include the fact that he was regularly viewed as being only second to Judas for several hundred years by most non-Arian Christians, but that's about the only real criticism I expect to add. And that should be balanced by the fact that he was, knowingly or not, listed by the Roman Catholic Church as a saint for several hundred years. John Carter 22:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

That is very interesting and I look forward to your additions. In response to your RfC.. I do not think it is pov to mention that sources are scarce and are chiefly redacted by his enemies. As long as this statement is 1) reasonably true and 2) supported by Reliable Sources. Give the reader all the info and let them decide. That is neutral. --Blue Tie 23:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Mr Haller, tag bombing every section of the article is going overboard. And every tag talks about a "discussion" which is not going on. In fact, there is really only one tag that even had a comment -- from you. So, since the whole discussion is you... just make the changes you want to make. IF there is a problem later, THEN put tags on. But if not.. just be bold and fix the problems. But rather than put a plethora of tags on the article, the one that says "Whole article is FUBAR-- rewrite needed" is really quite sufficient. All that tag bombing is really distracting and without a comment to describe what you think the SPECIFIC PROBLEM IS that your tag is complaining about... its useless. It helps no one because no one can help you with whatever issue you are complaining about. Its just a random ugly tag without good cause. (Note, that I am not disagreeing with you that the article has problems and needs re-written. I have advocated that for a long time). --Blue Tie 04:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding This edit by Mr. Haller, citations are not needed. If you have not noticed, look at the bottom of the article. You will see where the original text came from. THAT is the citation. The problem is not a need for citations, unless you want every paragraph to have the same citation. The problem is that the article needs a re-write. However, if you really want citations, I will put them in. They will be stupid, but they can go right in immediately, if you want to keep the request for them in the article. (All of the citations will be exactly the same). --Blue Tie 05:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Many articles include claims that either go beyond the sources or don't come from the sources. In addition, many modern polemical work attribute views to Arius which the ancient works (polemical or not) did not. Referencing as much as possible helps readers see what is well-substantiated and distinguish that from what is not. My main sources start somewhat later, but I'm willing to help check the article in more detail. Jacob Haller 16:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

what articles are being reffered to in when it says something to the effect of 'with various councils condemning and approving Arius's views on the Son' at the end of the first paragraph? Atokoy 22:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• The councils being discussed are referenced later in the article, I believe. John Carter 22:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of outrageously POV material

Note: Alexanders interpretation above of Arius' doctrinal belief in this regard confuses most that read it. Indeed, the majority held doctrines that attempt to clarify the relationship between the Son and Father seem to spark more and more confusion by design. The early Christian Apostles who walked on earth with Jesus during his ministry looked on as He prayed for guidance and support from His heavenly Father, and never seemed to be as confused over this matter as Alexander or the majority of the Nicene Council seemed to be. At any rate, can you imagine Jesus requesting a politician to set in authority over the discussion and interpretation of spiritual matters? Not once is there an example of the older men in Jerusalem who were remnants of the Apostles and disciples who walked and taught with Jesus, acting in such a manner. Jesus made clear that His Kingdom would be no part of the world and therefore made clear His separation from the administrations and politicians of the worldly system of governments. This is an article about a new government approved Christendom, which arose much later after the true Christian followers of Jesus had nearly been exterminated from the scene, and they were certainly held in contempt by this new state sponsored "Christian" empire. The atrocities and crimes against mankind by this new empire with and without the support of its national paramours is well documented and part of history.

Most of the above is rhetoric about a different topic (namely the Roman Empire's involvement in the development of Christianity as it now is). The first couple of sentences are at least kinda on topic, but dripping with POV, and they tell us nothing whatever about Arius. I'm removing the lot.

Gareth McCaughan (talk) 09:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

(I just took a look in the history; that paragraph was added on 2008-04-09 by 67.54.234.125; there are no other edits recorded for that IP address, for what it's worth.) Gareth McCaughan (talk) 09:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite

This article definitely needed a rewrite (at least in my opinion), based on the tag that had been placed on it and its somewhat haphazard arrangement and text. I made an effort to do this over the past few days, reworking and reorganizing the article from front to back, adding references and several new images, and changing one image (the Nicene Council image) for a larger and better (I think) one. However, by doing all of this (under the "be bold" idea of Wikipedia!), I am emphatically NOT claiming "ownership" of this article! I solicit and invite any comments, revisions, reversions, additions or deletions that may be deemed appropriate by the Wiki community at large, insofar as the revisions I have made are concerned (or any other portions of the article). I have resubmitted the article for re-assessment in each of the four project categories listed on the discussion page, and will be interested in seeing how that turns out. Please feel free to contact me on my talk page or here if you have any questions, concerns or comments. - Ecjmartin (talk) 00:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

What role does a 12th century commentary image have on the top of the page? Why don't you go to North Korea and copy the image that Kim Jong Il has of Barack Obama and put that at the top of the Barack Obama page. An 800 year separated negative commentary image is the last thing a prominent contributor to Christianity who was trashed and squelched by the dominant political force needs or deserves. 69.51.152.180 (talk) 01:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to break down my reply into separate items, as there are issues to discuss here beyond the image itself. Before I do that, however, let me say that I am sympathetic to Arius, as I believe--after studying Christianity for thirty-plus years, including a brief stint in a monastery, and serving as an ordained minister in three different denominations--that Arius was more "right" in his conclusions than Athanasius and his Trinitarian friends. Indeed, I consider myself to be an "Arian" (or very close to one!) in my own Christological belief. But that is "neither here nor there," where this article is concerned. So, here goes:

First, the inclusion of the image is in no way a "slam" against Arius. I think I understand what you are saying, but the image is not meant to ridicule Arius in any way. Rather, it represents what the triumphant Trinitarians thought of Arius, even hundreds of years after his lifetime--thus demonstrating his significance even long after he was dead, and long after his alleged "heresy" had been laid to rest in the mainstream Church. However, I would agree that a change in the image caption is in order; I have done that, by adding an explanatory note as to what this image represents (and thus, why it is here). Take a look, and tell me if this might satisfy your objections. If not, we can certainly discuss it further.

I do not think that a derogatory picture is in order- should 'piss Christ' be on the Christian page? Yet there are people who feel that way and perhaps it should be there. If you can get that shot to stay on the Christ page for 3 days then I agree this shot should be here. The picture does not belong here.

Second, you write that "Constantine order[ed] the destruction of all Arian writings," with which I concur; history shows he did just that, even though he later vaciliated to the point of choosing an Arian bishop to baptize him on his deathbed. However, you go on to say "or the death of any who possessed these writings." Do you have a reference for that last statement? I can't recall reading that part in any of my sources (or at least I don't recall doing so). That's not saying it wasn't there, only that I don't remember reading it. Could you please provide a source for that information?

"2.) In addition, if any writing composed by Arius should be found, it should be handed over to the flames, so that not only will the wickedness of his teaching be obliterated, but nothing will be left even to remind anyone of him. And I hereby make a public order, that if someone should be discovered to have hidden a writing composed by Arius, and not to have immediately brought it forward and destroyed it by fire, his penalty shall be death." - Constantine

69.51.152.180 (talk) 02:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Third, you write that Arianism was "suppressed militarily." While some Arian kingdoms were indeed "suppressed militarily," not all were; the Visigothic kingdom of king Reccared willingly converted to Roman Catholicism, due to efforts by local Catholic bishops and missionaries. Other German tribes also converted willingly, as opposed to being forced. Though still others were indeed compelled to renounce Arianism for Catholicism/Orthodoxy, it is factually incorrect and misleading to word that portion of the opener to indicate that all were forced--which is what your version does. The way that I worded it leaves an opening for both motivations (for forced and willful conversion), which are addressed in greater detail further down in the article.

The Military means of destroying and propagating religion, whether when Justinian shut down the Aryan Christian church after the Vandal Empire was conquered, or the working of Theodosius, or various slippery political machinations, contrasts mightily with the workings of Christians before, in earlier Roman times, who died peacefully for their faith.

Fourth, you removed, without any explanation or justification, the section detailing Constantine's baptism at the hands of an Arian bishop, which I had sourced with not one, but two separate sources. May I ask why? Even the Greek Orthodox, who consider Constantine a saint, admit that his baptism came at the hands of an Arian (see the OrthodoxWiki's article on "Constantine the Great"). So why was this section removed?? I don't get it....

I did not mean to remove Constantine's later baptism;

That is all I have to write for the moment, in regard to the concerns and revisions you recently raised/made. Please respond at your leisure; I hope you can understand that I mean you no ill will or nothing whatsoever "personal" in anything I have written here; you asked me to justify my inclusion of the image you removed, and I in turn would like to bring up some things you did and ask you to justify them. But all I say is said in a friendly spirit on my end, and I hope nothing in my tone or otherwise has led you to think differently. Cheers! - Ecjmartin (talk) 04:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite, part two

Thanks for responding! I'm going to put my reply here, in a new section, so the old one doesn't get too lengthy. I had wondered, first of all, whether your deletion of Constantine's later baptism was a simple mistake; I am glad to hear that it was. In regard to the military issues you raised, I agree wholeheartedly that militaristic Roman Christianity was a far cry from the earlier Apostolic and post-Apostolic version, just as Arian regimes (at least some of them) tended to be a lot more tolerant of Nicene Christians and even other faiths (such as Judaism) than the Nicenes were of them. However, I still stand by what I wrote about the wording of that portion: since some kingdoms did choose voluntarily to convert to Nicene Christianity (I feel sorry for them!), we should still compose that opening section in such a way as to leave open both the voluntary and involuntary conversions that took place (which are all further detailed later in the article). I have tried to do that this evening; take a look, and tell me what you think.

In regard to the image, after some thought, it really isn't all that important to me; I won't argue with its deletion, since I can see the point you are trying to make. Looks like you've already removed it, and that's fine by me.

In regard to the quote from Constantine: excellent quote! Could you please provide your source (with an online address for it, if one is available), so we can incorporate that information into the article, together with the reference?

I spoke with the person who re-reviewed the article this afternoon, and he said that while he rated it "C" class; it could easily be "B" class or even "GA" with just a few more inline citations. So if you could provide that reference for me, I'll be glad to incorporate it (and the information it contains) into the article, or please feel free to do it yourself if you'd rather.

Thanks for your thoughts! - Ecjmartin (talk) 03:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit War Over Intro

User 69.51.152.180, you asked me to explain my objections to your recent revision of the Arius article's opening paragraph. I will try to do so here.

My primary concern is with what appears to be your lack of NPOV in what you wrote. Arius is, admittedly, an extremely difficult subject to write about—especially if one is trying to maintain a strictly "Neutral Point of View" (such as Wikipedia demands). Since the opening paragraph is the first part of the article one is likely to see, it is especially important to compose it in as NPOV a manner as possible. With all due respect (and I sincerely mean you no disrespect here!), I do not believe your revisions accomplish this. The overall tone of your new wording clearly slants the reader against Athanasius and his side, and toward Arius.

Here are some more of my objections:

First, you say that Arius was a "target" of the First Council, which is clearly not NPOV; it seems meant to slant the reader in favor of your clearly-intended "victim," Arius, and against your "boogyman," Athanasius. I don't think that history supports your assertion that Arius was a "target," as if the whole council had already predecided against him before it even was called (which is what your wording indicates). Rather, what I have read indicates that while most of the bishops were predisposed against Arius, they were willing to grant him a hearing and did at least listen to his statements before deciding against him. Yes, the debate became heated, and yes, Nicholas of Myra definitely got way out of hand by slapping Arius in the face. I'm no friend of Athanasius, myself; I believe he and his friends were almost as wrong as I believe Arius was (I am neither an Arian nor an Athanasian, myself!). But to say that Arius was a "target" of the First Council is misleading, and clearly indicates (at least to me!) a definite pro-Arius bias on your part.

Second, you describe Athanasius as a bishop, which he was not at the time of the First Council. Athanasius was a deacon at that time, although he later became the bishop of Alexandria.

Thirdly, you refer to the "Catholic Church." This, too, can be very misleading, as Roman Catholicism as we know it today (with its all-powerful and allegedly "infallible" pope, college of cardinals, doctrine of purgatory, and claims of complete and absolute authority over every square inch of Christiandom) did not exist at the time of the First Council. Although many who are not well versed in early Church History believe that the only thing that existed before the Protestant Reformation was Catholicism, history tells a vastly different tale. At the time of the First Council, the Church of Rome coexisted alongside the Churches of Alexandria and Antioch; other, smaller churches also existed during this period. While most recognized a primacy of honor for the Bishop of Rome, none necessarily recognized any authority of that bishop to meddle in their affairs, or to dictate to the whole church. Church government was conciliar in nature, not monarchial; the conflict between these two visions of church governance would continue in the Roman Church into the Reniassance period. So to simply say "the Catholic Church" is misleading; the Eastern Orthodox Church, a body which can claim an antiquity at least as great as that of Rome, would certainly disagree with your wording, as would many historians. In my opinion at least, one ought simply to say "the Church," or "The Christian Church;" not "the Catholic Church," when speaking of the Church as a whole during this era.

Fourth, you say that Athanasius et al used Arianism as an "epithet," a "weasel word" of sorts to bring together all those who disagreed with Trinitarianism under a single label, which could then be attacked and destroyed. Again, NPOV is sacrificed here; Arianism was not an epithet, but a real theological idea which was articulated by its defender, Arius, both prior to, during, and after the First Council. It was not a chimera, but a real teaching. As such, it was examined, and the council rejected it. To describe it as an "epithet," in the manner you did here, is grossly biased and misleading, at least in my opinion.

Your wording even seems (I emphasize the word "seems;" I might misunderstand your intended meaning, here) to indicate that Arius might not have taught "Arianism" at all; yet all of his contemporaries, both pro and con, agree that he did. He might not have originated it, but he definitely taught it. It is misleading in the extreme to word this intro in such a way as to make it seem that Arius might not have really taught Arianism at all (again, if that was what you were doing here), but was rather made a "target" and a scapegoat in some kind of theological power-grab by Athanasius and the Trinitarians (which is what your wording seems to indicate to me). All of this is highly-charged with POV, and is more reminicent of an apology for Arius, or an Arian tract, than an article in a supposedly NPOV encyclopedia. You might have forgotten that an Arian church survived for three or so centuries after Arius, one which taught Arianism and claimed Arius as one of its formative influences. I believe that if Arius had been wrongly linked to Arianism, he would have vehemently said this either at or after the council, and some historical record of his denial would have been preserved. Since no such record exists, I am left to conclude that Arius did teach Arianism. Again, I might have misunderstood your intended meaning; if I did, I apologize.

Another objection I might raise concerns the misspellings and poor sentence construction used in your revision. I am not the best writer, myself, but some of these sentences were rather poorly worded. This, of course, might be due to time contraints on your part, not having time to properly proofread and edit them (as sometimes happens with me!), and can be easily corrected. But I think the other objections I have raised here are valid, and thus I am reverting your edit once again. - Ecjmartin (talk) 23:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

First, since one of the Nicaean results is specifically against Arius, he is in fact a target of the Nicaean council. Whitewash, gloss and bullsh*t aside, he is a target of it. Second, if you wish to remove the word bishop describing Athanasius, that is fine- there is no reason to add toddler before his name although at one point in time he was a toddler. Third, Catholic Church, as the concept of the wholistic church, was very much topical at that time whether you care to admit it or not. The concept of Catholic implies universal, which was the central tenet of the Nicaean Council. Fourth, epithet, as a topic of centralizing opposition, according to Rowan Williams in his book Arius: Heresy and Tradition is exactly what Athanasius was accomplishing in coining the term 'Arianism'. Arius did not coin the term Arianism- and as mentioned several times later, other people who disagreed with Trinitarianism did not call themselves Arianists either- so this is a coined term - an epithet. Each of your objections is hollow, so I am reverting it until you can come up with an objection of substance. 69.51.152.180 (talk) 14:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't have time right at this moment (being at work) to answer your diatribe here, but I will state that your rudeness and foul language do not become you--and they definitely do not belong on Wikipedia. When I have some time this evening, I will take up your statements above; until then, we can continue to revert this article back and forth until the end of time, as they say--or until some higher-up in Wikipedia puts a stop to it and kicks us both off. But I do not appreciate your rudeness, or your language, as I believe it was absolutely uncalled for. That much I will say now; the rest I will say later, when I get home. - Ecjmartin (talk) 18:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit War

You know what? I just don't give a flip anymore. I've got better things to do with my time than waste it with this juvenile nonsense. You want to POV this article? Go right ahead. Arius is just not that important to me, anymore. Your objections are baseless; you never answered my point about NPOV (especially your usage of "target," a "weasel word" if ever there was one!), or about Catholicism and the use of "Catholic" here. Your edit has turned this into a polemical apology for Arius, not a neutral encyclopedia article. But you know what? I just don't care anymore. I've got more important things to do with my time than waste it on junk like this. If there are any other editors out there who'd like to check out 96's objections and mine and weigh in, please feel free. In the meanwhile, I've got better things to do with my time. You win, 96--whatever that means! Have a nice life, and enjoy your day. - Ecjmartin (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your forthrightness. The word target would be used, as one would be the 'target' of a lawsuit - in this case, a large part of the Council of Nicaean final statement had as 'target' Arius. Is there another word that conveys that Arius was the negative or injured party of the Nicean conclusion? If you say 'subject' that is ambiguous - it could be that he is a passerby. 'Target' is the only word I can think of that most succintly conveys the idea. The concept of 'Catholic' as the universal church was widely used there, and remains in use in modern Scholarship to convey the idea of the central, core, 'unversal' church. 69.51.152.180 (talk) 21:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

And I maintain that you are absolutely, utterly wrong about Arius being a "target" of the First Council. Arius was no more a "target" of this council than I would be if I were an officer in a corporation advocating the adoption of a controversial policy who, after presenting my proposal to the Board of Directors, was voted down. Even if most of the Board had been predisposed against my proposal, I still would have no right to consider myself a "target" of the Board of Directors merely because they voted me down, so long as they gave me a fair chance to present my proposal in the first place. In fact, it would be rather petulant of me to refer to myself as such. This use of "target" is blatently POV, and converts this from a neutral encyclopedia article into a polemical apology for Arius. There was absolutely, positively, nothing whatsoever wrong with the previous version, but everything wrong with your revision. "Target" is a "weasel word" if ever there was one, and is (as I pointed out above) also historically misleading. Whether Arius was the author of the doctrine that bears his name is irrelevant (and addressed in the second paragraph of the introduction); he was one of its leading proponents, a council was called to consider his teaching, and it rejected his while accepting an alternative proposal. This does NOT make Arius a "target" of that council, any more than I would have been a "target" of my Board of Directors in the hypothetical example cited above.

I also assert, yet again, that your usage of "Catholic" here is misleading and incorrect. Yes, "Catholic" is a word that was used by the Church in that day to describe itself; yet, the vast majority of modern readers associate that word strictly with the Roman Catholic church, which simply DID NOT EXIST at that time in its present form. As I observed previously, the Eastern Orthodox, a church with at least as great a claim to antiquity as the Church of Rome, would stridently object to the use of "Catholic" in this context, as would many historians. "Christian Church" or even just "the Church" would be a much better usage. But then again, according to you at least, my observations lacked "substance" (wasn't that the way you put it?!?).

Furthermore, Arius was neither "wronged" nor "injured" by the First Council; he presented his proposal--albeit to an audience that was generally opposed to, and in some cases (such as Nicholas of Myra or Athanasius) even hostile to that proposal--and was rejected. You have no right, historically or otherwise, to present Athanasius et al as some kind of theological "gangsters" who were out to "get" Arius; the history of that event does not support you, and it is blatently POV for you to assert such a thing here. In everything that you have said, you have never once addressed the POV issue; until you do, I have decided to get back into the fray and revert your edits--yet again. If this edit war persists, perhpas the best thing to do is to take this to a higher authority, and ask THEM to judge between us. I'm prepared to accept their verdict--are you???

One word more: I would like to ask for an apology from you for describing my previous objections as "bullsh*t". You might not have liked what I had to say, and you might have thought my objections were lacking in "substance" (or whatever word it was that you used)--though I strenuously disagree with you, as I'm sure other readers would--but your use of "bullsh*t" to describe what I wrote was uncalled for, and I would appreciate an apology from you. Thank you. - Ecjmartin (talk) 22:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)