User talk:Deusveritasest

Welcome!

Hello, Deusveritasest, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Deusveritasest

Hello

Hello User:Duesveritaset how are you doing well if you have any questions ask a admin well you can ask me but i do not know this is site really well. EriK Frillery 5:53, Feb, 08.

List of Christian Denominations

I'm finding it difficult to understand your changes, because of two things.

• You still don't bother with edit summaries, despite having been asked many times to make them, and
• You seem very impatient with trying to find consensus.

Some compromise is part of wikipedia. We clearly disagree about what names should be used for Orthodox churches in List of Christian denominations, but you have so far not been willing to write more than one sentence explaining your actions. I find this frustrating. Can we please seek consensus rather than just struggling? Tb (talk) 03:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I already explained my actions in the names of these churches. I'm using the official names that these Churches to refer to themselves. To call the Church of Constantinople a Patriarchate and then not do the same for Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem is HIGHLY misleading.

Can you provide your documentation then? Since the Wikipedia pages do not specify these names as "the official names" I think you need to provide more than that. But also, you haven't answered my question: why do you think this page should deviate from those pages? Why should those pages--the official wikipedia sources for information on those churches--not be the standard-setter? I have no dog in this fight, but I think the fight should be carried on on those pages and not on List of Christian denominations. Would you please address that question, rather than just insisting that you're right? (After all, we don't use the "official name" for the Roman Catholic Church, because simply saying "Catholic Church" would be misleading.) Tb (talk) 03:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

As is, as I said, the use of not referring to Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem (and even Moscow, Pec, etc.) as Patriarchates is also misleading. So in the case where the official name is less misleading it should be used. Deusveritasest (talk) 03:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's an important consideration. But I'm not sure what method you propose to determine the official name, and I'm not sure what to do about the polemically charged names which are often in use. I've created an RFC for this; I hope that I have accurately summarized your view, which I do think has merit. Perhaps the views of other editors will help figure out the right thing here. Tb (talk) 03:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

May I give you an example of what I object to? You have used the name "Church of France" and "Church of Britain" for the oriental orthodox jurisdictions in those countries. The former is not the name that church uses for itself. The wikipedia page is French Coptic Orthodox Church, and if you go to their website (http://eocf.free.fr/eglisep_eng.htm) you'll see that they use the name "French Coptic Orthodox Church." Likewise, "Church of Britain" may well confuse people (given the larger "Church of England") and their own name (see http://www.britishorthodox.org) is "British Orthodox Church", exactly matching British Orthodox Church. So I am concerned with your sources for these "official names." Tb (talk) 03:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Would you agree that when the jurisdiction's own website gives a name for their church, and it agrees with the name of the Wikipedia article, that this is the name we should use? Tb (talk) 04:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The names of the autonomous churches such as the British Orthodox Church and the French Orthodox Church have not yet been debated. And I never said I objected to them. What has been argued is the names of the patriarchal churches of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, in which case the official names found on the websites of those churches and on Orthodox wiki are in contrast to what is on wikipedia. Those are the churches I am making a big issue on. I have no problem referring to the Oriental Orthodox in Britain under the Coptic Orthodox Patriarch as the "British Orthodox Church" or that in France as the "French Coptic Orthodox Church". Deusveritasest (talk) 06:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Good; I think I understand well then. Let's see what other editors think about the question for the churches where there is a question. Tb (talk) 06:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Orthodox wiki

Are you using Orthodox Wiki as your source for the official names of Orthodox churches? It is not a reliable source, and certainly not acceptible as a Wikipedia source. If that's not it, can you please be explicit about what source you are using? Tb (talk) 08:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The official website of the Greek Church of Alexandria refers calls itself "the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria and All Africa" right off the bat: [1]

Likewise, the official website of the of the Greek Church of Alexandria refers to itself as "the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East" both on their front page and their homepage: [2]

The official website of the Greek Church of Jerusalem refers to itself as the Patriarchate of Jerusalem: [3]

However, I do not know what to do with Russia, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, and Georgia, because they all refer to themselves as both the Patriarchates of their respective patriarchal sees and the Churches of their respective countries. Deusveritasest (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I think, however, that again, referring to Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem as Patriarchates but not Moscow, Peć, Bucharest, Sofia, and Tbilsi is also misleading. Deusveritasest (talk) 23:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

So far the other editors who have commented on Talk:List of Christian denominations have suggested that the right thing is to have the List of Christian denominations use the names of the Wikipedia pages for each. And, if those titles are incorrect, the pages should be renamed using the normal process. There are, BTW, cases in which the titles don't match the official name of the church for good reasons (such as Episcopal Church in the United States of America). As I said, I don't have a dog in the fight about which name is the right name for these--my concern is to keep Wikipedia self-consistent. So can I encourage you to work on getting the right names as titles for those pages, but also on agreeing to have List of Christian denominations match the content and titles of the other relevant pages, and not have a different divergent thing? Tb (talk) 16:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright. I'll take this matter to the main pages and leave the List of Christian denominations alone for now. Thanks for your concern in this matter. Deusveritasest (talk) 09:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Redirect edit warring

If you change that redirect again without substantial discussion and a recognition of the months of discussion that went into it, you will be blocked. Gimmetrow 05:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this really the sort of thing you want to do during holy week? Gimmetrow 05:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Defend the fact that the Eastern Orthodox Church may very well be the Catholic Church spoken of in the Creeds? Yeah, it seems quite appropriate. Deusveritasest (talk) 05:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Dude, that CC points to RCC doesn't imply they are identical, whatever your POV may think. It was established in the last discussion, which went on for months, that the WP:PRIMARYMEANING of "Catholic Church" is the content currently at "Roman Catholic Church". Thus the redirect must point there. Gimmetrow 05:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

If it's not universally established as identical to RCC, then the CC should redirect to a page detailing the various possibilities of what is meant by CC. Deusveritasest (talk) 05:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I will not carry on this conversation in two places. Gimmetrow 05:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The debate on the Catholic Church redirect was conducted here: Talk:Roman_Catholic_Church/Archive4#Compromise and had wide support form both sides. --WikiCats (talk) 11:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

The guidelines say "Obvious cranks and disruptive editors may be blocked indefinitely by admins, or banned by ArbCom or by a consensus of Wikipedians." --WikiCats (talk) 07:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hes at it again, he trolled the Catholic Church redirect. - Ockie Eye (talk) 09:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I reverted your edit which deleted the Catholic Church redirect to the page Roman Catholic Church. It looks as if you have been warned about doing that before. Please stop. I am working on this page quite a lot and I purposely check that redirect and the page is watched by quite a lot of other editors. NancyHeise ^talk 01:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should provide a defense for my substantial accusations of POV then. Deusveritasest (talk) 05:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Catholic Church. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Phenylalanine (talk) 10:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 12:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24h in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Catholic Church. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It would seem we have a lot in common

I just took a look at your user page and got some insight into your personality. Take a look at mine.--Phiddipus (talk) 01:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I've actually looked at your user page before. To go even further with the similarities, I was actually Baptized and Chrismated in the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese. So our roots are both in particularly Greek Orthodoxy. If you want to know more about me I have a Myspace profile (my profile), though I haven't used it in a while. I'm not exactly sure how to engage in user conversations on this site, but I'm guessing one just sticks to a particular section. Anyway, I'm interested in getting to know more about you, and hope to hear from you soon. Deusveritasest (talk) 04:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the only major difference between us is age; I am 44. I like a lot of the music on your list especially NIN and Soundgarden. Similar taste in movies, glad to see you have at least one foreign film - I love foreign films. I especially like horror films and shows that freak me out. What do you think of David Lynch as a director? How long have you and Justin been together? For the record, I am married to a wonderful guy for 12 years this past July 10th. If you want to chat you can always email me at Phiddipus@gmail.com--Phiddipus (talk) 02:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Please check out the discussion on Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Justin_L_Raines/Userboxes/Abortion_and_Capital_Punishment for one of the userboxes in your profile. Trigaranus (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

March 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Talk:Council of Ephesus has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 22:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The Nature of the Church

There are two reasons for this change. The term “sacrament” though commonly used in the United States is really a Roman Catholic notion and it carries with it the idea that there are levels of holiness in how we commune with God. The term that should be used is “Mystery”. The RC recognizes seven sacraments (baptism, communion, confession, etc.); the Orthodox, while recognizing these same mysteries, does not single them out as somehow being more important than other mysteries (such as lighting a candle, offering incense, venerating icons, etc). Orthodox Christians count as mysteries anything that facilitates our communion with God. Second, and perhaps most important, Orthodox Christians do not always share these Mysteries with each other. There have been numerous times when one group has isolated itself from another group because they felt that group was in error. There are currently fairly strong divisions between the Old and New Calendarists which remain in place. Theology is what unifies the Church.--Phiddipus (talk) 05:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Who is and who is not Orthodox is not decided by a majority of members, rather, adherence to the Orthodox Faith is the criterion by which Orthodox Christians are judged. Orthodoxy is not a club, and Truth exists independently of man’s opinions. Priests, Bishops, even Patriarchs do not have the power to enforce their opinions without Truth being on their side. Historically we know that hierarchs have at times become power hungry and have voiced heresies which were ultimately rejected by the Church. Likewise, there have been groups who stood with resistance to what they perceived to be heresy. Their intentions were to preserve the Church. There have been times as well when much of the Church fell into heresy and it was the resisters (such as Maximos the Confessor) who saved it. Today, there are a number of groups who believe absolutely in the Orthodox Faith and hold tenaciously to its traditions but resist what they call ecclesiastical heresy in the form of ecumenism. Some of these groups have completely separated themselves from the rest of the Church; but others, correctly following cannon law have mysteriologically walled themselves off from those that have fallen to this error. They see ecumenism as an illness that needs to be cured, not as a break from the body of the Church; and until it is cured they choose, for quite practical reasons, not to allow intercommunion. Canonically they have every right as Orthodox Christians to hold this position as long as they do not go so far as to pronounce the rest of Orthodoxy false and themselves alone as true. It is, in fact the position that every Orthodox Christian is bound to take if he feels that his particular priest or hierarch has fallen into error. Of course, those in error will make every effort to deny the Orthodoxy of the resistors, but as I said above, they do not have the right. Such things are decided by ecumenical council; and until one is convened we cannot ignore a position of resistance. --Phiddipus (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Orthodox Catholic Church

I noticed from your earlier posts, that you are clearly aware of the importance of the "Catholic" title and concept for Orthodoxy. As you know, in the past the Orthodox Church was usually called as the "Catholic Church", the term "Orthodox" being applied mainly to the "Orthodox Religion", the "Orthodox Faith", the "Orthodox theology" or the "Orthodox" members of the Church (as it can be seen in the "Confession of the Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem Dositheus" (it can also be found here), and there is also an article on the website of an "Orthodox Research Institute" which states "According to Archbishop Basil, “until quite a recent period, the (Orthodox) Church was never characterized by the attribute ‘orthodox’, but always as ‘catholic’""), so the term "Orthodox Church" is somewhat more recent. As far as I see, the wiki naming rules, would support a renaming to "Orthodox Catholic Church (Eastern)" or "Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church", however a renaming to simply "Orthodox Church" (although it is of course a correct name of the Church), would just imitate what happened at "Roman Catholic Church" to "Catholic Church" (which at least in my opinion was done by ignoring the disambiguation policy), and it might indirectly encourage other articles to ignore the wiki naming policy, this should rather be avoided. However, of course, you don't need to participate in that debate if you are busy. Cody7777777 (talk) 17:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

In case you're interested, a new debate has started about renaming the current wiki article "Catholic Church" back to "Roman Catholic Church", you can find the debate at Talk:Catholic Church#Requested Move, if that article gets renamed, probably the article Orthodox Church will also be renamed back to Eastern Orthodox Church). However, there is no problem if you don't have time, or if you don't wish to participate in that debate. (Also, I'm sorry, if my comments about the non-Chalcedonians offended you, I was just expressing my opinions, that discussion was interesting.) Cody7777777 (talk) 18:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Moved here from Talk:Orthodox Church

Hey Deusveritasest, the Egypt or Armenian? -They are all good people, you know. LoveMonkey (talk) 03:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, perhaps I misspoke. I'm not formally a catechumen yet. I've been regularly attending Oriental liturgies for the past couple of months. And I'm pretty sure this is the direction I want to be headed in. So I'm drawn to the Oriental Orthodox Communion, but I'm not really decided on any one jurisdiction quite yet. I've been mostly attending Armenian liturgies, simply because they are the most accessible in my area. I very much like the Armenian church, particularly their musical tradition. My only issue is with the language; I don't know if I can handle liturgy being regularly 90% in another language. As such I'm checking out a Coptic church tomorrow morning; the Copts in this area using significantly more English in their liturgy. Deusveritasest (talk) 04:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Fifth/Tenth Council of Constantinople

We can't just leave the Tenth page blank like that. We either need to redirect it to the Fifth council, or delete it through the WP:PROD process if you think it's an inappropriate redirect. Gigs (talk) 19:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it should be deleted because there is no such thing as a council named the "Tenth Council of Constantinople".

I did the same thing with "Third Council of Constantinople (553)" and "Fourth Council of Constantinople (680)" and someone else came by and deleted it. Deusveritasest (talk) 22:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy

A tag has been placed on WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. RadioFan (talk) 18:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments on Monothelitism

Hi Deusveritasest, thanks for helping out on the Monothelitism article. I tried to make it as non-POV as possible, but obviously some things do slip in here and there! A couple of quick questions. You have used the term 'Imperial Church' to describe the ecclesiastical structure that comprised what I have termed the 'Catholic Church' - the Church that eventually split into the Roman Catholic and various Orthodox Churches. Why? My understanding is that this position is not the majority view on the matter, reflecting the POV of the non-Chalcedonian Churches only. I would suggest that the term be what historians have traditionally termed this entity, which at this time was the Catholic Church, which is a different entity to what became the Roman Catholic Church.

Well, by "Imperial church", I actually did not mean collectively the Church of Rome and the Eastern Churches. Rather, by this I meant only the church of the Emperor, namely that of the 4 Greek Patriarchates. Many of the instances where I used this were where it was appropriate to be speaking only of the Byzantine churches. However, I did this primarily because I felt the need to use something other than "Catholic Church", not because I desired to exclude the Church of Rome. I suppose I could have said "Chalcedonian church" to be inclusive of both, but that seemed a little awkward. If that is the only term that could ultimately satisfy what is being talked about, then fine.

Let me explain my problem with "Catholic Church". First and foremost this is because how Wikipedia uses the term. On this site, "Catholic Church" is those communities in communion with the Bishop of Rome, i.e. the Roman Catholic Church. Now, I certainly do not agree with that principle. Being Eastern Orthodox, I rather believe the contrary, that the Eastern Orthodox Church is the Catholic Church. However, in so far as I do not put in the extreme effort it would require to overturn this precedent, I must comply with the way things are with Wikipedia right now. The way things are, "Catholic Church" means the Roman Catholic Church. In that context, identifying the church before the schism as the "Catholic Church" can only properly mean a value judgment that the ancient church was the Roman Catholic Church from which various churches broke off later on; this is not acceptable because it is clearly POV.

I would be interested to see what historians you have in mind that when they speak of the "Catholic Church" that are simply meaning the ancient church which later through various schisms became the various denominations we see today. I have never seen such a thing. I have either seen people meaning by that that the Patristic church was Roman Catholic Church (which Roman Catholics often, and sometimes even Protestants, do) or that this Patristic church was actually their church which is actually the Catholic Church (as Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox individuals often do). Deusveritasest (talk) 04:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Secondly, the controversy over Pope Honorius and the discussion about whether his letters are considered rulings ex cathedra is very important. The whole issue about the importance of his condemnation vis-a-vis how it effects Papal Infalibility is an important aspect of this whole debate. The RC Church maintains it doesn't, and this section merely outlined its view of that issue. And what I wrote is true - the western church during the seventh century used synods to determine official doctrinal positions which the Popes then endorsed - ala, the official response to the Council at Constantinople in 680. Honorius' letters are not on the same level as these official responses, and I think this should be made clear. What do you think?

Agan, thanks for all your help.Oatley2112 (talk) 00:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Category:Indian Orthodox Church

To propose a Category merge, use this template on the Category page...

{{subst:Cfm|Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church}}

And then this on the current CfD page. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 18:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

{{subst:cfm2|Indian Orthodox Church|Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church|text='''Merge'''. Your reason(s) for the proposed merger. ~~~~}}

Answers to some questions

DearDeusveritasest Youhad some relatively old questions about the Armenian Apostolic Church and it's communionwith Oriental Orthodox and another on the talk of the Georgian Orthodox Church.I've answered both of them (I hope). Please have them read, if you are stillinterested. Aregakn (talk) 04:45,05/02/2010 (GMT)

Thanksfor your responses. Right now I am coming from the OCA and am exploring theOriental Orthodox churches right now. I understand how the OO churches havetaught the Cyrillian of the one nature of the Logos that united an instance ofhumanity to Himself but retained a oneness of nature of perfect divinity andperfect humanity. I do not think that the Council of Chalcedon was purelyorthodox, and hence why I am exploring the OO churches from an EO church. Ihave a basic understanding of the history between the ArmenianApostolic Churchand the Syriac Orthodox Church, for instance how Armeniastopped sending its Catholicoi to Caesarea inthe late 4th century for consecration, and how the SOC and the AAC reconciledmisperceived doctrinal differences between them at the Council of Manazkert in721. Deusveritasest (talk) 22:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I see that you are interested in true Orthodoxy and the OO churches. I also sawsome interesting details in your profile, in your preferences.BTW are you thinking of joining one of them? Maybe entering a seminary? Aregakn (talk) 01:57, 11/02/2010 (GMT)

I have a major issues with the OO churches right now. My main problem is that each of the OO churches in my area is a diaspora and is ethnic and foreign in nature, meaning that the church is based in some foreign province, rather than the U.S., such as Egypt, Ethiopia, Armenia, or somewhere else of that sort. The church I am coming from, the OCA, is an entirely different matter. It is not ethnic in nature, exists primarily to serve multi-ethnic American English speaking people, and is U.S. based. This is essentially what I want in a particular church. I do not feel greatly drawn to any of the OO churches in particular. But I know that I feel drawn to what they hold in common, the basic Cyrillian faith that they hold between them that is called Oriental Orthodoxy. Deusveritasest (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Understood! There is one specifics that you don't see: the culture of tose nations are that effected those ideas and perception. Most importantly the language is an interesting matter. When one learns to talk a language and it becomes of his own, his ideology and the way of thinking changes as well. I don't know how you think about it, but I have seen from my own practice with others and myself. Those that take the language and "feel" it as their own (not translating from a different language, but thinking in it), take a lot from the collective memory and feelings of the part of the "world" (meaning all the aspects of life) they belong to. Neither English, nor Russian or German or Chinese languages will be able to talk to you and explain you the whys and whats of it. In words and sounds you receive a different perception of the world, belief, life...

Whoever is from the community of the Church belongs to the church and to whatever it represents. For instance, if you go to the Syriac, you'll be seen as "Syrian" and start knowing them better and what keeps it what it is until now. Armenian apostolic? You shall get what the collective memory gives you, the perception, the history etc etc. The ethnic belonging can be this or that but belonging to a culture or a community is different. If you seek to know an OO church better, go into it and learn the language! Remember? LOGOS... :)

I can assure you, even if I, knowing Armenian, studied entient Armenian that is called "Grabar" (meaning "as written"), which is used in liturgy and the church, I'd have a different understanding of things, than presently, knowing the Eastern Armenian, that is relatively simplified during the USSR. Aregakn (talk) 01:20, 14/02/2010 (GMT)

Edit-warring at Church of the East

There are multiple sources which refer to Nestorianism as the Church of the East, and its inclusion on the disambiguation page is appropriate. If you would like to see some of these sources, just ask. In the meantime though, it is not a good idea to be engaging in a revert war. Instead, please articulate your concerns at the relevant talkpage. Thanks, --Elonka 07:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you dense? Nestorianism isn't a church. It is a system of belief. You are probably just confused about what the sources are saying. Deusveritasest (talk) 01:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

For best results, please try to make your arguments without resorting to ad hominem attacks, which are against Wikipedia policy. As for what the sources are saying, Nestorianism is a kind of loose and baggy term which refers to several things. In some cases, sure, it's a system of belief. In others, it's specifically used to refer to the historical church in Persia, and its missionaries. There's a long long list of sources which say things such as "Nestorian missionaries", "Nestorian Christianity", "Nestorian chapel", etc. The modern Assyrian Church of the East may claim heritage from the Church of Persia, but it didn't actually start to be called the Assyrian Church of the East until the 16th century, when the Chaldean Catholics split off. In terms of modern scholarship though, Nestorian does indeed mean "Church of the East". See the information at Nestorianism#Terminology. If you have alternate sources, I'm happy to review them, and also work with you towards some sort of compromise. Perhaps the article "Nestorianism" should be retitled? --Elonka 02:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

All of those names are describing their faith rather than their church. Yes, "Nestorianism" is the faith of the Assyrian Church of the East. But the Assyrian Church of the East is not Nestorianism. One is an ecclesiastical body. One is a system of belief. If an ecclesiastical body proclaims a set of beliefs, their members may be identified with it. Would you ever call the Anglican Communion "Anglicanism". No, that sounds idiotic because it is a group of people rather than a belief set. A certain identification between Nestorianism and the ACE may be made because it is its faith, but we cannot identify "Nestorianism" as a church. To do so is syntactically erroneous. And I don't see what the point in posting it would be even if what you believe happened to be true. If you equivocate "Nestorianism" and "Assyrian Church of the East", then posting both as listings on the "Church of the East" article is redundant. Deusveritasest (talk) 02:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I am holding in my hand a book entitled, Nestorian Missionary Enterprise, a church on fire. It has multiple references to "Nestorian Church". I could also point out multiple books on medieval history. For example, Religions of the Silk Road, by Richard C. Foltz: "Although Syriac was the liturgical language of the Nestorian church, the language in which Nestorian Christianity was disseminated across Asia was principally Sogdian...". Marco Polo referred to Nestorians in the Far East. King Louis of France gave the Mongols a "Nestorian chapel". The terms Nestorian Christianity, Nestorian Church, Nestorian Patriarch, etc., are well-established, and in common use in reliable sources. There of course may be other terms that can be used as well... For example, I have no trouble inserting "Patriarch of the Church of the East" for "Nestorian Patriarch". But "Patriarch of the Assyrian Church of the East" is a term that's only been used for the last few centuries... It would not be appropriate to use the term going all the way back to the early days of the church, unless you could produce multiple reliable sources which affirmed that usage. --Elonka 03:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

"Nestorian Church" is an entirely different matter than "Nestorianism". It would not be syntactically erroneous to refer to a "Nestorian Church". What you are insisting on in the article is referring to "Nestorianism" as a church. That is simply unacceptable. As I elsewhere pointed out, referring to church's retroactively by their modern name is actually quite common. We do this with "Eastern Orthodox Church". You think in the Byzantine Empire they actually referred to their church by that same name? It simply isn't so. Yet it is accepted to refer to the church of that time as the "Eastern Orthodox Church", because it is substantially the same church as what we know today as the "Eastern Orthodox Church". The same principle can be applied in this situation. "Assyrian Church of the East" can be retroactively used to refer to the "Nestorian Church", the "Persian Church", and the "Sassanid Church", because they are all references to substantially the same church in various phases throughout its history. Deusveritasest (talk) 03:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

When you say "article", are you referring to the Church of the East disambiguation page? Or something else? --Elonka 04:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I am certain that "Nestorianism" doesn't belong there because it is not a church and because it is a redundancy. Deusveritasest (talk) 04:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:MOSDAB, disambiguation pages are for the use of editors, who may be following a link for an ambiguous term. It's very reasonable to believe that if someone linked "Church of the East", that they might have really meant to link "Nestorianism". For example, check this source, the 2000 work, The ecclesiastical organisation of the Church of the East, 1318-1913, which says specifically, "Until recently the Church of the East was usually called the 'Nestorian' church, and East Syrian Christians were either 'Nestorians' or (for the Catholic group after the schism of 1552) 'Chaldeans'.

Does that help clarify? --Elonka 05:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Not really. Nowhere is there an equivocation of "Church of the East" with "Nestorianism". It's not even clarified what is meant by "Church of the East" in that article. My guess is that they were referring to the Assyrian Church of the East. If that is the case then the logical conclusion is for "Nestorian Church" to redirect to Assyrian Church of the East or "Church of the East". That doesn't address my point that "Nestorianism" is not a church, and thus it does not make sense to link to it in a search for a church body. Honestly, I really don't think that anyone would be looking for "Nestorianism" in a search for "Church of the East". It might make sense to me that they were looking for any of the other listings. But not "Nestorianism". Deusveritasest (talk) 05:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The complete quote is, "The terminology used in this study deserves a word of explanation. Until recently the Church of the East was usually called the 'Nestorian' church, and East Syrian Christians were either 'Nestorians' or (for the Catholic group after the schism of 1552) 'Chaldeans'. During the period covered in this study the word 'Nestorian' was used both as a term of abuse by those who disapproved of the traditional East Syrian theology, as a term of pride by many of its defenders (including Abdisho of Nisibis in 1318, the Mosul patriarch Eliya X Yohannan Marogin in 1672, and the Qudshanis patriarch Shem'on XVII Abraham in 1842), and as a neutral and convenient descriptive term by others. Nowadays it is generally felt that the term carries a stigma, and students of the Church of the East are advised to avoid its use. In this thesis the theologically neutral adjective 'East Syrian' has been used wherever possible, and the term 'traditionalist' to distinguish the non-Catholic branch of the Church of the East after the schism of 1552. The modern term 'Assyrian', often used in the same sense, was unknown for most of the period covered in this study, and has been avoided." --Elonka 08:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

So what? Deusveritasest (talk) 18:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Nasrani evolution chart

There has been an ongoing problem with attempts by a small coterie of sock-puppety and meat-puppety editors to censor material with which they disagree. Just recently small progress has been achieved, and instead of just cutting out what they don't like, they have begun actually improving articles. A chart for the evolution of the groups of Thomas Christians, showing their relationships, is a good thing, and we really need it. An editor created one a while ago, in good faith, to do his best with the resources he had. Several have claimed to have improved charts, but have not actually uploaded them. A conversation is ongoing about what improvements should be made, and it is not inappropriate to ask those concerned to actually fix the article/image with which they disagree, rather than editing and removing links. It is not linking to an evolution chart which is the problem, but the image itself which has been questioned. There is a deletion review ongoing, which will address the question of whether the chart is so biased it must be dropped--if so, then that's that. And, I think there is no objection from anyone to an improved chart, and it is incumbent on those who disagree with the current chart to replace it with a better one, just as for any other article, image, list, or whatever. Tb (talk) 06:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

And, while none of those upset has so far lifted a finger, the image's author has addressed the "straight line" concern, as well he should have. Tb (talk) 07:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The image is clearly biased to the point that it cannot rightfully remain there as it is. I think it would either be appropriate, therefore, to drop it or to change it. Certain others and myself seem content to drop it. I don't see what is wrong with this approach. If some others are so concerned with keeping the image, then I see it as their responsibility to change the image itself, because otherwise it should be dropped. Deusveritasest (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

"I'm sick and tired of the laziness. do it! fix it!" This sounds rather hypocritical. It is supposedly very easy to fix it. So why don't you fix it? It would seem only appropriate given that you're the one who is so concerned with keeping it. Deusveritasest (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The bias has actually been removed; it's been changed; did you check? Tb (talk) 23:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I see it now. Just last night it was still the same. It appears moderately acceptable now. The "Old Party", "New Party" businesses sounds a little sketchy, but I don't know enough about the background behind that to object. However, I think it would be better if we just did the double break "Y" fork for all of the schisms listed on there, thus purifying from any possibility of POV. Deusveritasest (talk) 00:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Me too: many improvements could be made. But I am content with it as it is. Those who are discontent should feel free to improve it, but that's not the same thing as just eliminating what you don't like. (And really, for some of the participants, what they seem to want is to have no association at all with these other groups which they seem to hate.) Those who want a change should make the change; if a resource on Wikipedia is bad, the solution is to make it better or delete it, but not to eliminate all links to it. The deletion request is handled in its way, and improvements are really easy for those who will do them. Tb (talk) 00:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The chart was offending because of the straight line and the derogatory names used, both theese were objected by the opposing parties including me. Now the creator of the chart has removed the straight line, however still keeps the derogatory names. You can see the new chart, New File here. Unfortunate that Tb didnt mentioned about this new chart.See the discussions in , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Nasrani_Evolution.PNGFyodor7 (talk) 04:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. The names chosen were widely used in sources; it was not wildly wrong for the editor to use the ones available in his sources. I note that there has been precious little contribution to User:Student7's request for help in finding better names. Perhaps if you have some suggestions on that score, you would suggest them? Tb (talk) 05:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I was stressing about the new chart and not the derogatory names. Fyodor7 (talk) 06:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The new chart has many good qualities. It is far more attractive, and it gets the names right (except for the Assyrian Church of the East, if I recall correctly). It makes the problem of identifying the ancient Nasrani with the Chaldeans, which may be a problem just as the old chart was in identifying them with the Catholics. But this could be easily solved as I noted in the discussion. It is much larger, and I wish it could be reduced in size considerably. The chart at the top of List of Christian denominations is, I think, a model example of good design. Tb (talk) 06:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I really don't think either of those charts are perfect. The latter one you linked to I think is better. But I think there are certain more edits that could be done to it to perfect it first. Deusveritasest (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not perfect, but it is an improvement in my opinion, and it's a tolerable alternative compromise to the current one. I would still like to see it smaller. Tb (talk) 00:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed on the smaller part. The large size does a real number on the Indian Orthodox page. Deusveritasest (talk) 01:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring at Nestorianism

Deusveritasest, please, do not make blanket reverts of other editors' good faith changes. Especially when you are not participating at the article's talkpage. Better is to engage in discussion with other editors towards finding a consensus version of the article. Also, if you dispute facts in an article, please provide sources so that other editors can verify the information that you are seeking to change. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Wikipedia runs on sources, and it's not a good idea to engage in reverts, based simply on personal knowledge. Reverts as an editing strategy are really quite ineffective. Instead, please work in a collegial manner with other editors, and this will be much more likely to result in a high quality and stable article. Thanks, --Elonka 16:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

New Picture

Hi Deusveritasest, I have jotted down few lines regarding the replacement of the Kadamattam Church picture in Oriental Orthodox Talk page. Didnt want to change it, without consulting you. Please let me know ur opinion.Fyodor7 (talk) 13:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Oriental Orthodox

Your Statement, "this did not take the form of autocephaly, and thus the Syriac Patriarch has never agreed to the arrangement involving complete independence."

Is wrong, in 1958, the Patriarch accepted, the 1934 Constitution which gives, the Patriarch the power of being the Supreme head ONLY IN SPIRITUAL AFFAIRS and NOT TEMPORAL. Patriarch is not the one who decides on autocephaly. The church spilit into two, 1912, when the Patriarch Ignatius Abudllah, tried to gain temporal powers. Till early 20th century the role of Patriarch was only in matters of Spirituality and not administrative.

The Patriarch Peter III( as per wikipedia PEter IV), was the first Patriarch who tried to make the Malankara church a mere archdiocese of Syria. We had a huge problem then, a group led by reformists, wanted to turn the orthodox faith to anglican. They had the support of the British. Several famous churches were under litigation and were closed for nearly 8-9 years. The then leader of the church Dionsyius II, was not allowed to enter any churches, every single church in Kerala was under the control of British/ Local ruler supported reformists.

We requested the Patriarch to come to India, because, it was the Patriarch who ordained the reformist leader, WITHOUT the consent of the then leader of the undivided orthodox church. The patriarch arrived in India, after travelling to England meeting the Queen, and received support from her not to intervene in the matters of the local indian church. All his expenses of rupees 5300 was taken by the local church ( when in those days a mere 500 was required to make a trip from mardin to kerala). The huge expense was because he travelled to England and then to Kerala.

The Patriarch met the local British Governer and the local rulers and revoked all Powers granted to the refomists. The Malankara church rejoiced, what the locals coouldnt achieve in years was achieved by the Patriarch within days. The Malankara church of that period turned very pro Jacobite, the syrians were considered saviours. For all the concerned leaders of the MaLankara church then, their prime issue was KEEPING THE FAITH ALIVE. Many pro patriarch statements were made, and that created an impression that, the head of the church is the Patriarch.

Patriarch Peter was a clever person, he knew that he had struck gold in Malabar, previsouly, the relationship between the Malankara church and the antiocheans was for ordination of bishops, and the syrians had never gained enough administrative powers in Malankara. The Patriarch used the situation cleverly, he divided the church into 6 dioceses and elevated individual bishops as heads for each of them, and they report directly to the Patriarch. Each of these 6 were not given rights to interfere in each others territory. This was done to reduce the power of Dionsyius II, the head of the entire malankara church.

Dionsyius II was not a pro-jacobite leader, he was also a clever man, and knew that the jacobites are also indeed problematic like the catholics(with whom we had probems in the 15th and 16th century) and the Anglicans. After Patrirach Peter had left Kerala, Dionsyius brought all the 6 bishops again back to his control. The Syrians sensed that Dionsyius had considerable influence over people, and during his time, they cannot gain administrative powers in Malankara, and they waited.

During the time of Iganatius Abdul Aloho( Abdullah), Pulikkottil Joseph Mar Dionysious II passed away and Malankara church found another leader, Vattasheril Dionysius , he was at first a pro jacobite leader. However later due to certain circumstances (if i explain that, this will be even more lengthy), he understood that the syrians just want temporal power and authority. Ignatius Abdul Aloho, pressurized to transfer the deeds of all assets in Malankara to Syrian church. Vattassheril Thirumeni, never heeded to it and he was excommunicated. The church spilt into two. The faction that believed that Syrian Patriach was the head of the church and the faction that belived that power of Patriach should be restricted to only spiritual matters.

However we owe a lot to the Syrians, because it was they who brought Orthodox faith to India. Hence the constitution of the church, which was drafted in 1930 by Vattasheeril thirumeni stresses that the Patrirach is the Supreme head of the church ( Spiritual) and Catholicose is the head of India, with powers both spiritual and temporal.

Hence what you have written, that the Patriarch should approve of autocephaly is wrong. In 1958 both sides sacrificed a lot to attain unity. However the Patriarchs were adamant to stop the usage of, The throne of St.Thomas. Catholicos Augen, the head of the united Malankara church, used this, in several of his letters.

Patriach Yakub in his infamous bull stated that, St Thomas never established a Throne, and that he didn’t even have priesthood. He claimed that, when Jesus appeared to his disciples, St Thomas was not present, and hence he didn’t have priesthood.

The church took this a heretical, Patriarch excommunicated Catholicos Augen. However, till now, the Patriarch is not excommunicated in retribution.

If you try to read the history of Christianity in India, from secular sources, you will come to know that, the Orthodox faith in India is just 400 years old and the catholic faith is slightly more than that. Before which we were associated with East Syriac Persians. Association with all foreigners created splits. With a group preferring to stay single, maintaining the Oath with our forefathers took, during the Portuguese persecution and another group siding the foreigners.

I have written so elaborately, because I know you are genuine, and have seen you participating in Orthodoxchristianity.net . I don’t have a single post their, but I am regular reader. Credit Risk (talk) 05:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:46, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!