Talk:John Zizioulas/Archive

Work of M. Zizioulas has been disputed in many Orthodox circles, and giving him a title "one of the world's leading theologians" is very misleading.

In other words, this article is missing part in which his writings are questioned by traditional Orthodox theology represented in the writings of the Fathers, summarized in the works of prof. V. Lossky.

What is the procedure for tagging the article "disputed"? Thanks.

--216.191.72.153 19:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The edits of Cebactokpatop do not conform to Wikipedia NPOV, and contained insertions of polemic which amounted to vandalism. Many of the claims were unverified. I tried to improve the page to make it conform to NPOV, and placed a vandalism tag on Cebactokpatop's talk-page.

At the same time, I added additional material concerning the content of Zizioulas' ecclesiology. (Despite the polemical allegations of 'ecumenism' previously in the article, there was previously no description of Zizioulas' ecclesiological views.)

In response, Cebastokpatop simply reverted my edits, and placed a vandalism tag on my talk-page.

I am happy to contribute edits on Wikipedia, but I do not wish to become embroiled in endless reverts with someone whose edits on Wikipedia are intended to promote a particular polemic unsuitable for an encyclopedia.

If Cebastokpatop is indeed willing to contribute towards the construction of an article which is NPOV, I would be very happy to work with him.

Seminarist (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

False accusations easily verifiable by looking at the latest revision of mine. This person is trying to quiet down the voice of the traditional Orthodox people who do not see the work of JZ as Orthodox. That is precisely what we call vandalism, and that is why you deserved tag - vandal.

Cebactokpatop (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a vandal, and desire to work towards consensus. I am not trying to prevent an encyclopedic description of criticisms of Zizioulas' thought and episcopacy. But I am trying to prevent the article being presented from a POV.

Thank you for not reinserting certain of the earlier NPOV items.

I have also tried to improve the article in a number of ways:

1. I have tried to remove errors from the older version of the article. E.g. Zizioulas is no longer a member of the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
2. I have also tidied the description of Zizioulas' academic education and career, by placing this in a separate section.
3. I have added a section on Zizioulas' ecclesiology.
4. I have tidied and expanded the bibliographical section.

You have now reverted these changes without explanation three times in the last 24 hours, and have therefore broken the 3RR. Please do not revert these sections again.

In your last edit you reinserted the sentence: "Although the many are amazed with the works of the John Zizioulas, his thought is not widely accepted amongst the Orthodox. Traditional Orthodox see his view of the personhood, Holy Trinity and The Church as untraditional, and different from the view of the Early Church Fathers, more specifically: St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Basil the Great and St. Gregory of Nazianzus (Cappadocian Fathers)."

This sentence is not NPOV, it is not verifiable and it is not of an appropriate style for an encyclopedia entry, for a number of reasons:

1. The assertion that Zizioulas' thought is 'not widely accepted amongst the Orthodox' is not NPOV and not verified.
2. It is not NPOV to contrast Zizioulas' thought to "traditional" Orthodoxy.

Could you rephrase the sentence and add (more) references?

Once again, I would like to work together towards consensus. It would be good if you could add a NPOV description of (1) which "traditionalist" Orthodox criticise Zizioulas' thought; of (2) where they criticise his thought [i.e. give some references]; and of (3) how they criticise Zizioulas' thought [i.e. say what they argue against Zizioulas' theology and episcopacy].

I do not wish the article to be pro-Zizioulas or anti-Zizioulas, but to be NPOV. Hopefully we can achieve that together.

Seminarist (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Until we come to the consensus, old revision remains. I would suggest to use sandbox until resolution.

BTW0: Only the blind would not see the references I supplied.

BTW1: Your constant quoting attitude whenever referring to the term - traditional, explains who you are and where you come from.

Cebactokpatop (talk) 21:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's try stage by stage. I will add my earlier improvements, and you tell me if you disagree with them.

Seminarist (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Show me how below sentence is "verifiable"? Are those two names representing whole "younger generation"? Are they "theologians" in the first place?

Zizioulas' theology has especially been accepted among younger generation of Greek and Serbian theologians, such as retired bishop Atanasije Jevtic or bishop Ignjatije Midic.

Cebactokpatop (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sentence doesn't come from me. I am not Serbian and have no view re Bps Atanasije or Ignatije.

Seminarist (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really want me to provide you with references showing that Zizioulas and Florovsky are noted theologians?

Would you agree that the paragraph on Zizioulas views on personhood, etc. is weak and needs rewritten?

Seminarist (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are not working towards the consensus with such an attitude.

Cebactokpatop (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you are trying to push down the Traditional Orthodox View, by creating numerous sections, I will add after each one of your sections, one that reflects Traditional View. But not now. Later.

Cebactokpatop (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I am trying to work to consensus; that is why I asked you the questions. I am not trying to 'push down' any view. Remember that the article is not about the 'traditional' Orthodox view of Zizioulas, but about Zizioulas himself. If you want a separate article about the 'traditional' Orthodox view of Zizioulas, then why not create one? Otherwise, interpretation of Zizioulas' thought - whether positive or negative - should go at the bottom of the article.

Seminarist (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are continuing with the vandal approach putting unverified claims "pro" while removing references to the voice of those who recognized in JZ - a faulty man with heterodox ideas.

Cebactokpatop (talk) 14:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have put the revision that we can use for further development of he article. However, if you continue with your standard practice by naming Traditional Orthodox as "traditional", etc. (violating NPOV), this article will go nowhere.

Cebactokpatop (talk) 14:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Standards

You have repeatedly shown incivility to me. Please see Wikipedia policy on No Personal Attacks.

You have also have displayed an extremely hostile attitude towards the subject of this article, John Zizioulas. This is not acceptable on Wikipedia. I am concerned that your editing may still be motivated by your dislike of John Zizioulas, the subject of this article. You have alleged him to be 'heterodox', and previously you vansalised this article adding a picture of Zizioulas seated beside the Pope with the caption Zizioulas 'shows his true face'.

Seminarist (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated Removal of Material without Explanation

This is now the fourth time in two days you have reverted the content of the article without proper explanation.

Please do not remove citations or bibliography I have added previously. They conform to Wikipedia's policy on citing sources.

Seminarist (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Presenting one POV as 'Traditional Orthodoxy'

To speak of one position rather than another as 'traditional Orthodoxy' is a POV, and so does not conform to Wikipedia NPOV. Therefore, it is not appropriate to use the title of 'traditional Orthodoxy' as a label of an anti-Zizioulas theology.

Seminarist (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citation of Questionable and Possibly Extremist Sources

According to Wikipedia's Polity on sources, material from questionable sources 'should only be used in articles about themselves', and that where such material does appear, it cannot be contentious. For both reasons, therefore, neither the article from the Italian magazine Ortodossia, nor the missionary booklet by Rodoljub Lazic may appear in the John Zizioulas article. For this reason, I am removing these references.

According to Wikipedia's policy on the burden of proof, 'The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material'. You have not provided suitable verification for your claims regarding 'traditionalist' understandings of Zizioulas' thought. Therefore, I am adding a ^{[citation needed]} tag to this material; this material should be removed unless it is properly sourced. If you revert the article to include again this 'traditionalist' material without HAVING PREVIOUSLY achieved consensus, then you are in violation of Wikipedia's burden of proof policy.

Seminarist (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Desire for Consensus

Please be assured again of my desire to work towards consensus on this article, but only in accordance with Wikipedia standards.

Seminarist (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have supplied the references to the Traditional Orthodox understandings of Zizioulas' thought. That section of the article is full of references. If you choose to be blind before them, your choice. But, it can not be base for your constant calls for "policies breach". Your tagging of the Italian magazine article and other book as "extremist" is outrageous. You seems to have attitude to call extremists all those who disagree with your clique. Besides, did you read the book of Rodoljub Lazic? If you did not, your assertions are bordering with the term - lies.

Cebactokpatop (talk) 05:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Orthodossa article looks to be extremist. But it doesn't have to be extremist; it only has to be contentious. And to say that a Metropolitan of the Greek Orthodox Church is 'heterodox' is certainly contentious. Please read the policies (WP:BLP; WP:PROVEIT; WP:BLP; WP:NPOV).

Seminarist (talk) 05:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOOKS?!?! Give me a break... Did you read the book of Rodoljub Lazic? On what basis did you tag it as "extremist"?

This below is for your own benefit and speedy revival from the falsehood of Zizioulas, Afansiev, Shmeman, etc.

"Even if false hierarchs, while being in heresy, will succeed in deceiving and enticing a certain number of ignorant ones and in gathering even a considerable number of followers, then they are outside the sacred walls of the Church just the same. But even if very few remain in Orthodoxy and piety, they are in the Church, and the authority and the protection of the ecclesiastical institution resides in them. And if they should suffer for true piety, then this will undoubtedly contribute to their eternal glory and salvation of their souls." - St. Nicephorus the Confessor

Cebactokpatop (talk) 05:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert the article to the revision dated: 16:20, 15 February 2008. Let the other party that arrived several days ago proove his claims. While he provide the evidences, that revision should be on display. It is actually, last revision before situation went out of control. Thank you.

Cebactokpatop (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}}

The previous versionof the article contained a section entitled 'Traditionalist Orthodox view of the Work of John Zizioulas', which articlates a fringe theory.

• This section consists almost entirely assertions that Zizioulas' theology and churchmanship are not in line with what was being called 'traditional Orthodoxy', and Zizioulas is accused of 'heterodoxy'. Since Zizioulas is the Greek Orthodox Metropolitan of Pergamon, such statements do not reflect the Greek Orthodox Church's own view, and constitute a contentious, minority POV. Therefore this section violates both WP:NPOV and WP:BLPSTYLE ('Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone').
• The only references in this section are made to an article by Lucian Turcescu whose conclusions are disputed in academic scholarship, to a questionable and possibly extremist on-line article entitled Is the Theologian Ioannis Zizioulas proclaiming Orthodoxy?, and to a Missionary booklet in Serbian, each of which accuse Zizioulas theology of being non-traditional and heterodox. None of these sources meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable and non-contentious sources. Specifically the on-line article asserts that we must state that Zizioulas’s theological style and argumentation can be proven deceitful, as he often stands too far from the truth. This man’ s individual thinking in no way represents the orthodox traditional theology but only personal and, at times, peculiar theological aspects having nothing to do with the common experience shared and faithfully practised by the great majority of orthodox believers down the Christian centuries. Again, according to Wikipedia policy, these views should never be on a BLP page ('Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link').
• The traditionalist material was occupying half of the article. Therefore undue weight was being given to the material in the section.
• Cebactokpatop had also inserted a picture of Zizioulas sitting beside the Pope which he had entitled Picture of the John Zizioulas (black robe) revealing his true face and position.[1] This is malicious.
• It is not neutral (and so does not conform to WP:NPOV) to equate 'traditional Orthodoxy' with the views of a minority group within Orthodoxy.

The fact that Cebactokpatop is unable to provide a variety of mainstream sources concerning John Zizioulas - who has amassed a large bibliography of secondary literature in English - points to his edits having the purpose of promoting a fringe theory.

I have tried to negotiate with Cebastokpatop to make the article neutral. However, he has made repeated personal attacks. He has repeatedly deleted constructive edits which I have made (e.g. addition of extra sections of text, correction and expansion of Zizioulas biographical details, addition of extra bibliography, addition of references and footnotes) without justification.

Looking at his edit-history, it seems that this is the only article which he is interested in contributing to, and it seems that his only reason for contributing to it is to ensure that the John Zizioulas article is dominated by his material regarding 'traditional Orthodoxy'.

I therefore do not believe that it will be possible to negotiate with him without mediation, which I am therefore requesting.

Seminarist (talk) 21:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Demonstrate consensus for change

When an article is protected as a result of an edit war, it is protected in whatever version it is in when the administrator locates it. It is against policy for administrators to edit the contents of the protected page except in very limited circumstances, including (1) obvious vandalism, (2) uncontroversial changes unrelated to the dispute, or (3) changes for which clear consensus exists. May I suggest that the two of you try to reach consensus during this protection period? You may wish to seek additional feedback from WP:3O to help consensus emerge if the two of you cannot come to terms. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. noted theologian: His theology is not Orthodox, and for that reason, he is not Orthodox theologian. Since he is, sadly, still member of the Orthodox clergy, having that assertion implies that he is Orthodox theologian. Text needs to be enhanced to include qualification on whose theologian he is.

2. "Traditionalist" Orthodox: Traditional Orthodox are not to be referenced like that. Added quotes are Seminarist's personal opinion, and are viloation of Wiki's NPOV.

3. Certain Orthodox, who style themselves as "traditionalist": Same as above. This assertion is personal opinion of Seminarist, and viloates NPOV.

4. Positive Assessments in Greece and Serbia: Two bishops named as "positive assessments" are Serbians. Where did the Greeks go? If he wants to add "positive assessments", for the article to be neutral as per Wiki's standards, we will have to add "negative assessments" as well.

5. Seminarist removed complete section citing Traditional Orthodox sources with regards to the JZ theology and work. Even though, all references in that section were provided, he continued with the abuse of the Wiki by continuous removal of that section. Just because he is the fan of the JZ, his personal orientation should not be emphasized on the Wiki's article. Seminarist needs to learn that other opinions are valid on Wiki, as well.

• 1. This is unreasonable. Zizioulas is widely recognised to be a theologian (I have already provided appropriate citation), and he is the Greek Orthodox Metropolitan of Pergamon; as such, it is not unreasonable to call him a "theologian", and it is not unreasonable to call him an "Orthodox theologian". Seminarist (talk)

• 2. It seems that you are not aware of WP:NPOV. NPOV does not mean no point of view. See WP:YESPOV, which states that 'the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints.' 'The neutral point of view is a point of view that is neutral, that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject.' Articles in which multiple viewpoints are presented must 'studiously refrain from asserting which is better'. 'Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions.'Seminarist (talk)

• To identify traditional Orthodoxy with one group who claim that an Orthodox Metropolitan is not a traditional Orthodox and is heterodox is contentious and fails to conform to NPOV. Quotes are added to signify that this group claims to have a monopoly on traditional Orthodoxy, not to signify that they are wrong. To place contentious claims in quotation marks is a reasonable way of seeking to preserve NPOV.Seminarist (talk)

• 3. Response as above. Seminarist (talk)

• 4. You are dissimulating here. I have never objected to the netural reporting of the content of positive or negative assessments. I have sought that such descriptions conform to Wikipedia policies on WP:NPOV, WP:PROVEIT, WP:BLP.Seminarist (talk)

• 5. No. You need to learn what Wikipedia's policy on NPOV means. I am tired of your incivility - please conform from now on to WP:CIVILITY.Seminarist (talk) [23:34, 17 February 2008 UTC)]

1. He claims that article of the magazine Italia Ortodossa is "extremist". As a proof, he said that it "looked (to him) as extremist". Again, his own opinion - viloation of the NPOV.

2. He claims that book of Rodoljub Lazic is extremist. After asking him on what basis he has put that claim forward, no answer was obtained. I have asked him if he read the book, and no answer was given. Again, his claim contains no proof and represents his own opinion - violation of NPOV.

Cebactokpatop (talk) 20:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• 1. I did not call the article extremist. I said it was questionable and possibly extremist. You are twisting my words. Please do not misquote me again.Seminarist (talk)

• The article Is the Theologian Ioannis Zizioulas proclaiming Orthodoxy? is quite clearly a questionable source. This is evident to anyone who reads the text. The article never once quotes Zizioulas, consists almost entirely of unsupported assertions, and then concludes we must state that Zizioulas’s theological style and argumentation can be proven deceitful, as he often stands too far from the truth. This man’ s individual thinking in no way represents the orthodox traditional theology but only personal and, at times, peculiar theological aspects having nothing to do with the common experience shared and faithfully practised by the great majority of orthodox believers down the Christian centuries. According to WP:SOURCES 'Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves.' Therefore, since this article is clearly a questionable source, it cannot be cited in the John Zizioulas article.Seminarist (talk)

• Again, WP:NPOVdoes not mean no point of view. WP:YESPOV, states that 'the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints.' 'The neutral point of view is a point of view that is neutral, that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject.'Seminarist (talk)

• 2. Oncemore, you are not telling the truth. I did not claim that that book (which is a Missionary booklet) was extremist; I said it was 'questionable and possible extremist'. You previously accused me without justification of being 'very low' and of making assertions 'bordering with the term - lies'; in fact, it seems to me that such allegations apply more to someone who repeatedly dissimulates through misquotation.Seminarist (talk)

• According to WP:PROVEIT, 'The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material'. That means that it is not up to me to prove that the missionary booklet IS a questionable source, but that it is up to you to prove that it is NOT a questionable source.Seminarist (talk) [23:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)][reply]

What you did on this page, after I added two sections, is reflection of your attitude you expressed in the article as well. You deliberately keep removing my texts replacing it with your own. Normal civil way would be to add your comments below my text. Instead, you are trying to "prove" yourself "right" through the excessive amounts of text placed in the frontal position of the page. Very low indeed. I think that any attempt to come to the consensus would be pure waste of the time, and will therefore ask moderators to read the revision of the article I already pointed to and come up with the verdict.

Cebactokpatop (talk) 00:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not unacceptable to respond to your claims point by point. I am very happy to seek assistance in reaching consensus, and, indeed, have already asked for such assistance. But it is disappointing to me that you will not actually consider the issues one by one.

Seminarist (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not detected even the smallest desire on your side to learn that there are people out there who do not agree with either JZ or his followers. If you were expecting arguing from my side in typical internet forum fashion - one by one sentence, you are badly mistaken about the mind of the Traditional Orthodox.

How low you can be is in the fact that you even modified my own text adding quotation around the first word in the title on this page - Unproven Claims by Seminarist. If you are by any chance real seminarist of some Orthodox Seminary, I can only be sorry for those faithful Orthodox people who would, in some future, be exposed to the clergy like yourself. In the end, followers of JZ cannot be any better, as the spring they are drinking from, is tainted.

Cebactokpatop (talk) 01:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• These comments constitute a personal attack and are unacceptable. Seminarist (talk) 01:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the revision dated 16:20, 15 February 2008 and come to the verdict whether it is in line with the Wiki's policy on neutrality or not. The point I an trying to make is that section titled "Traditional Orthodox View" is ballast to the remaining "pro" sections of the article and without it, the whole article would not be neutral. Thank you.

Cebactokpatop (talk) 01:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is an encyclopedia the initial description of Zizioulas’ work must be objective and dispassionate. When this impartial assessment has been given a range of views on Zizioulas’ work can be laid out – critical views amongst them, properly referenced. It is prima facie not objective to say that a senior bishop of the Orthodox Church is not orthodox. Of course, the views of critics of Zizioulas can be given their own wikipedia pages, with cross-references.

--86.139.212.66 (talk) 13:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Here we have anonymous face giving suggestions, who can be Seminarist himself.

Cebactokpatop (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not that other user. I've made similar points often enough not to need to make them again.Seminarist (talk) 00:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, now that things have quietened down, I would like you to withdraw your personal attack on me (made 01:17, 18 February 2008)[2] that 'If you are by any chance real seminarist of some Orthodox Seminary, I can only be sorry for those faithful Orthodox people who would, in some future, be exposed to the clergy like yourself. In the end, followers of JZ cannot be any better, as the spring they are drinking from, is tainted.'

The fact that I disagree with you about the contents of a wikipedia article gives you no right to make such comments. Seminarist (talk) 00:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion

I have read this diff per the request of User:Cebactokpatop. It is my opinion that the section entitled "Traditional Orthodox view of the work of John Zizioulas" presents valid arguments against the authors work, however, it the way it is presented does violate WP:NPOV. In the articles present state, it balances criticism and defense in such away that it does not violate WP:UNDUE. As such, I recommend keeping the present version with the following caveats: the section entitled ""Traditionalist" Orthodox Criticisms of Zizioulas" needs to explain WHO the "traditionalists" are. In addition, the quotes around the word "traditionalist" imply a negative connotation, so they should be removed. Both the aforementioned section and the section entitled "Positive Assessments in Greece and Serbia" also need to have reliable sources attached to their claims. Giving this is a biography, criticisms and/or defenses of a persons views should not be included unless they are cited. I will watchlist this article if anyone needs clarification of my opinion in this case. Justin ^chat 08:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I would appreciate it if you would watchlist this article.

I remain concerned that the characterisation of the sorts of criticisms of Zizioulas' theology in question as 'traditional'/'traditionalist' is contentious, since there are differing conceptions within contemporary Orthodoxy regarding what it means to be traditional/traditionalist. So to assign the terms 'traditional'/'traditionalist' without qualification to one group/understanding must surely violate WP:NPOV. What is needed therefore is some suitable locution which makes clear that these criticisms come from a body of opinion which understands itself to be traditional; they are not simply the voice of traditional Orthodoxy simpliciter.Seminarist (talk) 12:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, the best option would be to use neutral language (remove the word traditionalist altogether). Title it "Criticisms of Zizioulas" and name, specifically, who is criticizing him. That is neutral, and avoids weasel words. 16:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justin (talk • contribs)

I agree. Here is a critique of the alignment of 'traditionalist' with 'traditional Orthodoxy' - which shows the equation to be sufficiently contentious that it does not conform to WP:NPOV. Seminarist (talk) 03:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Justin, thank you for the opinion. I find it useful, although I may not completely agree with it. My word about the idea of removing the attribute Traditional from the section in question... If we are going to explore that avenue under the umbrella of "being neutral", any possible reference in the article, that would implicitly or explicitly suggest that theology of JZ is Orthodox, should be removed as well. Claims that it is, are representing the opinion of a certain group of the people within Orthodoxy, and not of the Church as whole. Other group within the Orthodoxy that we call Traditional Orthodox, are rejecting his work. So, if the article is to be "neutral", it should state the fact that he is member of the Orthodox clergy, but, since his work is being disputed, his work should not be classified as Orthodox, in order to maintain neutrality. If in future his work gains an acceptance of the whole Church (God forbid), this article can move on and declare his work as Orthodox. Until then, neutral position of the article can not include any hint that his work could be Orthodox, or it is not neutral anymore.

Cebactokpatop (talk) 18:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That depends really. In reviewing the article, I'm having trouble understanding which sections in particular you feel suggests his theology is Orthodox? Aside from the "Assessments of Zizioulas' Thought" section (which seems to display both views), I'm not seeing anything that states his theology is Orthodox. If you could point out the sections you feel are POV, perhaps I could better formulate an opinion on that. Justin ^chat 19:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well... Presentation of his theology on the page implies it to be Orthodox, simply by the fact that he is member of the Orthodox clergy. Since there is no specific statement saying that his theology is strictly his private opinion, and not the opinion of the Church, it is implicitly attributed to the Orthodox Church. And as I said already, if we are to maintain neutrality of the article, any notion that could lead people to think it is Orthodox renders the whole article non-neutral. I have not assessed the current article in details, but was referring rather to principle that shall be employed here.

There was a question regarding the definition of the term - Traditional Orthodox... Quickly and without extensive elaboration, I can say that: Orthodox who base their Faith and theology on the theology of the Early Church Fathers, and NOT on a compilation of that theology by contemporary individuals, are Traditional Orthodox. It does not mean that we are rejecting contemporary theology a-priory, but rather, we judge contemporaries based on theology of the Fathers. If they comply with the Fathers, like Prof. Lossky, we accept them. Again, this is very short definition.

Cebactokpatop (talk) 21:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This understanding of 'traditional Orthodox' seems to me to be somewhat idiosyncratic. Far more normal, in my view, would be the understanding of Holy Tradition expressed by, e.g. Elder Cleopa, when he says that 'Holy Tradition is the life of the Church in the Holy Spirit'.[3] (Elder Cleopa is a Romanian Elder widely respected amongst traditionalist Orthodox.)

I find your comments on Lossky surprising. Lossky is not normally held in traditionalist Orthodox circles to be a paradigm of contemporary conformity to the Fathers. For a traditionalist Orthodox critique of Lossky's views on tradition see footnote 6 of the following article on tradition, published by the Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies. I might even say that the notion of a traditionalist Orthodoxy which uses Lossky as a paradigm of fidelity to the tradition is something of a novelty...

It seems to me that what you are describing as the character and boundaries of 'traditional Orthodoxy' does not represent anything other than your own personal position. I would be grateful if you would give examples of some Bishops and Theologians (preferably from around the world, and not just from one jurisdiction) which advocate your form of 'traditional Orthodoxy'. Could you provide such examples? Seminarist (talk) 03:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't imply his views are held by the Orthodox community at-large, at least the way I read it, it explicitly states that there is some disagreement among members on whether his ideas are within the churches mantras. However, removing his title would be a problem on two fronts. First, it would be censoring a known fact in an attempt to remain neutral, and second, removing it would actually be a violation of WP:NPOV. Since the article doesn't expressly state that his views are the same views held by the church, I don't see an NPOV violation here. The article states his views, states the those that criticize his views, and those that defend them. That's as close to neutrality as you'll find in my opinion. Justin ^chat 07:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Justin, I was not advocating to remove his title. My intent is to clearly distinguish his title from his work. His title should not imply that his work complies with the title. Unless stated, it would. Also, couple of references to the critics of his work are removed as "extremist", or "potentially extremist". Second one is pure guess as Seminarist did not read the book. First one is his personal opinion and violation of WP:NPOV. Current article is for that reason not acceptable besides several other details like quotes around the word Traditional.

Cebactokpatop (talk) 13:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oncemore, you are not telling the truth. I did not claim that that book (which is a Missionary booklet) was extremist; I said it was 'questionable and possible extremist'. You previously accused me without justification of being 'very low' and of making assertions 'bordering with the term - lies'; in fact, it seems to me that such allegations apply more to someone who repeatedly dissimulates through misquotation.

All that is needed is for the material to be unacceptable is that it be 'questionable'. The article Is the Theologian Ioannis Zizioulas proclaiming Orthodoxy? is quite clearly a questionable source. This is evident to anyone who reads the text. The article never once quotes Zizioulas, consists almost entirely of unsupported assertions, and then concludes we must state that Zizioulas’s theological style and argumentation can be proven deceitful, as he often stands too far from the truth. This man’ s individual thinking in no way represents the orthodox traditional theology but only personal and, at times, peculiar theological aspects having nothing to do with the common experience shared and faithfully practised by the great majority of orthodox believers down the Christian centuries. According to WP:SOURCES 'Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves.' Therefore, since this article is clearly a questionable source, it cannot be cited in the John Zizioulas article.

According to WP:PROVEIT, 'The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material'. That means that it is not up to me to prove that the missionary booklet IS a questionable source, but that it is up to you to prove that it is NOT a questionable source. Certainly, if the views on Zizioulas contained in that book are widespread enough to be 'traditional Orthodox' views, then you should be able to provide a widely-available source in English, and not have to cite a Missionary booklet published in Belgrade in Serbian. Seminarist (talk) 13:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are creating your own rules as what can be used as reference, and what not. For your own benefit, here is the official policy of Wiki: Non English Sources

Cebactokpatop (talk) 14:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but I am already aware of these policies. I will take it that you accept that the on-line article is a questionable source. Now, would you be so kind as to explain why this Serbian missionary-booklet is not a questionable source? And would you tell me if you know of any widely-available reliable source in English which documents the views you are trying to promote? Seminarist (talk) 14:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are dreaming. On line article is valid opinion of the faithful Orthodox in Italy.

Cebactokpatop (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, there are two possible scenarios we can explore. Maintain neutrality of the article by:

1. Balancing between two polarized views of his work. This would be problematic as it would require constant presence of the judges who would be setting quantities of the "pro" and "against" material, making sure that balance is maintained. How to make sure that judges are neutral?
2. Keeping all material strictly factual. Article would include: biography, bibliography, references to written material of the other people whether "pro" or "against" his work. This option would have to refrain even from the explanation of his theology, as it would require counterweight from the Traditional Orthodox, thus turning it into option #1.

Cebactokpatop (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the first thing that needs to be done is for us all to recognise the difference between describing what somebody thinks and advocating or endorsing what they think. Then we can look for places in the article where Zizioulas' thought is endorsed rather than just described.

But as far as I can tell, the article in its present form is appropriately NPOV. Seminarist (talk) 01:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not. You have removed couple of references to the critics of his work tagging them as "extremist", or "potentially extremist". Second one is pure guess as you did not read the book. First one is your personal opinion and violation of WP:NPOV. Current article is for that reason not acceptable besides several other details like quotes around the word Traditional.

Cebactokpatop (talk) 13:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article Is the Theologian Ioannis Zizioulas proclaiming Orthodoxy? is quite clearly a questionable source. This is evident to anyone who reads the text. The article never once quotes Zizioulas, consists almost entirely of unsupported assertions, and then concludes we must state that Zizioulas’s theological style and argumentation can be proven deceitful, as he often stands too far from the truth. This man’ s individual thinking in no way represents the orthodox traditional theology but only personal and, at times, peculiar theological aspects having nothing to do with the common experience shared and faithfully practised by the great majority of orthodox believers down the Christian centuries. According to WP:SOURCES 'Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves.' Therefore, since this article is clearly a questionable source, it cannot be cited in the John Zizioulas article. This is my personal opinion, but Wikipedia policy.

According to WP:PROVEIT, 'The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material'. That means that it is not up to me to prove that the missionary booklet IS a questionable source, but that it is up to you to prove that it is NOT a questionable source. Certainly, if the views on Zizioulas contained in that book are widespread enough to be 'traditional Orthodox' views, then you should be able to provide a widely-available source in English, and not have to cite a Missionary booklet published in Belgrade in Serbian.

It has already been agreed that it violates WP:NPOV to equate the anti-Zizioulas position you advocate with 'traditional Orthodoxy', and that therefore the word 'traditional' should be avoided in the context of describing the views of those who oppose Zizioulas' thought. To avoid WP:WEASEL neutral language should be used. And to show that it is a disputed POV within Orthodoxy to equate 'traditionalist' Orthodox with fidelity to the Orthodox tradition, I can appeal to the authority of Fr Seraphim Rose, himself a traditional Orthodox.[4] Seminarist (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are flooding this page with repeated text. It is considered abuse on all serious internet forums and treated as virus. Would you be so kind and stop with such a childish behavior?

Cebactokpatop (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down - there is no need to resort to name-calling. If you ask me the same question, I'll give you the same answer. I'm repeating this text because you are not responding to the points I make. Now, are you willing and able to respond to these points, or will you just continue to hurl abuse? Seminarist (talk) 14:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will stop this ping-pong with you, and continue conversation with Justin only.

Cebactokpatop (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]