Talk:History of the Eastern Orthodox Church

message: Since this article is shaping up, I felt I'd jump in with a few helpful comments before things get too carried away. Everyone, keep in mind to cite sources. If we ever want this article to reach GA or even FA status, we MUST have sources. It is no longer option, wikipedia simply requires it, and any unsourced info can be removed at any time. So while the user who are writing content are still around, please, please remember to use inline citations for all new content. Next, make sure to COPY EDIT your contributions. I found the following, just as an example:
:As far as buildings being churches there where none above ground until the first above ground churches where built in Armenia. Since Armenia was the first country to legalize Christianity and also embrace it as the state religion around 301 AD.
I mean, there is no reason for such garbled English to be in an encyclopedia. If you need help copy editing, please post to talk first, and I (and other editors) would gladly help. But it just makes me cringe when I find stuff like this in the main article space. Anyway, thanks to the editors working on expanding this article, keep up the good work!-Andrew c 00:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Would it be too much to ask LoveMonkey to please stop adding to the article before copyediting can be done on the contributions?  Much of what is being added is pretty garbled.  71.241.79.69 00:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A few suggestions

message: "Under a program of consolidating these countries and peoples, the Soviet also acted to suppress and obliterate their ethnic identities under the banner of a united egalitarian or socialist state."
The 'Under communist rule' section is bad, but this is a particularly egregious example. The policies of the Soviet state depended on who was in power at the time. Lenin for one was a supporter of the various nationalities, as were many other Bolsheviks (see for example Korenizatsiya). - Francis Tyers · 08:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, I'm just going to remove this sentence. - Francis Tyers · 08:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be better if you could replace the sentence with text that more accurately describes what happened. --Richard 08:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added some stuff, could still do with some work though - Francis Tyers · 09:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect

message: The article should discuss the collaboration of the Orthodox church with the Nazis and other fascists, the role of the church in the hellenization and oppression of the Balkans, and other less savoury facts. - Francis Tyers · 08:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also anti-semitism and pogroms. - Francis Tyers · 09:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Collaboration

message: Francis since you are Romanian what is the general view of Father  George Calciu-Dumitreasa there. Also since you wish to include pogroms should we include the Codreanu and Horia Sima's Legionnaires or the Legion of Archangel Michael in Romanian? How about pogroms in Moldovia? I think that this is understandable do you know if the Russian Orthodox made any official statements of condemnation of these pogroms? Because ALL pogroms are wrong. Then should we include the Ustashe? Since both Jewish and Orthodox Christians were their victims? Is there a history of Orthodox pogroms against Jewish people in other Orthodox countries like Serbia? Greece? How about Georgia? Belarus? Should we include Nazis atrocities against Orthodox and Jewish alike during WW2 like Jasenovac, or like Salonika, which has a history of Greek and Nazis antisemitism as well?
As long as the information is well researched and contextual I agree it should be included. But it must be about Orthodox Christianity specifically I think my mention of the 3.5 million Ukraines who fell victim to the Harvest of Sorrow was removed because (I guess) it had no direct correlation to the Ukrainian Orthodox church.
LoveMonkey 17:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never heard of Father George Calciu-Dumitreasa. We should include all of the information about pogroms, from all the Orthodox churches etc. Regarding the stuff against the Orthodox church, we should list them if they are specifically because a person/people were Orthodox, and not just because they were Serbs. e.g. Bulgarians were Orthodox, but they co-operated with the Nazis. So the key thing was co-operating with the Nazis, not being Orthodox. - Francis Tyers · 16:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can add that some Orthodox people from Serbia and Greece fought the Nazis, but then we can also add that some collaborated with the Nazis. - Francis Tyers · 12:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By "Orthodox people", do you mean "Orthodox clergy"?  If not, then the point is a weak one.  What the laity did is not the central focus here.  The only truly significant accusation that can be leveled here would be to assert that the clergy and the hierarchy actively promoted or passively condoned pogroms.  Did the Church ever take a position for or against pogroms?  For or against Jews?  --Richard 23:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I mean clergy. There were some clergy on the side of the partisans during the German occupation of Yugoslavia, but I think most were with the royalist chetniks. The Orthodox Church (indeed the Catholic and other Christian churches) are well known to have been historically anti-Semitic (indeed there is today a current of anti-Semitism, for example: Obraz et al.), this should be reflected here. - Francis Tyers · 08:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: This article is about the Orthodox Church, not about Stalin, and about that other article, some devout Orthodox gent has probably removed it. - Francis Tyers · 08:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You may wish to look at History of the Russian Orthodox Church --Richard 23:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Father Father George Calciu-Dumitreasa

message: : I have to ask:  Is English your first language?  Forgive my saying so, but many of the contributions made seem to have been translated poorly from some other language.  Might I suggest (with Andrew c) putting proposed additions on this talk page for copyediting before adding them to the article?  71.241.79.69 19:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing

message: Why did you restore the allegations without sourcing a specific scholarly work or a reputable news organization? Such an allegation is very serious and should be very clear and not just a passing comments based on a website that is not an authoritative source. What does Bar Yar say for example? Were the pogrom ethnic or were they genuinely the Church attacking the Jewish community and which specific pogroms were the church involved in?
LoveMonkey 02:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: anti-jewish pogroms and the Russian orthodox church

message: There has been a bit of back-and-forth editing between Dnizz and LoveMonkey with the only discussion being via edit summaries.  Edit summaries can be a poor way to conduct a discussion.  The compulsory terseness tends to lead to edit-warring rather than consensus-building.  Please consider following the WP:BRD model.  Revert at most once and then discuss.  Explain your reasoning so that others can understand where you are coming from.
In this spirit, I have looked at each of Dnizz's edits and evaluated each one separately.  In general, I see that Dnizz is making valuable points although I might suggest a different resolution for some of them.  I will treat each point below.
===Arian heresy===
While I think it is reasonable to have a section titled "The Arian heresy", I also understand that some people think the word "heresy" is inherently POV and prefer to avoid using it.  I disagree with that position but I don't see that using it in this section title is critical so I propose "Confronting Arianism".  (I also thought of "Suppressing Arianism" as a possibility).  "The Arianism" doesn't work because it is uncolloquial to say "The Communism" or "The Christianity".  I thought of changing the section title to just "Arianism" but that doesn't really impart the sense of conflict that my proposal does.
I would prefer "Confronting Arianism", because "Suppressing Arianism" is just as POV as "Arian Heresy."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.183.0 (talk) 05:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Dnizz-LoveMonkey edits 

message: While I think it is reasonable to have a section titled "The Arian heresy", I also understand that some people think the word "heresy" is inherently POV and prefer to avoid using it.  I disagree with that position but I don't see that using it in this section title is critical so I propose "Confronting Arianism".  (I also thought of "Suppressing Arianism" as a possibility).  "The Arianism" doesn't work because it is uncolloquial to say "The Communism" or "The Christianity".  I thought of changing the section title to just "Arianism" but that doesn't really impart the sense of conflict that my proposal does.
I would prefer "Confronting Arianism", because "Suppressing Arianism" is just as POV as "Arian Heresy."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.183.0 (talk) 05:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Arian heresy

message: I have mixed feelings about the sources that Dnizz characterizes as "unrelated".  I think the problem is that sources cited in the "References" section should be tied to specific assertions.  If they are general sources rather than specific references, then they should be in the "Sources" section.  Let's either move these sources to the "Sources" section or write more text with specific assertions that are cited to those sources.
--Richard 16:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Greco-Turkish relations

message: I think the Photian schism section and the mission to moldivia can be chopped in half and added to the contention between east and west section. I think the Movian section and be shorten and the bulk of the content added to the main article it already directs the reader toward.
LoveMonkey 02:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sections that can be shorten

message: Again now about the other "stuff" you removed. I thought the history of the Roman, Greek, Egyptian, Hebrew empires and how they all got to be one Roman Empire and that 5000 or so years being consolidated into two simple paragraphs (yes I got all of it into two paragraphs that you deleted) was appropriate. The understanding of Christianity in an article about it's history must be cultural and contextual. You affectively have edited out my attempts at both. What is it with your trigger happy deletion without discussion Richard? You did not even ask for sourcing before deletion. I would like to remove parts of this article and reduce them to the type of concise and direct communication I did WITH THE VERY THING YOU DELETED. I was adding history so that people reading could understand what the Byzantine Empire was. You removed that. I was adding history on how parts of the bible cambe about (i.e. Greek occupation of Jeruselm, Roman occupation of Jeruselm, Roman participation in the crucifixion of Christ, i.e. why Christ was crucifixed not say stoned to death) either I gave direct information or layed groundwork you deleted this. How are people supposed to be collabrative when one person is deciding to delete without collabration? You keep doing this. This conduct is unprofessional. I mean at least contact people and discuss it with them first. I am being too grow very tired and very disillusioned with wikipedia.
LoveMonkey 12:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: My other stuff that Richard removed

message: The neutral point of view
The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions.
Shortcut:
WP:NOPOV 
As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV". The neutral point of view is a point of view that is neutral, that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject. Debates within topics are described, represented and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from asserting which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. When editorial bias toward one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed.
LoveMonkey 17:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that you have clarified that the Orthodox Church considered him a heresiarch. That's pretty much what I was hoping for. Thanks, and sorry about the harsh words. Jacob Haller 18:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The standard of NPOV

message: The ball is in your court Richard. You removed the text because you decided that it was unacceptible. You reword it to resolve your objections since you are the one with the objections and you are the one deleting text from the article. You have reposted in talk here only a portion of what you deleted of my contributions to the article. So now you post how you see that the controversal information should be properly worded.
LoveMonkey 04:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply

message: Parking this text here to make it easier to refer to and reinsert into the article as appropriate...
The conflict between the two churches is framed from two different perspectives. From the perspective of many Eastern Orthodox, it is yet another ploy by Roman Catholicism to undermine and ultimately destroy the ancient church by undermining its legitimacy and absorbing it into the Roman Catholic church.  This perceived ploy fails to restore the power to the original eastern Patriarchs of the church and forces the acceptance of rejected doctrines and Scholasticism over faith. Whereas the Catholic Eastern churches depict their position as one of reunification between the east and west, some Eastern Orthodox charge that joining in this unity would come at the expense of ignoring critical doctrine differences and past atrocities. 
We are Orthodox from Czechoslovakia. God permitted for us to be greatly tested. We feel, He is burning and testing us like gold in a crucible. We also feel, we are not like gold to survive this fire without the help of God and support of our brothers throughout the world. We beg you therefore to pray for us to the Lord and the Most Holy Theotokos, that Orthodoxy in Czechoslovakia recover her freedom and equal rights with all the other Christian communities and overcome her enemies.
The Orthodox Faith was taught to us by the holy brothers Cyril and Methodius in 863. After the repose of Saint Methodius, in 885, the latins expelled the Orthodox priests from Greater Moravia and destroyed all their works. Orthodoxy survived only in Carpathia, in the east of our country. The Pope of Rome, unhappy of the fact that the Church (Orthodox) continued to exist, instituted the Unia of Uzgorontzcy in 1649, in which of the 1200 priests they allowed us only 63. For 300 years the Uniates worked tirelessly to uproot Orthodoxy.
Following the second world war, the people begun to return en-masse to the Orthodox Church, which became free again and powerful. But the years of happiness and peace did not last. In 1968 God allowed the first test. The Country recognized the Unia (which called itself “Greek Catholic Church”), which with the forbearance of the State started to torment the Orthodox followers. They confiscated by force our churches and threw the priests with their families to the street. And nobody came to our support. For a while we thought that everything was finished…. However, our Lord and the Most Holy Theotokos had mercy on us and we did not perish completely. The Uniates “allowed” us to continue our worship in our churches, which however we had to share with them. Since then we continuously drink daily from the bitter cup of hatred and malice.
The devil however cannot rest, seeing that Orthodoxy still survived in Czechoslovakia. He then unleashed the Uniates against us. They now demanded that we hand over all our churches to them with all their wealth and heritage. If this happens then we will have to worship on the street. What would then happen? The happenings of 885, 1649 and 1968? From past history we have bitter experience of the hardships that Rome visited upon us through its Unia. Brothers we seek your help.
Terminate all discussions with the Roman Catholics as long as tha Unia problem remains unresolved. Come to us and give us courage. You and we are one body, the body of Christ. Let the world know about our suffering brought on by the Uniates. They say they are Christians but are not. Christians have love for their fellow man. Let the papists sent their church letters to the idolaters, not to the Orthodox of Czechoslovakia and the Ukraine. Here live Christians and not idolaters. 	
(Signed by Orthodox dignitaries of Czechslovakia). “Orthodox Kypseli” Puplications - 	
Thessalonika , Greece - 	
http://www.impantokratoros.gr/170832DE.en.aspxAtrocities of the Uniate or Unia  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardshusr (talk • contribs) 17:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted text 

message: :Image:Gulagbook cover.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 05:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Gulagbook cover.JPG

message: LoveMonkey inserted wikilinks to the articles on Saint  Augustine and Holy Roman Empire in the text that follows:
:However, much of southeastern Europe and central Europe, including many of the Goths and Vandals respectively, had embraced Arianism, which led to Arianism being a religious factor in various wars in the Roman Empire (see Saint Augustine). The Goths and Vandals later conquered the Western Roman Empire, including Italy, parts of Gaul, Hispania, and parts of North Africa. In the west, organized Arianism coexisted with Catholicism until the Byzantine reconquest in North Africa, the Council of Toledo in Hispania, and the 7th Century in Italy (see Holy Roman Empire).
I have reverted these wikilinks because the leap from the text to the linked article is too great for the average reader.  For example, the article on Saint Augustine says very little about the Goths and the Vandals and the average reader would have to scan the entire article to find the few sentences related to the Goths, Vandals and Arianism.  Here's the relevant text from the Saint Augustine article...
:Augustine died on August 28, 430 during the siege of Hippo by the Vandals. He is said to have encouraged its citizens to resist the attacks, primarily on the grounds that the Vandals adhered to Arianism, a heterodox branch of Christianity. It is also said that he died just as the Vandals were tearing down the city walls of Hippo.
:After conquering the city, the Vandals destroyed all of it but Augustine's cathedral and library, which they left untouched. Tradition indicates that his body was later moved to Pavia, where they are said to remain to this day.[4]
:Augustine was one of the most prolific Latin authors, and the list of his works consists of more than a hundred separate titles.[8] They include apologetic works against the heresies of the Arians, Donatists, Manichaeans and Pelagians, texts on Christian doctrine, notably De doctrina Christiana (On Christian Doctrine), exegetical works such as commentaries on Genesis, the Psalms and Paul's Letter to the Romans, many sermons and letters, and the Retractationes (Retractions), a review of his earlier works which he wrote near the end of his life. Apart from those, Augustine is probably best known for his Confessiones (Confessions), which is a personal account of his earlier life, and for De civitate Dei (The City of God, consisting of 22 books), which he wrote to restore the confidence of his fellow Christians, which was badly shaken by the sack of Rome by the Visigoths in 410.
The article on the Goths says that they converted to Arianism but says nothing about Arianism being a factor in religious wars.   The article on the Vandals says "During the Emperor Valens's reign (364–78) the Vandals accepted, much like the Goths earlier, Arianism, a belief that was in opposition to that of Nicene orthodoxy of the Roman Empire." but once again says nothing about Arianism being a factor in religious wars.   
Similarly, the article on the Holy Roman Empire says nothing about Arianis at least as far as I can tell.
Assuming the base text in this article is accurate and factual, we need to find better support than the Wikipedia articles that were linked to by LoveMonkey.
--Richard 00:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion of two wikilinks 

message: Also here is abit of the clatification you requested.
LoveMonkey 04:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The goths

message: LoveMonkey 05:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: History of the Church

message: Richard I know from other Orthodox articles and complaints from those editors that this is a pattern of behaviour on your part. Before removing historical evidence under the guise of the evidence being for theological discussion, please come to the talkpage first. 
LoveMonkey (talk) 15:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I also saw that massive deletion, and I have no idea why it happened. Can this be explained?   Turgidson (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: At it again

message: The image :Image:Assyrian Church of the East Symbol.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
The following images also have this problem:
*:Image:Magadan, 09.06 019.jpg
*:      Image:Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria and All Africa.gif
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Assyrian Church of the East Symbol.JPG

message: I am (or have) creating(ed) articles on each the centuries of Christian History. The plan is— in due time— to cut out some excess from History of Christianity and hopfuly others such as this article and History of the Roman Catholic Church. They are all over 100 KB.
Please join me and help now. --Carlaude talk 20:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article may be too long to comfortably read and navigate 

message: I cannot help but notice that in several articles involving Eastern Orthodoxy on Wikipedia, there seems to have been a strong effort to present a conservative Eastern Orthodox doctrinal view of history as though it is universally-accepted fact in a given matter, instead of simply presenting the evidence of literature and history first and then presenting the Eastern Orthodox Point of view separately in the article, clearly identified as such.  That seeming non-objectivity characterizes considerable portions of this article as well.
For example, the segment on the Apostolic period of the Christianity makes it appear that Eastern Orthodoxy was already fully in existence in the 1st-2nd century and was virtually the sole kind of genuine Christianity at that time.  This is in great contrast to what we know of the era from the literature.  There were instead quite a number of Christian sects of different beliefs in the first period of Christianity, from those who held Jesus to have been a biological son of Joseph to those who believed Jesus to be born Son of God from a virgin.  One could multiply such examples with ease.  Why, then, inaccurately treat Orthodoxy in an historical discussion as though the account of it accepted in Eastern Orthodox tradition is factual history, particularly when no supporting evidence is provided in the article for the latter view?  As I see it, the portions dealing with the early history of Eastern Orthodoxy should be completely rewritten to present what is known factually of the early period from the existing evidence rather than presenting it from what is essentially an Eastern Orthodox doctrinal point of view of its own history (in Eastern Orthodoxy, Tradition, with a capital T, is a part of doctrine).
In the example mentioned above, why not discuss how Eastern Orthodoxy gradually emerged from among the various Christian groups that existed right up into the 4th century?  That would be far more accurate from the historical evidence, and also far more helpful to a reader looking for facts supported by actual historical evidence rather than doctrinal opinion.
Tischbein (talk) 21:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  NON-OBJECTIVITY IN PRESENTING EASTERN ORTHODOX HISTORY 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Seal of Prince Strojimir mirrored.png Nominated for Deletion

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of the Orthodox Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927051409/http://litek.ws/k0nsl/detox/anti-humans.htm to http://litek.ws/k0nsl/detox/anti-humans.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on History of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927230527/http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/1204.html to http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/1204.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070701103901/http://www.hostkingdom.net/orthodox.html to http://www.hostkingdom.net/orthodox.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090213224022/http://home.att.net/~sergei592/East.html to http://home.att.net/~sergei592/East.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110119105305/http://www.saintsconstantineandelena.org/Liturgy/liturgy1.htm to http://www.saintsconstantineandelena.org/Liturgy/liturgy1.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101109114429/http://www.slocc.com/orthodoxy/ to http://www.slocc.com/orthodoxy/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This page should not be speedily deleted because no analysis of evidence has been given that the current version of the article contains any copyvios, only that it was (allegedly) created by a "copyright violator, all versions tainted". Oh really, you have checked every single version of this article and discovered that they are all "tainted", have you? --Smeat75 (talk) 19:29, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. By the way, the source of the copyvio can be traced and revisions containing the copyvio can be selectively deleted. Deleting the whole article is an overkill. Dr. K. 22:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contested deletion 

message: This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement.  Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. 💵Money💵emoji💵Talk💸Help out at CCI!  20:06, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible copyright problem