Talk:Arian controversy

message: The various events, parties, etc. in the Arian Controversy have been dispersed among several loosely-connected or unconnected articles. In some cases, e.g. the old "Auxentius" article, one article has confused two completely different people; in other cases, e.g. the parts of the old Auxentius and "Junior Auxentius" articles, two articles have covered the same person, similarly with Anomean and "Eunomianism," and so on.
The first problem, imho, is to identify the important people and events. This will help us see what other articles are available.
:Merging Arius and Arianism makes perfect sense, particularly since its not clear "Arianism" is the proper title.Gvharrier 00:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "It is believed that Arius' doctrines were influenced by the teachings of Lucian of Antioch, a celebrated Christian teacher and martyr for the faith."
Some ip left this ^^ here in the wrong place, Lucian of Antioch does mention Arian and it might be worth investigating.Endercase (talk) 23:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: General Goals

message: * Briefly checked Philostorgius' history, throughout (should return to this).
* Checked Socrates Scholasticus' history, book I and book II up through chapter 43. Jacob Haller 17:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Checking sources

message: The dates are iffy and both Wikipedia and the ancient sources seem to contradict themselves about these. Properly untangling these would go way beyond the scope of this article and might involve  WP:OR. Jacob Haller 10:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dates

message: : "It is believed that Arius' doctrines were influenced by the teachings of Lucian of Antioch, a celebrated Christian teacher and martyr for the faith."
Some ip left this ^^ here in the wrong place, Lucian of Antioch does mention Arian and it might be worth investigating.Endercase (talk) 23:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Lucian of Antioch

message: Is there any particular reason this page and the Arianism page should be separate?  Is not the controversy between Arianism and Nicene Trinitarianism the most important legacy of Arianism today? --Jfruh (talk) 04:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page vs. the Arianism page 

message: Anonymous user under IP 75.111.148.198 added biased text under "Was the Logos created in time?" section, written in the Watchtower Society point of view.
Need to check
--94.21.205.192 (talk) 12:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV informations added 

message: Indyguy If you wished to revert the change and open discussion topic in the talk page that would have been more appropriate. The concept of historical Jesus is as old as Jesus the difference being solely one is based on provable fact and the other based on hearsay. You failed to address my summary in your own and violated the NPOV by marking my change as a vandalism. It is very likely that you are a non-Arain Cristian and my change offended you. Vandalism is a serious violation of the basic ideology in Wikipedia and is not a term that should be thrown around lightly. This was also posted in User talk:Indyguy  Endercase (talk) 03:04, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Endercase, you are mistaken in stating that I marked your change as being vandalism. True, I reverted your change, but that is not the same as saying that your change was vandalism. I do not consider your change to be an act of vandalism, but rather a good faith effort to improve the article. However, I reverted your change because by linking "Jesus" to "Historical Jesus" you are implying that a 19th century development in theology is the same perspective that Arius had on the Christ in the 4th century. That's a significant claim, so it would need to have a source. And even with a source it would need to be explained in the article rather than just linking to it with a wikilink. Indyguy (talk) 03:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I was mistaken about marking it a vandal edit. The UI just had vandal edit in red and I freaked. I'm so sorry Shall I remove this? Endercase (talk) 03:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. It was an honest mistake. Indyguy (talk) 04:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

text: If you can find a reliable source that makes that connection, then go for it. However, I'll be surprised if there is such a source. Indyguy (talk) 04:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marking a non-vandal edit as vandal 

message: Recently, @Indyguy reverted my changes and additions, saying it is too long for the lede (which I agree) and that it is "written in an argumentative rather than an encyclopedic tone." I am not sure how to deal with the second point. The issue is that the scholarly view of the Controversy has changed dramatically over the last 100 years. For example:
- Arius developed a new heresy vs, Arius was a conservative
- Arius caused the Controversy vs Arius was the spark that re-ignited a fire that blazed the previous century.
- Homoousios is the key word in the 325 Nicene Creed vs Homoousios only became part of the controversy in the 350s.
- The issue was whether Christ is God vs all parties described Christ as God.
I can list many more examples. These revised conclusions are based on additional documents that became accessible during the 20th century. Given that context, I thought it appropriate to mention both the traditional and revised view on specific points. It seems as if that is now seen as 'argumentative'. You further consideration and guidance will be appreciated.
In addition, @Diannaa said I quote too much. (they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner) However, given the controversial nature of this subject and the revised scholarly conclusions, I thought to not only give citations but also quote as part of the citations. Furthermore, these books I am quoting are hundreds of pages thick. I cannot see that my quotes can infringe copyright. Your further guidance in this aspect will also be appreciated. AndriesvN (talk) 05:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the copied content was framed as quotes, which is okay; short quotations are allowed. But some was copied without any indication that it was intended to be a quotation. That's not allowed, and is a violation of our copyright policy.  — Diannaa (talk) 11:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Argumentative style / Too many quotes