Talk:Ambrose

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Last edits

I deleted the most obvious POV evaluations without source and added some text from the German Wikipedia. I also replaced the four section titles "Battling XXX" which infer a certain POV in the biography of a bishop with more neutral titles and moved some paras to fit the new titles. I added some external links. --Irmgard 20:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Dont see any reference to the relationship of Ambrose with the mother of the Emperor Constantine in this article. Raybo

Is there any? Ambrose was born in ca. 337 (the year of Constantine's death) and Helena died about 329. The empress that did play a role in his life was Justina, the mother of Valentinian II - Ambrose was at out with her because she wanted him to hand over churches to the Arians. This is mentioned in the article. Irmgard 09:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The link on this page to Hilary is wrong. The link should be to Hilary of Poitiers, not Hilary of Arles.

[edit] Extremely POV, Criticism section required

With all due respect to the author, this article seems to have a very pro-Ambrose POV. I don't think there was a single criticism of Ambrose in the entire article despite the fact that he remains a very controversial figure in religious studies to this day. For instance, in the section on Ambrose and the Arians, the text reads, "Ambrose applied his theological prowess, using his eloquence to effectively refute the heretical Arian propositions." That passage is paradigmatic of the entire tenor of this article, namely that Ambrose could do no wrong and his victories over his opponents were preordained by God.

The following section on Ambrose and the Emperors continues this biased narrative. In detailing the fight between Ambrose and Symmachus over whether the Altar of Victory should be restored to the Roman Senate, the author devotes a full paragraph to Ambrose's argument and not even a sentence to Symmachus. This was one of the most important events in the religious struggle between Christianity and Paganism and deserves a fair portrayal. The arguments raised by Ambrose - which the author of course conveys in the best light – were arrogant and intolerant by even the most objective measure. Symmachus, on the other hand, presented compelling, logical arguments whose message still resounds today:

“It is reasonable that whatever each of us worships is really to be considered one and the same. We gaze up at the same stars, the sky covers us all, the same universe encompasses us. What does it matter what practical system we adopt in our search for the truth? Not by one avenue only can we arrive at so tremendous a secret."

The fact that the article contains no citations leads me to believe that it was taken, either in whole or in part, from a Catholic source. Wikipedia’s commitment to viewpoint neutrality demands the insertion of a criticism section to balance the rampant pro-Ambrose bias. As of now, this is more a shrine to Ambrose fandom than an encyclopedia article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DMMike1 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

This article does seem rather hagiographic. The source seems mostly to be the Brittanica. I can make some small changes but this isn't my field.HG | Talk 23:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, forgot to sign Mike 03:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Such a pantheistic point view is "compelling" for you because, I suspect, you agree with Symmachus. The need for Symmachus' argument exists because it was given and is part of history, not because you find it compelling. That reasoning for including his argument is as inappropriate as the obvious pro-Ambrose and citation-lacking POV that the original author gave. (And I will not argue against its need to be corrected.) For what its worth, any Christian would respond to Symmachus in this way: "Whatever you worship, the stars or the sky or the Universe itself was created by God and that is the difference between the truth proclaimed through the Christian faith and your secret.", very likely followed by a quote from the first chapter of the Epistle to the Romans. My point being that the Christian POV has a cosmology with no place for Symmachus argument -- through their definitions of the stars, when they look up they both see something different. Therefore you may not conclude it is compelling, without quantification, simply because we live in a post-modern age with a form of hope that is undeniably similar to the pagan worldview of Symmachus' Roman world. Chrismon 18:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Point well taken. I didn't mean to insinuate that Symmachus' argument should be included simply because I find it compelling. The crux of my argument, which you admittedly agree with, is that this article should sound more like an encyclopedia article and less like an exercise in christian apologetics. While I do not intend to turn this page into a theological debate, your hypothetical christian response to Symmachus demonstrates why his argument deserves a fair exposition. Although his argument has pantheistic overtones, Symmachus was not strictly arguing for the divine status of the stars and sky, but rather appealing to the shared sense of awe and wonder we all experience when contemplating the meaning of existence. Mike 01:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC) Pie tastes good.

[edit] More on Theology, please!

The Theology says nothing about apologisms or vindications, actually. More needed! Said: Rursus 18:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Forms of name

Do we really need to give his name in Latin, Italian, and Lombard? Is there some policy of which I am unaware that says we should? It doesn't seem to be worth the space it takes up, in my opinion. Personally, I'd keep the Latin and delete the other two, but I'd like to know what others think. Carl.bunderson 15:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Before reading your comment, I reworked the lead, moving those names to the end of it. That opening was unreadable, and not just the alternative names. I think we tend too often to try to get all our pedantry into the very first sentence of an article. It’s not a good idea, it puts readers off! Does it look better now, or would you still want to remove them? —Ian Spackman 16:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I did see your edit, which is actually what prompted my comment. It's definitely a good edit, much better than it was. But the different forms of his name seem kind of orphaned/out of place now. That's what made me suggest that we just do away with them. Carl.bunderson 16:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
You are right that they look orphaned, though I’d still marginally prefer to keep them somewhere—the Latin and the Italian at least. My intention was to relegate them to a footnote, but didn’t quite find a way to do it to my satisfaction. Maybe just a footnote to the word ‘Ambrose’? I’d suggest that, having read what I think, you do what you think looks best. I won’t revert you! And I wouldn’t hang around too long waiting for comments. If what you do turns out to be controversial then there can be a discussion. What to do about the rest of the article is a bigger problem. If it is mostly 1911, then it’s 1911 on a bad day. It’s not just the POV issue, but a readability one. I couldn’t bring myself to read much of it—my attention kept straying. And I start off with the advantage of being fairly interested in Milan. —Ian Spackman 17:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Well I made a footnote for them, keeping them all. I guess its the best solution. And I may or may not tackle the article as a whole, but not now anyhow. Carl.bunderson 17:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Footnote 1

With all the edits--and I didn't see it before they began--footnote 1 seems to have been orphaned. The 1st note in the text is [2], and down below, [1] does not have a link. What happened? Kit1066 13:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] strange part

There is a strane paragraph. It seems that someone introduced it for "fun". I do not know if I can erase it. I will copy it here for you to see it: [edit] Bishop of Milan

ambrose was very tall. he hit puberty at the age of 5. he was born with an extra webbed toe. since there were no doctor he kept it. it helped later when he was on a cruise he had too many beers and fell into the nile river however god saved him.his weird toe helped him swim too!he loved god very much! he also loved turkey everyone loves turkey.!!!!!! <Comment from Sombody else>: That guy is a jack ass... But i agree, i also like turey.

Reinachbia 18:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)