Talk:John Zizioulas/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Disputed
2 NPOV
3 Further NPOV
4 Working towards NPOV
5 Towards Consensus
6 Issues of Concern

[edit] Disputed

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)

[edit] NPOV

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)

[edit] Further NPOV

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)

[edit] Working towards NPOV

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:

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.
I have also tidied the description of Zizioulas' academic education and career, by placing this in a separate section.
I have added a section on Zizioulas' ecclesiology.
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:

The assertion that Zizioulas' thought is 'not widely accepted amongst the Orthodox' is not NPOV and not verified.
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Towards Consensus

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Issues of Concern

[edit] 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'.