Talk:Filioque/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Copyright infringement

This passage..

"By translating the Latin expression into Greek categories, he calmed the worries of the Greeks and, while Filioque continued to be used in the West, both sides recognized that, in spite of the difference in terminology, they were professing the same faith; this peace ended when on the one hand the claim was made in the West that the Filioque was a dogma of faith and when on the other hand the East rejected the explanation of the Filioque given by Maximus" is taken word for word from Romanides. [1]

I have attempted to write the Eastern Orthodox position in this article so that there is no copyright infringement. My additions are being argued over and nitpicked to pieces with no logical explanation as to why that's acceptable. Editor Esoglou/Lima has insisted that they will not accept the contributions and has now since stopped deleting my contributions wholesale and now having to admit that the contributions, are not original research made up by me, but actual positions taken by Eastern Orthodox, then started to post word for word the works I am sourcing from. I can not express how difficult and dense this editor is. I can not understand why they are being allowed to edit war and how when they make outrageous errors and commit terrible misrepresentations of the sources and then edit war against corrections about them being wrong and thick headed that no wikipedia administrators intervene and call their behavior into question. It is quite clear this individual has an agenda and that they do not know any of these Eastern Orthodox theologians works and that they do not care to be respectful to the sources but would rather try and find anyway to distort or misrepresent what the sources are saying in order to discredit them against their own agenda.LoveMonkey (talk) 16:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Insistent deleting

Twice in succession the following has been deleted, with an attempt, the first time, at an explanation, which was rebutted, but with no explanation the second time, indeed with an edit summary that instead mentioned only a lesser change, a change that the same editor soon realized was mistaken:

by the ninth century, the Easterners had laid aside Saint Maximus's explanation of the orthodoxy of the phrase used by the Latins.<ref>"When difficulties first arose about the Filioque, the seventh century Greek theologian, St. Maximus the Confessor, calmed Greek suspicions by translating it into Greek categories. At this early stage each side realized that the other was professing the same faith but by the use of different terms. However, the enthusiasm of later Frankish theologians led the West to the claim that the Filioque is not only an admissible way of speaking about the Trinity, but an article of faith necessary for the salvation of the soul. In a council of 809 Charlemagne had his bishops declare an excommunication against anyone who did not accept the Filioque. In reaction to this, the Greeks laid aside St. Maximus translation of the Filioque and joined the Germans in incorporating this theological point into the political power struggle between themselves and the Germans over control of Italy and the Slavic world. ... The result has been that the Church and Europe have been badly divided ever since" ([http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.30.en.saltonstall.htm John S. Romanides, ''An Orthodox Look at the Ecumenical Movement'').]</ref>

Immediately before, the position of Maximus is presented as rejected by the West, on the basis of another statement by the same writer who also speaks of Maximus's view as put aside by the East too. Omitting the deleted passage produces the impression that rejection was only by the West. Or at least that, by the time of the Council of Florence, the East was again accepting Maximus's view on the orthodoxy of "from the Father and the Son", when by then the East was insisting instead on "from the Father alone" (the doctrine of Photios). It is therefore useful to mention at this point the other element as well. Esoglou (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Esoglou, if the deleting editor won't explain the deletion then that stuff should go in. Is there an editor deleting your stuff without discussing it on Talk? That doesn't sound fair. Leadwind (talk) 18:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind intervention. But my patience is not running out. There is no hurry. Esoglou (talk) 18:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

More than three days have gone by and the editor who did the deleting is active on Wikipedia but has not defended his action. His action can therefore be undone. Esoglou (talk) 04:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Insistent removal of comment on the statement by Maximus

An editor insists on removing from the section dealing with the 649 statement by Saint Maximus the Confessor what Avery Dulles says of it. The only explanation he has given is that Dulles was a Catholic. But there is no reason to limit to comments of either Easterners or Westerners the section on Maximus, who lived before the East-West Schism and is venerated as a saint by both West and East. There is therefore no justification for the insistent removal. Esoglou (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

More than three days have gone by and the editor who did the removing is active on Wikipedia but has not defended his action. His action can therefore be undone. Esoglou (talk) 04:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Did Saint Maximus teach Holy Spirit's procession from Father alone?

An editor has added the word "alone" to his earlier statement that "Maximus held strictly to the teaching of the Eastern Church concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father". Maximus taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. That is insufficient grounds for saying that Maximus held that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. It could be held even to contradict it: against the deposed unionist Patriarch John XI Bekkos, who argued that through the Son was the equivalent of from the Son, Patriarch Gregory II of Cyprus, defender of the Photian "from the Father alone" (ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρός, a Patre solo), maintained that the phrase through the Son "did not apply to the procession of the Holy Spirit, but to its manifestation both in time and throughout eternity" (Michael Angold, Eastern Christianity, p. 61; cf. Eastern Churches Journal, vol. 10‎, p. 116).

I submit that it is unjustified to attribute to Maximus the formula "from the Father alone", which even those who hold that it accurately represents the traditional teaching in the East admit was, from the verbal point of view, a novelty introduced much later by Photius (cf. Vladimir Lossky, In the Image and Likeness of God, p. 78; Aristeides Papadakis, Crisis in Byzantium: the Filioque controversy in the patriarchate of Gregory II of Cyprus, p. 113). That attribution is only an unsourced opinion. Esoglou (talk) 15:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is an exact and perfect example of the edit warring tactics of Esoglou I am complaining about. The Eastern Position and teaching on the the procession of the Holy Spirit is from -the Father alone. Esoglou being an expert on this probably disagrees about that. Which is too bad, because Esoglou should notice Esoglou is contesting this in the Eastern Orthodox section and also in the middle of a line almost word for word from Father Michael Pomazansky book called Orthodox Dogmatic theology. Since Esoglou is saying in essence that the line copied word for word is mistaken since it is from an Eastern Orthodox theologian saying that Maximus held strictly to the Eastern Orthodox teaching it is quite obvious and to the point to say it is nothing but Esoglou being nitpicky and pedantic in order to argue over any tiny little thing that Esoglou can find to bicker about in order to frustrate. See what is at point here isn't if the word "alone" by itself is improper, thats a mere distraction. What is at issue here is how Esoglou/Lima is trying to control the information in the article and this section in the article. All the way down to a single word that given it's context is completely appropriate. And no it is not a novelty.

"We do not speak of the Spirit as from the Son."St. John Damascene De Fide Orthodoxa, Book I, Chapter VIII

LoveMonkey (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Esoglou is not only again slandering people and misrepresenting them. Esoglou is being very dangerous in Esoglou's depiction of the East (AGAIN).. Here is what V. Lossky actually specifically says about the Holy Spirit from the Father alone and Photius. Esoglou is completely wrong in what they are saying and they are distorting and misrepresenting again.LoveMonkey (talk) 16:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Both sources that Esoglou is quite wrong in saying that Esoglou did. Actually say that the teaching of "from the Father alone" may seem novel but in fact is inline and correct Orthodox teaching. They are saying the teaching is Orthodox and inline with Orthodox saints such as the Cappadocian Fathers (who are long before Photius) and Gregory Palamas. Neither say anything even close to Esoglou's spin and distortion on them of "from the verbal point of view, a novelty introduced much later by Photius" There is no Orthodox theologian whom would say such a thing. WHAT ESOGLOU IS DOING IS EDIT WARRING AND ATTEMPTING TO FRUSTRATE.

---

Vladimir Lossky The Procession of the Holy Spirit in Orthodox Trinitarian Doctrine Chapter 4 of In the Image and Likeness of God (SVS Press: Crestwood, NY, 1976), pp. 71-96.

Against the doctrine of procession ab utroque the Orthodox have affirmed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone– ek monou tou Patros. This formula, while verbally it may seem novel, represents in its doctrinal tenor nothing more than a very plain affirmation of the traditional teaching about the "monarchy of the Father," unique source of the divine hypostases. It may be objected that this formula for the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone provides no place for any relation of opposition between the Second Person of the Trinity and the Third Person. But those who say this overlook the fact that the very principle of relations of opposition is unacceptable to Orthodox triadology– that the expression "relations of origin" has a different sense in Orthodox theology than it has among defenders of the Filioque. When we state that the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone is distinguished in an ineffable manner from the eternal generation of the Son, who is begotten of the Father alone, no attempt is being made to establish a relation of opposition between the Son and the Holy Spirit. pg 5

---

Orthodox theology, while taking as its starting-point the initial antinomy of essence and hypostasis, avoids personal relativism by attributing causality to the Father alone. pg8

---

On the other hand, procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone, by emphasizing the monarchy of the Father as the concrete principle of the unity of the Three, passes beyond the dyad without a return to primordial unity, without the necessity of God retiring into the simplicity of the essence. For this reason the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone confronts us with the mystery of the "Tri-Unity." pg 9

---

starting-point. By defending the hypostatic procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone, Orthodoxy professes its faith in the "simple Trinity," pg10

---

It is curious to notice that the distinction between the hypostatic existence of the Holy Spirit, proceeding from the Father alone, and His eternal radiance– eis aidion ekphansin– through the Son, was formulated in the course of [94] discussions which took place in Constantinople towards the end of the thirteenth century, after the Council of Lyons.{40} The doctrinal continuity can be recognized here: defense of the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone necessitates a decision as to the import of the phrase dia Huiou; this in turn opens the way for the distinction between essence and energies. This is not a "dogmatic development." Rather, one and the same tradition is defended, at different points, by the Orthodox from St. Photius to George of Cyprus and St. Gregory Palamas.pg 15 LoveMonkey (talk) 16:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

We still await evidence that Saint Maximus taught the "from the Father alone" doctrine. So far, LoveMonkey has only repeated his unverified statement, which may be no better founded than his baseless supposition that I deny or have denied that the Eastern Orthodox Church holds the "from the Father alone" doctrine that Photios enunciated. The quotations LoveMonkey gives to show that this is the doctrine of the Eastern Orthodox Church (who denies it?) have no relation to the question about what Saint Maximus himself taught.

Patriarch Gregory II declared that the "from the Father through the Son" doctrine (which we know was Maximus's) was not in accord with the "from the Father alone" doctrine, and that the phrase "through the Son" could be applied only to the manifestation of the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit, not to the eternal procession itself, which he said is from the Father alone without the Son. So is there any reliable source that states that the Saint who is venerated not only in the East but also in the West (feast on 13 August) taught the "from the Father alone" doctrine? Esoglou (talk) 16:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

My plenteous quotes above are from Lossky's work Likeness and Image and the chapter on the filioque. Pomazansky says that Maximus according to the Eastern orthodox held the Orthodox position. But there ya go make a statement like, the teaching that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone is my opinion or some novelty that Photius made up, created and then give four sources that say no such thing. Get called on it and shown that you are wrong and that you are engaging in unethical and edit warring behavior and you post that your now still waiting on something. If you had done such a slanderous thing in the academic world you would have been removed, either for bad ethics or for incompetents. From the source already in the article.

"Neither Maximus the Confessor (7th century), nor Anastasius the Librarian (9th century) say that the west Roman Filioque "can be understood in an orthodox way," as claimed by the DAS (45, 95). They both simply explain why it is orthodox. Also neither uses the term "EKFANSIS" in their texts (DAS 45). Maximus uses the Greek term "PROΪENAI" and, being a west Roman and Latin speaking, Anastasius uses "Missio". Both point out that the Roman "procedere" has two meanings, "cause" and "mission". When used as "cause", like in the Creed, the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father. John Romanides"

LoveMonkey (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

This type of behavior by Esoglou/Lima should never be allowed in any type of collaborative environment. This is allot of work to point out that this person is engaging in harmful behavior and that they should be banned from this subject.LoveMonkey (talk) 16:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Your quotes are indeed "plenteous". But they are beside the point. The word "Maximus" does not appear in any of the plenetous ones you added just above my last comment. Nor does the quotation from Romanides that you have given again say that Maximus taught the "from the Father alone" doctrine. You may interpret him in that way, but he does not state it. So why did you not leave the text as it was before you added the problematic word "alone"? Why do you not return the text to how it was when you yourself first wrote it?

Your attribution to Romanides of your meaning may be like your attribution to me of the statement that the teaching that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone is just your opinion. All I said is that, until you provide a reliable source that says so, it is only your opinion that Saint Maximus taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. Not the same thing. Esoglou (talk) 17:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The fact that you would argue that the word "both" in my above quote (Both point out that the Roman "procedere" has two meanings, "cause" and "mission". When used as "cause", like in the Creed, the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father. John Romanides") does not include Maximus shows that you have no intention to understand. My quotes are plentious to show Lossky made no such statement as the teaching of from the father alone was a novelty made up by Photius. You attributed to Lossky such a statement and position not me. The teaching that the Holy Spirit is from the Father alone is indeed the Orthodox position and not a noveltry at all. But keep sticking to that distortion you posted as that will do nothing but prove you will not allow the actual Eastern Orthodox teaching on the filioque to actually get posted into the article. Because in your mind this article belongs to you and your opinion and not to wikipedia. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Who denies that the EOC teaching is that the Holy Spirit is from the Father alone, and who is preventing the EOC teaching from being put in the article, where there is a special section for it, distinct from the section that deals with what West-and-East Saint Maximus the Confessor wrote? But the point is: Who, if anyone, cites Saint Maximus as stating that the Holy Spirit is from the Father alone? That is the question here: look at the heading to refresh your memory. According to Romanides, Maximus uses the Greek term προϊέναι and explains how "and from the Son" is orthodox by pointing out that procedere can correspond either to that word or to the verb in the Creed (ἐκπορεύεσθαι) which, Romanides says, implies causality. Romanides does not say that Saint Maximus (who clearly taught that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father through the Son) taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. The idea that, implicitly, Romanides does say so is only your personal interpretation. Esoglou (talk) 20:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

No you said this."I submit that it is unjustified to attribute to Maximus the formula "from the Father alone", which even those who hold that it accurately represents the traditional teaching in the East admit was, from the verbal point of view, a novelty introduced much later by Photius." So now your stating you did not post that.[2] pg 90 LoveMonkey (talk) 03:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't it a novelty "from the verbal point of view"? I presume you understand the word "verbal", or do you? I have cited two reliable sources that explicitly say that the formula was a novelty. Can you cite a reliable source that says the phrase was used before?

To return to the point of the discussion. You have failed to come up with a reliable source that says Maximus taught "from the Father alone". So it is still unjustified to attribute this formula to him in a Wikipedia article. Unless you produce such a reliable source, your edit must be undone. Esoglou (talk) 04:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

No, they do not say that it was a novelty nor do they say it came from Photius. They say that it might be taken as a novelty and that it should not be taken as a novelty. Thats what they say. I just provided another source [[3] pg 90] Why is The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy By A. Edward Siecienski and Oxford now not a valid source. Or maybe you are again not reading but wanting people to read what you post.LoveMonkey (talk) 16:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Very well, I let pass your observation about what the two sources say. Now, what about finally citing a reliable source that says that Saint Maximus actually taught "from the Father alone"? Esoglou (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

So you finally acknowledged the Oxford source but just could not leave the wording alone in the article.LoveMonkey (talk) 19:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I never had any difficulty in acknowledging Siecienski's book. Curiously enough, I was reading it (at intervals) when at last you cited it for its quotation of the words of Saint Maximus that we already have in the article. The text of the article naturally had to correspond to the citation you provided. Esoglou (talk) 19:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah like Lossky saying what he teaches is a novelty created by Photius too, right. Your response does nothing to explain why you ignored it and then denied it and now claim you accepted it all along.LoveMonkey (talk) 23:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Vasily Bolotov and Maximus' position as the basis of compromise

Cultural and ethnic phenomenon as a component to understanding God in theology East and West. And also the papacy. LoveMonkey (talk) 23:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Modalism

This statement from the article is modalism. In specific it is Sabellianism..

The Western response is that the origin of the Holy Spirit is similar to that of the Son, whom the original text of the Nicene Creed (as established in the First Council of Nicaea) declares to be "begotten from the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the essence of the Father" (γεννηθέντα ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς μονογενῆ, τουτέστιν ἐκ τῆς ουσίας τοῦ πατρός), without thereby implying that the Son is self-begotten.

The Son is begotten not made and the Spirit is by procession from the Father that's the Eastern teaching. They as the Holy Spirit and the Son are not in a similar anything as such. As the Creed clearly states of Jesus Christ "who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man;". This again is not addressed by Western Theology. Meaning the Christ did not manifest himself but the above statement from the article, which implies that the Christ actually does. By teaching that the Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son and that the Son is from the Father and the Spirit. Since the Holy Spirit is not begotten as is spoken of the Son. They are not of the sameness this passage implies from an Eastern Orthodox teaching. That type of sameness is called Sabellianism. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Citation needed

"Eastern Orthodox representatives starting in the 8th century have attempted the Maximus interpretation of the second approach above with the West" is not supported by the citation: "the Libri Carolini

reaffirmed the Latin tradition that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and

rejected as inadequate the teaching that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son."

In the eighth century, Rome certainly held to the Latin tradition that the Spirit proceeds (procedit) from the Father and the Son, but Rome raised no objection whatever to the formula "from the Father through the Son". In fact, Rome refuted the Libri Carolini.

Moreover, the Libri Carolini were a failed initiative of Charlemagne - that's why they are called "Libri Carolini" (Charlemagne's books) - not evidence of an initiative by "Eastern Orthodox representatives". Esoglou (talk) 07:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I have again reverted your editwarring. You are not even trying to hide your bias and with the source stating almost verbatim what you then deny and ask for citations you have no excuse.LoveMonkey (talk) 21:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Please quote the exact words with which, you believe, the source states that Eastern Orthodox representatives attempted a particular approach with the West. Esoglou (talk) 16:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

If no reply is given, does that mean that the questioned statement may be removed? Esoglou (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

You can't seem to read anyway so what difference does it make Esoglou. I mean I posted the Ecumenical Patriarchs position as articulated by Laurent Cleenewerck and it appears you can't seem to read it and see that most of your comments are wrong and addressed by Cleenewereck. Let alone where Laurent Cleenewerck points to Theodore Stylianopoulos The Filioque: Dogma, Theologoumenon or Error? from The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, Volume 31, No. 3-4, 1986. pp. 255-288. 1986 Esoglou/Lima, 1986. I have attempted to communicate with you and you keep posting conspiracy theories, historical distortions and anecdotal evidence into an encyclopedia article about the Eastern Orthodox and Photius involvement with the Filioque. Who created the concept monopatrism? Tell me, is that a Latin word Esoglou? Or how the title Patriarch was invented the 4th century and how the Emperor of Constantinople can't ratify or sign into law the resolutions of the councils. My how you keep not understanding but want to be understood. You are biased and should not be working on this article. Let alone working the Eastern Orthodox elements of the article.LoveMonkey (talk) 19:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup needed

The whole section View that the Roman Catholic Church rejected Maximus's position is badly in need of improvement. The chronology is abominable. One paragraph talks about Charlemagne, the next talks about Florence, the next talks about 9th century Frankish monks, then Florence again. Later in the article there is an entire section on Florence. The absence of chronology makes this casual reader suspect the whole thing is just a rant. I will delete the whole subsection unless it is cleaned up. Rwflammang (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The subsection Later developments until the Council of Florence should be moved out of the Maximus section and into the History section. Rwflammang (talk) 20:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for intervening. I think it is best for me to withdraw for some days, perhaps a week, and see what happens. Esoglou (talk) 06:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The subsection Potential views... is not encyclopedic; encyclopedias do not discuss potential views. This subsection is obviously some sort of set up for an apologetic point. Rwflammang (talk) 13:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The subsection Dating the estrangement of East and West to the reign of Charlemagne is a mess. For starters, there is no apparent reason why it is under the Saint Maximus section. Secondly, for a discussion about the reign of Charlemagne, it is bizarre that it would begin in the 15th century. Thirdly, what the heck is Roman Orthodoxy? Does anyone in the real world talk this way? I see little in this subsection that is salvagible. I will delete it unless it is cleaned up. Rwflammang (talk) 01:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, perhaps what I said above is too harsh. The subsection could be renamed Council of Florence and appended to a Historical Overview section. Then it might make more sense and need only some cleanup. Thoughts? Rwflammang (talk) 01:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now showing bias and seem to want to deny the other side of the argument. If you really want to help here's an overview of the Eastern perspective. A quick and concise and ugly overview. Please read it.[4]LoveMonkey (talk) 21:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Please help me to properly intergrate it into the article. John Romanides is but the most vocal of this to the West.[5]LoveMonkey (talk) 21:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC),

This perspective is called Roumeli...Since Esoglou knows all about this and wouldnt read it I did not see the need to share. But maybe you'll be different.[6],[7]LoveMonkey (talk) 21:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Reading the talk sections above, it seems that LoveMonkey is quick to accuse people of bias. Well, my bias is in favor of a short, tightly organized article with an encyclopedic tone. We have a long way to go yet. I have created a Historical overview section and dumped a lot of long rambling stuff into it. The next task is to eliminate the repetitions and achronological excursions. A big help would be a brief summary of Romanides' POV with appropriate references. Right now, Romanides' arguments seem to be sprinkled haphazardly throughout the article. Rwflammang (talk) 09:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Romanides is a very important Orthodox Theologian. Unless similar restrictions are placed on other authors, I see no reason why he should be referenced in only one section. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 11:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

My problem is not with Romanides, but with how he is being used in the article. He should not be cited will-he nill-he; his commentary on Frankish power and the canons of Florence should be used in chronological order; he should not be made to sound like a broken record. That is not consistent with the tone proper to an encyclopedia. Rwflammang (talk) 16:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

This is the bias I am talking about. There is no excuse to be marginalizing any of these sources. To start attacking it as fringe to marginalize it or try to make it out of place. Again I will state Romanides was the representative to the World Council of Churches for the world Ecumenical movement. It was his job to articulate the Orthodox positions on ecumenism and what were the reasons why there was separation and what it would take to resolve those issues. But bias will make this statement either get ignored or attacked. I picked Romanides because editor Lima/Esoglou is edit warring and Wikipedia is doing nothing about it. Esoglou can't so easily deny a source or marginalize the source if the source is available online and can be read and that the source is with scholarly title and rank. Romanides is both. I wonder if you read the link I provided and if you did, why are you not addressing their content, substance and trying to work with me to include it in the article?LoveMonkey (talk) 06:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Please do not accuse me of bias. It is rude, untrue, and against Wikipedia policy. Ad hominem arguments will win you no points with anyone.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record myself, I will repeat for the final time that I am not marginalizing Romanides, his qualifications are not in doubt (Why did you think they were?), nor did I ever imply that he was on the "fringe". (Why would anyone think that?) But inane repetition does not improve any encyclopedia article, and this article is no exception. All sources should be used appropriately, even if that source is the unparalleled genius, Romanides.

You can be criticized, anyone including me can be criticized. It was not by magic that Whitefords comment appeared. Nor by my provocation I was as surprised as you. Nor was it by ad hominem. Nor is it wrong for you to question my motives anymore than it is for me to question yours. I don't know you, who you are, and that does not give me much to go by. I do know that on my profile page I identify myself as an Orthodox Christian. I do know on your profile page you identify yourself as a Roman Catholic. Yes? That's to go by is it not? Well????

I have not attack your person I have not insulted your person, I have clearly stated that if this article is to be balanced (i.e. WP:NPOV) that anything that I for myself see as potentially unfair I must address. I mean I have not added anything to the other positions sections on the article. I have also added a great deal of content and history and understanding that was completely missing. As people reading the article now will at least have some more understanding of the Eastern position and opinions on this subject that simply were not here before. Now what is wrong with an encyclopedia being actually informative? Well? If the process includes trying to stay fair and fighting it out well that's the way collaboration on a unresolved subject have always been. And always been is bigger than me and you and wikipedia. Is it not? Your asking me to rise to the occasion I am just reciprocating. So now again I ask, address the substance of the content I suggested and be done with the distractions. Please. Pretty please, with money and prizes on top???!?LoveMonkey (talk) 10:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup Guidelines

Recommended reading for the cleanup effort: Wikipedia:Writing better articles. Rwflammang (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Historical overview

It seems to me that an historical overview should be inserted that would explain things in chronological order. The overview could contain the following sections and subsections: Beginning of contention, Origin..., Insertion..., Saint Maximus..., Photian controversy, [both] Council[s] of Constantinople, Later developments..., etc. Comments? Rwflammang (talk) 01:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Why can't we start the clean up of the entire article by deleting repetitive passages? Look how many times Maximos is quoted. Lets get rid of the other times the passage is posted. Lets consolidate Maximos and delete Esoglou's counters arguments, evidence that confuse the historical perspectives.LoveMonkey (talk) 21:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. Rwflammang (talk) 16:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The Beginning of contention subsection seems to consist mostly of stuff that is covered in better detail further down. I propose deleting this section; if it contains any unique content, I will move it to its appropriate section. I'll try to be careful not to break any repeated references that may be there.. Rwflammang (talk) 16:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

OK there yeah go.. From the skimming over of it it looks to be on the right path.. Here is kind of an overview of the article in an Eastern Orthodox kinda a way..[8]LoveMonkey (talk) 07:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Chronological order and Maximus

Why were entire sourced sections of the article (i.e. Potential views of Maximus' position and Position that the Roman Catholic Church rejected Interpretation[9]) deleted outright. We had not even gotten to the discussion of addressing the sections. What I thought was agreed on was the removal of redundant information first not the deletion of entire sections wholesale. That is hardly a clean up more like a mix up.LoveMonkey (talk) 08:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Potential views... was deleted (as I tried to make clear in my comment) because an encyclopedia article should limit itself to discussing actual views, and well documented ones at that. Views that no on actually holds need not be discussed here. Rwflammang (talk) 16:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

OK that makes sense, but lets talk the specifics first.LoveMonkey (talk) 23:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I deleted Position that... some days ago, and it was discussed in the Cleanup section above. To reiterate, it was because it was achronological; Saint Maximus's views were not influenced by Frankish monks nor the Council of Florence, etc. A stub citing Romanides was left in its place, which is now in Section 2.3.1. Rwflammang (talk) 16:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Please clarify further, you have already gotten an Orthodox priest addressing you, as it could be perceived you are marginalizing Romanides and the Greeks. Lets keep within limits so as to not make this spill over into a free for all as it is not my intention and I don't believe its yours..LoveMonkey (talk) 23:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Section 2.3.1 and Section 2.3.2 should be moved out of the history section (since they are not history) to someplace else. The only reason I have not moved them yet is because I see no place to put them yet. Ideas? Rwflammang (talk) 16:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Romanides makes it clear that the rejection was at specific historical points. Thats not just Romanides but the Eastern position. Its about MaximusLoveMonkey (talk) 23:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, but let's put it in chronological order, since following that order makes the article less confusing to the reader and less prone to repetition. I propose puting a new subsection 2.9 following the Florence subsection that can discuss the ecumenical movement including Maximus's influence. 2.3.1 can go there. Rwflammang (talk) 16:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I presume that what Maximus himself wrote in response to the first objection ever raised against "and the Son" will remain (or be placed) in its chronological order. Esoglou (talk) 16:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

That is my intention. Rwflammang (talk) 01:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

OK but I thought you said this was a clean up and that we were getting rid of repeated information.. Yet theres a theology section and a theological contention. BUT so far Rwflammang is doing alright. I am going to move some stuff around. But not really delete or remove anything so hopefully it will look better. LoveMonkey (talk) 04:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

You raise an excellent point. So far, most of my limited effort has been to dump and shuffle a lot of stuff in the history section. Right now, I'm trying to clean up the mess I made there before moving even more stuff in. My motivation for making the history section is twofold: 1. Putting the stuff in order makes it easier to trim out the repetitions. 2. My interest in the Filioque is primarily historical, and so I have personal reasons for wanting a historical overview. Rwflammang (talk) 01:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Perusing the other major sections, I see stuff that could with a little tweaking be moved to the history section. I'll get to that stuff eventually, after discussing it here first, but right now I still have plenty to do. Rwflammang (talk) 01:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

To be quite honest all of your edits (except the Ruthian removal they deserve a mention as they are good, honorable people stuck between East and West) have been hard to take but ultimately better for the article. I am hoping to say more with less but with the edit warring I am having to say less with way TOO MUCH. So I appreciate your help. However there are simply certain things that have to said if this mess is ever to be resolved I have tried to keep those uniquely Eastern things in the Eastern sections. And let the rest be tit for tat. I have not wondered into the Protestant and or Roman Catholic sections and I still feel as being a mystic based theology Eastern Orthodoxy does not have the heart or fire to try and rationalize God like the West. As such I do not like speaking of the relio-philosophical take withing Western theology.LoveMonkey (talk) 04:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Ecumenical councils on the procession of the Holy Spirit

Surely the information about the various councils (whether considered ecumenical or local) should be part of the historical overview, not a section apart. Exactly seven of these councils are accepted as ecumenical by both EOC and RCC. Who called the seven and where they were held is irrelevant in this context. What is relevant is only what they said about the procession of the Holy Spirit. Esoglou (talk) 11:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I see now that the first councils accepted by both sides as ecumenical are in fact dealt with within the historical overview. Apologies for my previous edit done before I had time, after my return to base, to read the whole of the unnecessarily long article. I still think the who and where of those councils are quite irrelevant and that it is enough to address them within the historical overview. Other Eastern councils also described themselves as ecumenical, but have not been universally accepted as such within the EOC. Esoglou (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Tightening up the Photian subsections

All the ins and outs of Saint Photius's career and the councils he participated in are very interesting, but they are covered in more detail in other articles and are only secondarily related to the Filioque. I propose that Main-article links be put in place and that these subsections be shortened to contain only what relates directly to the Filioque. Rwflammang (talk) 17:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Esoglou (talk) 17:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

1.Esoglou does not speak for nor is he informed or correct for the Greek Orthodox position he has made outrageous mistakes. OUTRAGEOUS mistakes coupled with hubris. It is important enough to warrant another article based on this, about how out of phase the Eastern Catholics are not with the Greeks whom are their neighbors and brothers, sisters and love them, but rather with actual dogma of the Roman Catholic church that attacks Greek theology and its sacred mysticism as heresy. Esoglou appears to not want to address that for whatever reason.

2.I think that this edit [10] reflects about how poorly Eastern Rite is represented and that it should be reverted. Again it should be reverted, the Uniate chose to turn and go ahead with unity over truth as such they know very well that the theologies are not compatible and they will keep having to become more <<<Europeanized>>> (French and German) and less and less Eastern in order to maintain unity. All the while compromising for something that is becoming, well...Lots of money lots of money.LoveMonkey (talk) 02:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Church Fathers

Section 3.8 Church fathers has been inserted into the history overview. I don't like it there for my usual reasons. I will delete it and move some (not all) of its contents up to their chronological place. Rwflammang (talk) 02:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree. But don't omit much: it is enlightening with regard to the ἐκπορεύεσθαι/προϊέναι distinction, and this aspect makes possible a non-chronological position for it, if preferred. Esoglou (talk) 11:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Esoglou just indicated to me that he thinks that it might be clearer to keep an eastern Fathers section and a western Fathers section separate. I do not have a strong opinion on the matter. Although I have used the "chronological order" issue as something of a battle cry; even I recognize that slight departures from chronology can sometimes be desireable. That said, I did briefly consider keeping the Fathers section in two parts, but I just didn't see a very large advantage to keeping it; in the 4th and 5th centuries, the east-west rift had not yet spread very far. Rwflammang (talk) 17:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Neither do I have a strong opinion on it. I made my query without having had time to reach any judgement. Perhaps what is done is best. And not only because it is done. Esoglou (talk) 18:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Differences in views

Essentially all of subsection 3.9 is covered elsewhere. What little is not covered in the chronologically ordered sections is not so much historical but rather illustrates modern inter-confessional discussions, which are also covered elsewhere. I plan to delete the whole subsection. Am I missing something? Rwflammang (talk) 20:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

There is still the duplicate statement of Maximus and the duplicate, redundant entry of the Armenian church.LoveMonkey (talk) 01:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Yes, I am aware that there are still many duplicate statements. I apologize for being such a slow worker! When I took on this effort, I foolishly did not foresee that my time would be as limited as it is turning out to be. Please be patient, or better yet (if you can spare an hour or two) do it yourself! I understand, of course, if you are busy with your own projects. Never fear, I will get to it eventually. Rwflammang (talk) 01:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Alright but no sooner then you delete content is Esoglou then and going back and writing entire section again in different parts of the article. It appears as if both views are being deleted while the Roman Catholic Vatican approved one is then being turned around and added back in. Thats not right. I mean you just cleaned this section and here he goes rewriting added more content into the article.[11] Also as always with Esoglou. There are giant board generalizations and anecdotal nonsense. Like Photius excluded anything. Pure nonsense. The Creed excluded it at best Photius excluded it from the Creed only, not from Orthodox and or Roman Catholic theology. This is a complete distortion of Photius as is usual from the West. Bias. The West still denies that there that first University ever was in Constantinople. It has due a smear campaign on Photius for a 1000 years and does not allow the University of Constantinople to be called a University and it does not allow Photius to this day to be called a Professor that taught philosophy there. That's an awful lot of dirty underhanded unchristian like behavior. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I wonder what are the entire sections I am supposed to have written again. I did put back a phrase that LoveM deleted, saying that he couldn't find it in one of the two citations given for it. So I put the phrase back in, quoting in the edit summary the relevant words, already given in the footnote. The other change, the one to which LoveM has given a link, was a paragraph (not a section) that I thought was necessary. The paragraph in itself was not lengthy, but in view of the foreseen reaction of LoveM, it had to be supported with a good number of citations, nearly all from Orthodox writers. Surely you can't present Professor and, then, Patriarch and, then, Hieromonk and, then, again Patriarch Photius in the historical part without any indication of what he stood for, the position that brought him into conflict with the Western tradition? And was that position anything other than what the reliable sources say, namely: eternal (intra-Trinitarian) procession of the Holy Spirit "from the Father alone"? Esoglou (talk) 14:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The dif I posted [12] shows lima/Esoglou adding this entire section not a phrase. Esoglou is very purposefully being deceptive.

---

Photius excluded not only "and the Son" but also "through the Son" with regard to the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit: for him "through the Son" applied only to the temporal mission of the Holy Spirit (the sending in time). He maintained that the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit is "from the Father alone". This phrase was verbally a novelty However, Orthodox theologians generally hold that in substance the phrase was only a reaffirmation of traditional teaching. Sergei Bulgakov, on the other hand, declared that Photius's doctrine itself "represents a sort of novelty for the Eastern church".

---

Hardly a phrase.LoveMonkey (talk) 16:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

As I said, a paragraph. Esoglou (talk) 16:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

More Edit warring by Esoglou

Why is it that Esoglou can request that I source things down to the level of single words. And insist that I copy them word for word into the article from sources and when I ask for sourcing Lima/Esoglou responds by not only deleting the citations requests put commenting that, what he is posting is not a poster on Wikipedia's opinion?[13] How is that justification for anything. How does that even make sense? There is no other explanation for Lima/Esoglou's behavior at this point than bias pure and simple and it is this bias that over rides the policies of Wikipedia so not to compromise that bias or dare I say, biases that Lima/Esoglou holds. The gall of that edit is beyond me.LoveMonkey (talk) 10:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone else see any sense in that request for citations for a citation?! Esoglou (talk) 16:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks to me like the citation is plain enough, namely Ralph Del Cole. Rwflammang (talk) 17:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

If you ask me (and no one did) that whole quote can be replaced by a short paraphrase with the Ralph Del Cole citation. Rwflammang (talk) 17:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Rwflammang.LoveMonkey (talk) 02:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Abt heading "More Edit warring by X" - WP:NPA: "Comment on content, not on the contributor!" Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 14:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Roman Catholic theology section

I understand that I am going to attempt this section and I understand if Roman Catholic editors here reword, rework it. I accept that I will do my best.LoveMonkey (talk) 02:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Franks, Germans, "West Romans"

But for the conviction that any retouching by me would be interpreted as a hostile act, I would do something about much in this field that is being presented as fact. Even so, I am confident that most readers will understand that it must be taken with more than a grain of salt. Esoglou (talk) 11:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

More Esoglou edit warring

I added in a statement to the Council of Florence section that was a general statement about East and West and removed a statement that was worded as almost a personal attack as if when Esoglou wrote it about John Romanides it appeared to try and shame Romanides. The statement reads Esoglou re-added the content today.

Orthodox Theologian Romanides holds, contrary to what, he says, is always held by Protestant, Anglican and Latin scholars, that Pope John VIII did accept that the Filioque was a heresy.<[14]

My rewording of the statement that Esoglou with his axe to grind could not leave well enough alone.
Read

Orthodox Theologian Romanides holds that Pope John VIII did accept that the Filioque was a heresy.

Whats wrong with it being a short statement that I tried into the Western position I added today. Why could Esoglou not leave it well enough alone. Or at least discuss how Esoglou saw it as inadequacy or whatever excuse to edit war Esoglou chooses. Also while I am trying to cooperate with another editor on the talkpage here and reduce the article size and rewrite. Esoglou keeps adding in un-need and un-necessary additions. And not just one or two words but paragraphs of un-need anecdotal extrapolations. Esoglou added this today to the section I just worked on. Without talking to either me or Rwflammang.

The doctrine that the Holy Spirit proceeds (ἐκπορεύεσθαι) from the Father through the Son, which was expressed by John of Damascus in about 750 and by Patriarch Tarasius of Constantinople when presiding over the seventh ecumenical council in 787 and was approved by Pope Hadrian I, was used as the basis for the compromise at the Council of Florence in 1439. But Photius and later Easterners, insisting on procession from the Father alone, dropped or rejected "through the Son", as too similar to "and from the Son", or excluded its applicability to the eternal procession of the Spirit, as distinguished from the Spirit's sending.

These pieces of information confuse the article and make it appear that Photius was actually at the council of Florence. SINCE THE SECTION IS CALLED THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE. Why is this behavior being allowed? This is not contributing to the quality of this article. This is confusing the article. As the information in one way shape or form is already in other parts of the article and I removed it here to focus as much as possible on this specific historical council. This is very disruptive. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see why you object to what Romanides himself wrote of the opinion of Protestant, Anglcan and Latin scholars: "It is always claimed by Protestant, Anglican, and Latin scholars that since the time of Hadrian I or Leo III, through the period of John VIII, the Papacy opposed the Filioque only as an addition to the Creed, but never as doctrine or theological opinion. Thus, it is claimed that John VIII accepted the Eight Ecumenical Synod's condemnation of the addition to the Creed and not of the Filioque as a teaching." For some unspecified reason you eliminated this information. I merely put it back in.

I also fail to see why you use the word "anecdotal" about the information that the cited reliable sources give of the view that led the Easterners to reject the "through the Son" agreement at Florence. That information no more gives the impression that Photius (or for that matter the earlier John of Damascus) were present at Florence than your own mention of Leo III suggests that that pope was present. Esoglou (talk) 18:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course you fail. Of course you do. OK so Photius and Romanides stated that Pope John VIII in a letter to him (Photius) stated that Pope John believed the filioque was heretical. How is that what Esoglou just put in the article? Oh wait it isnt no that would not a be personal shot like the one Esoglou just added to the article and is now arguing about.LoveMonkey (talk) 18:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I apologize, Love. Contrary to what I wrote above, you did specify why you cut out part, but only part, of what Romanides wrote: you called it "grand standing POV". You obviously did not think that the rest of what he wrote was grand standing POV. Esoglou (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh I see. So the part that I added today.

While the West claims that the Letter from John VIII condemning the Filioque is a fabrication of the Eastern Orthodox.

WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH ROMANIDES? What you added what does it do to better this article? So an apology is an indication that you are going to revert the article to the way it was and you should have left it alone?LoveMonkey (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

"What does thagt have to do with Romanides?" Probably nothing. As for restoring the omitted part of what Romanides did write, I must have reacted to the selective editing out of a part on the grounds that it was grand standing POV. Esoglou (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

You must have made another excuse for a poor contribution. That now that it has been pointed out is in poor measure you should remove. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Abt heading "More Edit warring by X" - WP:NPA: "Comment on content, not on the contributor!" Here too! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 14:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Amen! Rwflammang (talk) 21:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Fiat! Fiat! Rwflammang (talk) 21:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

How can either one of you say the edit that me and Esoglou are conflicting about [15] improved this article in anyway? My contribution at least put an emphasis on Photius. Who is far more important to this article's history then Esoglou's hit job of an edit trying to make John Romanides look bad. Romanides' comment in context was about how Photius stated that he received a letter from Pope John saying that he (the Pope) explicitly believed the filioque was heresy. And the Western Christian response to this was that the Eastern Orthodox fabricated the letter. Now it just looks like Romanides is being partisan and biased to put it nicely. And that what Romanides said has no connection historically to what the history (and story) of this, of what the West is accusing the East of.

NOTE: Romanides and other Orthodox theologian in regular articles are not usually called out by name and focused on like these Esoglou articles seems to do (i.e. personal attacks on public figures). No encyclopedia article I know treats the subject like this where authority of one side are "outed" in what appears to be a smear campaign style of encyclopedia writing (i.e. editwarring). I tried to make a point of this to Esoglou by treating Avery Dulles the same way, of course thats losts on this whole thing. But hey my focus on Esoglou's substance was nothing but a personal attack according to you 2.LoveMonkey (talk) 01:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring and policy abuse

Esoglou did this set of edits today on the article [16]. Esoglou appears to have attacked without reading the sources and made several obvious mistakes which considering Esoglou behavior documented here on the article talkpage this is Esoglou typical edit warring and Wikipedia posting policy abuses.

• 1[17] Esoglou admits this source is valid and yet still posts Failed verification Here is the reason that Esoglou gives "This opinion of a single writer in 1909 (so different from the respectful picture that the Roman Catholic Church itself presents of the Greek Church) does NOT say that anyone "use(d) the teaching of the Filioque and papal authority to distinguish an anti-Greek (anti-Eastern) character", nor is it "from an Eastern perspective". This article is from the New Advent Roman Catholic Encyclopedia online. It is an accepted source. Esoglou conduct here is beyond unacceptable as Esoglou is on one hand posting outright distortion (as the source states what is copied from it word for word) and it is not Esoglous place to remove this passage from the article a second time as even this week Pope said that the Orthodox Church is defective. Esoglou can provide no source that (so different from the respectful picture that the Roman Catholic Church itself presents of the Greek Church). There is no rational explanation for Esoglou's pattern of behavior other then edit warring. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• 2[18] Here Esoglou has decided that the Franks fabricating a pseudo history claiming that they are descendants of Troy and Roman is not a reality and that just because the source I posted says that Esoglou doesn't have to agree and can post that the source did not say what the source says [19]. But hey this is Esoglou he can post and do what he wants and no admin will stop him. hey the word Legend as in this source literally means to Esoglou historical fact. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• 3[20] Here Esoglou is again attack Eastern Orthodox sources because they say things Esoglou doesn't like or agree with, so either the source is not a valid source or it has no credibility. So say rather than change the source to another one like say the Ecumenical Patriarch's website [21] or here Roman Catholic ones like ". Constantine the Great had the holy Fathers of the Council bestow upon St Metrophanes the title of Patriarch. Thus, the saint became the first Patriarch of Constantinople."[22]. No Esoglou would rather edit war and do things that betray acting in bad faith. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

In hindsight and in light of my whole discussion on if Orthodox Wiki could be used as a source and the fact that Esoglou has no problem removing, deleting and rewriting my contributions why now should Esoglou continue to post more invalidating citation tags to this section of the article other than to try and discredit the Eastern Orthodox section represented in that section of the article. I have not went into the Roman Catholic article sections and posted an inane amount of citation request and in the process ignoring what is available about this subject in the process. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Quotation from the 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia

Please explain how this quotation that you inserted in support of your contention that "the Germans and the Franks used the teaching of the Filioque and Papal authority to distinguish an anti-Greek (anti-Eastern) character" actually does support it. Esoglou (talk) 21:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The article is called the Greek Church on the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia online. The Quote is from that article which addresses each of the article's comments contentions. So the article does not speak from a Roman Catholic perspective on how the Orthodox Church is defective and each of these points made in the comment? So now you want me to post not only a the anti-Greek sentiment in the article to this one (I only post one example) you want me to take the New Advent article and post where it attacks the Orthodox Church not only on it's title but also on these points in the i.e. filioque, Papal supremacy, Latin customs addressed at the Quinisext Council. OK I can do that as well. LoveMonkey (talk) 12:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

That might be a reason for inserting the citation elsewhere, but here it is inserted as a citation for your claim that "the Germans and the Franks used the teaching of the Filioque and Papal authority to distinguish an anti-Greek (anti-Eastern) character". It says nothing of the kind, does it? Esoglou (talk) 13:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Again your the one with the problem here. If you feel it should be used in another part of the article break your own tired behavior patterns and copy it there as of now it reflects the sentiment of the statement. As for it does not "the whole article does Esoglou I only posted a tiny segment as an example". If you don't like the way it is handled make a constructive suggestion on how it might be properly handled instead of deleting, silencing it.LoveMonkey (talk) 15:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I take that as acceptance that the citation does not in fact back up the statement it is supposed to support. I will therefore remove it, leaving it to you, if you so wish, to insert it at some point where it does fit. Esoglou (talk) 15:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems that it will, as in similar past cases, take weeks to get LoveMonkey's acceptance even of this clear fact. He has again restored the citation, calling it a "source" for his statement that "the Germans and the Franks used the teaching of the Filioque and Papal authority to distinguish an anti-Greek (anti-Eastern) character". So I must ask him again to identify the part of the quotation from the old Catholic Encyclopedia that makes this statement. No personal synthesis, please. Of course, if you fail to back up your claim that what you call your "source" does make that statement, then Wikipedia rules allow it to be deleted. Esoglou (talk) 07:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

May we now remove this citation, without going to the Noticeboard? Esoglou (talk) 20:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Unless I hear an objection from you, I will remove it in a matter of hours. OK? Esoglou (talk) 20:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

No I object. Take it up with the noticeboard. Since there as not even something stated a day ago and you are already back here trying to delete sections from the Eastern Orthodox section of the article because you don't like what it says. Why not attempt to write a sentence the reflects the source or better yet leave that section of the article alone or provide Roman Catholic sources that refute what it states. Allot more options than simply delete. LoveMonkey (talk) 03:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

As it is your wish, I will raise the question at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Esoglou (talk) 06:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The verdict at WP:RSN was as expected, but I find I need now now remove the Catholic Encyclopedia quotation, whose inclusion I questioned. It has already, and rightly, been deleted. Esoglou (talk) 11:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Franks as West Romans

Please quote the words with which you claim that this book says "the Franks began to be spoken of as Western Romans". And quote where the Chronicle of Fredegar says that "the Franks began to be spoken of as Western Romans". Esoglou (talk) 21:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Again Esoglou distorting. The sentence states that the Franks fabricated a history in order to appear to be just in calling themselves Emperors of the Holy Roman Empire. The way that Esoglou worded his response here it makes it sound like

• 1) The Franks did not fabricate a false genealogy in order to appear to be Romans themselves. (well did they?) TO ESTABLISH POWER UNDER THE GUISE OF THE DESTROYED WESTERN ROMAN EMPIRE.
• 2) because if they hadn't there would be no justification to call their Empire a "Roman" Empire. (is this or is this not true)
• 3) As Esoglou is outright saying that there was no such thing as a Holy Roman Empire that as Voltaire stated "was not Holy and Most DEFINITELY NOT ROMAN." As in reality it was a French and German Empire not a Roman or Greek one. Is Esoglou denying this?
• 4) Esoglou is trying really hard to deny what actual took place in history. As the source I provided goes over the Fabrication by the Franks of a genealogy of their Frankish Emperors saying that these Emperors had Roman or Trojan Bloodline.
• 5) As what was done also had repercussion for the ACTUAL STILL REMAINING ROMAN EMPIRE OF THE EAST AND CAUSED CONFLICT WITH IT.
• 6) According to Esoglou thinking these things did not happen and they had nothing to do with causing the two church to be in conflict. And therefore according to Esoglou they don't belong in an article where one of the things that the Franks exploited to that end (the filioque) is being written about.
• In Final If Esoglou can find a better way to express this point of the political power struggle behind the issue of the filioque please do it, if not leave it alone. It happened and it needs to be addressed in the article. LoveMonkey (talk) 12:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

You have inserted these two citations as support for your claim that "the Franks began to be spoken of as Western Romans". The citations do not in fact say that, do they? Esoglou (talk) 13:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Hold the press Esoglou is again making a blanket statement that opposes the obvious. I again Esoglou do not have source that the sky is blue. You are literally saying that the Franks are not called Emperors of the Holy Roman Empire. Think about that and let that sink into your head. About just how outrageous what your saying is. That the sources that I posted state that the Franks created the Carolingian dynasty and that this dynasty fabricated a false genealogy saying that they were Roman in order to justify having their Empire called the Holy Roman Empire. Esoglou is saying that these people are to be stricken from the Holy Roman Emperors? That these people never called themselves "Emperor of the Romans" a title that was bestowed upon them by the Pope himself. Hmm somebody desperately wants to re write history.

Esoglou is just dodging the point to undermine and attempt to discredit a section of the article he doesn't like and also to silence and opinion or perspective opposed to his Roman Catholic POV. He will do nothing and offer nothing to post the information in away that corrects his complaints about the style of the posting as it is really the substance that one Esoglou is dodging but refute and too he really has no way to fix the way the information is posted so he will just edit war and delete and silence as he has a pattern of here on the talkpage to article. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The point is that these two sources do not say what you have cited them for in the article, namely, that "the Franks began to be spoken of as Western Romans". They may well say other things such as you are now putting into their mouths, but you are failing to quote them as saying what you attribute to them in the article. Would you prefer to change what you have written in the article? Esoglou (talk) 16:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Esoglou is playing games again and trying to rewrite history. What I mean by this is that Charlemagne for example called himself an Emperor of Roman and Ruler over Romans. This can be seen in the title bestowed upon Charlemagne at his coronation under Pope Leo.

'Charles, most serene Augustus, crowned by God, great and pacific emperor, governing the Roman empire.'

Now Esoglou is denying this history as Charlemagne the King of the Franks after that was Charlemagne King of the Roman Empire. Esoglou wishes to split hairs and make it sound like Pope Leo and successive Popes did not bestow such title onto Frankish kings in order to give them power to revial that true Emperor title held then by Constantinople. [23] Esoglou doesn't like what this exposes and instead of working toward a wording that just in case would be more historically correct Esoglou wants the entire point that the sentence generalizes completely silenced as it does not bode well for his Roman Catholic POV. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Read more: http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=aa35#ixzz13aFGc9UD"

The comment MAKES and anti-Greek and Anti-Eastern Orthodox statement and does from an Roman Catholic source and Roman Catholic representative. No matter what pedantic wrangling Esoglou engages in the data that Esoglou is deleting is a Roman Catholic source (and an accepted, valid source here at Wikipedia) clearly making sarcastic and anti-Greek statements on the validity of the Greek Orthodox church calling itself Orthodox. Maybe its time again for Europe to go back into Russia and Greece again and force us Orthodox to understand it like Esoglou and the Roman Catholic church do. I mean it's that what Europe does almost every 100 or so years. Go and invade an Orthodox country or two destroy the countries economy and then under the weight of devastation try and force integration onto the peoples there which almost always includes converting from Orthodoxy to either Protestantism or Roman Catholicism? As if the Croates did no ethnic cleansing? The Serbs did not see them get bombed. As if the Serbs where not fighting an insurgency back by Al qaeda? As if the excuse to justify the bombing of Serbia was "but that happens 10 years ago".

Let alone the mass killing fueled by the West in the

• 1. Venetian–Genoese Wars (heres my favorite passages of the article 1. "Venice responded by paying his son-in-law, John V Palaiologos, to enter the war against him and the Genoese. John VI then began a campaign for papal support and the union of the Catholic and Orthodox churches. and 2.Pope Innocent VI responded with enthusiastic support for the Byzantine emperor in a letter of 15 March 1353 and in another of 29 September, addressed to Genoa, urged the city-state to make peace with Venice and Aragon. The pope's enthusiasm quickly abated as John Palaiologos entered Constantinople the next year (1354)"),
• 2. the Northern Crusades and it's Battle of the Ice, Time of Troubles, Polish–Muscovite War (1605–1618), the Polish taking over Russia and liquidating Patriarch Hermogenes and pushing to convert Russia to Roman Catholicism.
  

Then we can always throw in the successions of Napoleans and there anti-Greek animus that Esoglou states does not exist and will delete silence and edit war against since that doesn't jive with Esoglous opinion. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

What has all that got to do with your claim that "the Franks began to be spoken of as Western Romans" - and your failure to produce even one source that says that they did begin to be spoken of as Western Romans?! Esoglou (talk) 16:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Revised list I was creating while Esoglou was arguing and trying to post it gave me an Edit Conflict error. This is just a general overview.. I will try and flesh this out to be more complete. Since it seems that Europe can't just leave the East alone and has to go an invade it every 100 years or so and then act like the East regularly does the same. Which of course IT DOES NOT. Let alone the mass killing fueled by the West in the name of Westernization by way of *Byzantium under the Angeloi

• 1. Byzantine–Norman wars In the East (but not the Russian per se), the name Norman is used to describe people from Northern France and the term Frank is also used to describe the large group that the Normans where considered part of. However to what extent this is so is not clear.
• 2. The Byzantine–Venetian Treaty of 1082 which is a huge part of the animus in the East toward as this is considered a double cross in the East by the West.
• 3. Venetian Corruption (organized crime) that leads to the Massacre of the Latins 1182 which leads to William II of Sicily attacking Corfu, Cephalonia, Ithaca and Zakynthos and sacking Thessaloniki.
• 4. The Sack of not just Constantinople in 1204 but the establishment of a Roman Catholic Constantinople including it's churches. Called the Latin Empire or the Frankokratia. I wonder if Esoglou can clarify what the statement means, "Alexios V Doukas was to flung to death by the Crusaders".
• 5. Venetian–Genoese Wars (heres my favorite passages of the article 1. "Venice responded by paying his son-in-law, John V Palaiologos, to enter the war against him and the Genoese. John VI then began a campaign for papal support and the union of the Catholic and Orthodox churches. and 2.Pope Innocent VI responded with enthusiastic support for the Byzantine emperor in a letter of 15 March 1353 and in another of 29 September, addressed to Genoa, urged the city-state to make peace with Venice and Aragon. The pope's enthusiasm quickly abated as John Palaiologos entered Constantinople the next year (1354)"),
• 6. the Northern Crusades and it's Battle of the Ice,
  
• Then we can always throw in the successions of Napoleans and there anti-Greek animus that Esoglou states does not exist and will delete, silence and edit war against since that doesn't jive with Esoglous opinion.
• 7. Time of Troubles, Polish–Muscovite War (1605–1618), the Polish taking over Russia and liquidating Patriarch Hermogenes and pushing to convert Russia to Roman Catholicism.
• 8. OK starting with Napolean I August 1769 – 5 May 1821 and his invasion of Russia where he used the previous ugliness of the Times of Troubles to recruit the Poles.Duchy_of_Warsaw#Napoleon.27s_campaign_against_Russia I think that time it was called the French invasion of Russia of 1812 (somebody que Tchaikovsky).
• 9. Then we have the Crimean Wars again the Orthodox trying to take back and or protect their churches and rights to those Holy Places against Roman Catholic powers whom where exploiting the sick man of Europe to destroy the Orthodox church take it's Holy places and possessions and give them to the Roman Catholic church.
• 10. Crimean War (disambiguation) Does anyone know why Hitler invaded Russia? If so is that the same reason the Italy invaded Greece during War World II Battle_of_Greece#Greco-Italian_War? What was the reason for that?

LoveMonkey (talk) 17:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

After all that, not one source yet for the claim that "the Franks began to be spoken of as Western Romans"! Esoglou (talk) 18:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Its a general statement and you are implying that since it is not from a word for word from a source that it is not valid. So much for copyright vio. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Quoting a ten-word phrase is not violation of copyright, as you know well, since you frequently quote several paragraphs of your "sources". So where do the two questioned "sources" say that "the Franks began to be spoken of as Western Romans"? Where does even one of the two say it? Esoglou (talk) 19:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Although I do have, as shown in the past, the patience to continue this discussion for the many weeks needed to get a result, I have decided this time to raise the question here. If the result is as I hope, it will resolve also the other questions I have lined up here for discussion, on most of which no response has yet been attempted. Esoglou (talk) 08:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

OK lets see your actual collaborative spirit. Craft a sentence that shows that the Franks jockeyed for equal footing in political power in the West with the Emperor of East, that in title power and influence and that there was such a conflict and how the Franks fit into the conflict and what their perspective, role, opinion was. Cause even then it would take allot of it to undue your past edit warring and pedantic wrangling. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Simple. Start with "The Western Roman Empire was subjected to the Franks and Germans with the coronation of Charlemagne on Christmas Day 800 ...." and continue as you yourself have written or add: "Thus a rival for the title of Roman Emperor arose against the Byzantine Roman Emperor." If you can accept this or something like it, removing the unsourced claim that the Franks became known as Western Romans, the problem is solved. Can you accept something like that? Esoglou (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

So simple but you Esoglou had to write volumes of bickering here on the article talkpage? Made the change yourself. I personally do not see any issue with your wording of it NOR mine. Your the one crying foul and being pedantic. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I wonder how this passage from the Latin Empire article here on Wikipedia could be reflected in the section in general..

"The crowning of Baldwin and the creation of the Latin Empire had the curious effect of creating three so-called Roman Empires in Europe at the same time, the others being the Holy Roman Empire and the remnants of the Byzantine Empire (the direct successor of the ancient Roman Empire), none of which actually controlled the city of Rome, which was under the temporal authority of the Pope." LoveMonkey (talk) 16:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Love, for agreeing so quickly that the statement about the Franks being called West Romans may be omitted. I will put that into effect now. Then we can see if the same method should be used to speed up decisions about other questioned insertions. Do you perhaps agree now to omission of the Catholic Encyclopedia quotation discussed immediately above? Esoglou (talk) 18:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Charlemagne carried something somewhere

Please, instead of deleting the query, clarify where it was that Charlemagne carried either a schism or a title, as you claim when you write of "A schism provoked by Charlemagne under the title of Holy Roman Emperor and carried there". Esoglou (talk) 21:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Well here is a passage from the Wikipedia article sourced saying this only with allot more words'
• "Charlemagne is sometimes credited with supporting the insertion of the filioque into the Nicene Creed. The Franks had inherited a Visigothic tradition of referring to the Holy Spirit as deriving from God the Father and Son (Filioque), and under Charlemagne, the Franks challenged the 381 Council of Constantinople proclamation that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father alone. Pope Leo III rejected this notion, and had the Nicene Creed carved into the doors of Old St. Peter's Basilica without the offending phrase; the Frankish insistence led to bad relations between Rome and Francia. Later, the Roman Catholic Church would adopt the phrase, leading to dispute between Rome and Constantinople. Some see this as one of many pre-cursors to the East-West Schism centuries later."
• Charlemagne had also caused the Filioque to be added to the Frankish Creed, without consulting the pope. When the controversy over this addition broke out in Jerusalem, Charlemagne convoked the Council of Aachen in 809 and decreed that this addition was a dogma necessary for salvation. With this fait accomplit under his belt, he tried to pressure Pope Leo III into accepting it.[ 9 ]

• Leo rejected the Filioque not only as an addition to the Creed, but also as dogma, claiming that the Fathers left it out of the Creed neither out of ignorance, nor out of negligence, nor out of oversight, but on purpose and by divine inspiration. About this Esoglou, what does the article say right now?

• What Leo is clearly saying, but in diplomatic terms, is that the addition of the Filioque to the Creed is a heresy. The Franks were a too dangerous a presence in Papal Romania, so Leo acted as Hadrian had done before him. Leo did not reject the Filioque outside of the Creed, since there is in the West Roman tradition an Orthodox Filioque which was, and is, accepted as such by the East Romans until today. However, this West Roman Orthodox Filioque could not be added to the Creed where the term procession had a different meaning. In other words in a wrong context.

• In any event, Charlemagne cared very little about the pope's thoughts on icons and the Filioque. He needed the condemnation of the East Romans as heretics in order to prove that they were no longer Romans, but Greeks, and he succeeded in getting this in the only way the Frankish mind at this time could devise. Believing that the Franks would eventually take over the Papacy, he knew that future Frankish popes would accept what Roman popes of his day had rejected. Charlemagne in his youth heard stories of his father's and uncle's struggles to save Francia from the Roman revolutions, which had destroyed Visigothic rule in Hispanic Gothia (Spain) and had almost destroyed the Franks in Gaul.

• Many historians take for granted that, by this time, the Franks and Romans in Gaul had become one nation, and that the Romans were supposedly included under the name Frank or populus Francorum. [24] LoveMonkey (talk) 03:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Will you accept "A schism provoked by Charlemagne under the title of Holy Roman Emperor", omitting "and carried there", which seems to have no sense? Esoglou (talk) 06:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The offending passage has been removed. Problem solved. Esoglou (talk) 11:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Patriarch of Constantinople since 325

While I thank you for accepting the objection against quoting OrthodoxWiki as a reliable source, and while I point out that I did not question the GOA citation that states that Constantine had the Council of Nicaea give the title of Patriarch to Metrophanes, please quote the words with which your second GOA citation says that Constantine did that, and why you removed the indication of the precise origin (a Russian pamphlet of 1845) of the fourth citation that you gave as supporting that account of the first use of the title of Patriarch of Constantinople. Esoglou (talk) 21:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

No the first Patriarch is not the last. As for the Russian if you believe it valid repost it. I thought what I posted was clear enough but then since Esoglou post citations requests for words and half sentences in the article why should this above pointless point not surprise me? Your objection doesnt even make sense. LoveMonkey (talk) 03:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for accepting the restoration of the exact source of the fourth citation. I will restore that later. But you still have not defended the use of the second GOA citation as proof that Constantine got the Council of Nicaea to grant the title of Patriarch to Metrophanes. Esoglou (talk) 06:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The offending passage has been removed. Problem solved. Esoglou (talk) 11:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of reliable sources

Please indicate on what grounds you deleted Meyendorff's statement that it was in the fifth century that Constantinople was finally given a "patriarchate" and Yannaras's that it was after the 5th century that the title of Patriarch came to be used of the Bishops of Rome, Constantinople and three more. Esoglou (talk) 21:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Meyendorff's work is no longer accepted by the Greeks in general as he made statements that are clearly rejected and easily refuted by the Eastern Orthodox. [25] [26] LoveMonkey (talk) 03:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Both Meyendorff and Yannaras made statements about historical facts, not about doctrine. They are far more weighty as reliable sources than short anonymous articles on websites. There are no grounds whatever for deleting their statements from the article. Esoglou (talk) 06:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The offending passage has been removed. Problem solved. Esoglou (talk) 11:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Another deletion of a reliable source

Please explain on what grounds you deleted the sourced statement that Pope Saint Leo I dogmatically confessed the Filioque in 451. Esoglou (talk) 21:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Post the diff as I am unclear on the edit you are referring to. LoveMonkey (talk) 03:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

This diff, with which you removed "the procession (in the Latin sense) of the Spirit from the Father and the Son was always professed in the West and was confessed dogmatically by Pope Leo I in 451", together with the citation that verified it. Esoglou (talk) 06:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The offending passage has been removed. Problem solved. Esoglou (talk) 11:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Criteria to establish church dogma

Please quote the words with which this citation declares that "this sets the actions of the Pope Sergius IV in 1009 over and above the actions of an Ecumenical council as the criteria to establish Universal church dogma". And respond to the queries about what actions and which ecumenical council you mean, instead of deleting the requests for clarification. Esoglou (talk) 21:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you please clarify where the passage ""this sets the actions of the Pope Sergius IV in 1009 over and above the actions of an Ecumenical council as the criteria to establish Universal church dogma". Is located in this article? As I can not seem to locate it. LoveMonkey (talk) 03:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Also what do these passages from the OCA website mean Esoglou-

• "In the later ninth century the West entered one of the darkest periods in its history. New waves of invasions destroyed the relative security of the empire created by Charlemagne. The Church suffered from the domination of lay lords. Communication with the East was virtually cut off. In 996 the first German was elected as pope of Rome, with the name of Gregory V. In this century the Western reform movement began at the monastery of Cluny in France. The reform movement, among other things, brought the general practice of clerical celibacy and a powerful, centralized Roman papacy to the Western Church."
• "In 1089 the East asked Pope Urban II for a confession of faith. He refused to comply since such a compliance would presume that the bishop of Rome could be judged in the Church by another. Thus, although Patriarch Nicholas III of Constantinople (1084-1111) said: "Let the pope confess the orthodox faith and he will be first," this was never again to happen in history." LoveMonkey (talk) 03:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

In these passages I see no mention of Sergius IV or of setting anyone's actions above the actions of an ecumenical council, as stated by you in the section "Ecumenical Council as the Highest Authority to Establish dogma", from which you removed, without responding to it, my query about the identity of the actions and the verifiability of the alleged source. Esoglou (talk) 06:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The offending passage has been removed. Problem solved. Esoglou (talk) 11:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring

Please explain on what grounds you say that my requesting clarifications, adding sources and pointing out verification failures are edit warring, but claim that your blanket reverting of all edits by someone other than yourself (and indeed some of your other actions too) is not edit warring. Esoglou (talk) 21:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh look Esoglou claims that no one (including himself) as every abuse the posting policies of Wikipedia. As if anyone begins to understand what I just stated will see just how Esoglou is misusing all of the above things to protect his Roman Catholic POV. Yet the best defense against such thing is Official statement from the Roman Catholic church on the Orthodox positions that Esoglou doesn't like. But guess what Esoglou has posted any of these AT ALL. Esoglou can't provide them so Esoglou being a champion of Roman Catholicism is here trying to oppose these argument via Wikipedia policies. Policies that were not designed to do that and when someone attempts to misuse them in that way it is called Edit warring, Wiki hounding and policy abuse. According to Esoglou's above statement those things don't exist. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia defines edit warring as follows: "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about some aspect of the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than try to resolve the disagreement by discussion." Requesting clarifications and pointing out verification failures is not overriding another's contributions, but is a way of improving another's contributions (provided, or course, those contributions are valid and do have a basis in fact). Adding well-sourced new material is not overriding another's contributions. But reverting all of another's contributions in blanket fashion is indeed overriding another's contributions. Esoglou (talk) 16:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes as I have made contributions and then Esoglou goes and argues over what they are actually shown to say and also has done this on numerous articles here on Wikipedia and can be shown to have done this. Even to the point of attacking sources that I have copied verbatim and then insisting that they (Esoglou) are justified in their disruptive behavior because they can't access a link to a google book page from their physical location. As if that problem is justification for one to delete or attack a source. And yet whaddya know Esoglou has done that. You went into the article and started to post that source did not state what was being said before ever trying to address anything here on the talkpage. As if me writing sections on this article and contributing what was not here before I came is a form of edit warring. Esoglou is there only person here contesting anything and abusing Wikipedia policy to repress. Where have I done that? No where. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Only in Esoglou's mind is me posting the Eastern Orthodox position on the issue edit warring. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Arguing about the content is not edit warring. Blanket-deleting is. With normal editors it is enough to put a tag in the article requesting a clarification or a valid citation, and the normal editors respond to the tag. You instead refuse to respond to such requests, and simply delete the requests. And when you see an addition by another editors that you think is invalid or unclear, you don't just insert a tag indicating that you think a valid citation or a clarification is needed: instead you simply wipe out the whole of the other editor's work. That is not collaboration for the good of Wikipedia, but is instead a challenge to engage in an edit war. These challenges I refuse to take up and so I initiate a process, which often takes weeks to complete, so as to get you finally to provide a valid source (or, if necessary, to remove your unsourced statement) or to clarify your unclear edit. Sometimes you even declare quite explicitly your intention to edit war. The most recent occasion, but by no means the only case, was your statement "revert and will continue to". Now will you please stop making these absolutely unfounded accusations that I am edit-warring, when it is you who are implicitly or even explicitly declaring your readiness to engage in an edit war. Esoglou (talk) 18:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Restore your blanket deletion again.[27] Esoglou still denying not blanket deleting and edit warring as this quote Esoglou has already deleted twice before. 1.[28] 2.[29] 3.[30]. Violation of the Wikipedia 3 revert rule WP:3RR is defined as edit warring. Show me where it is not Esoglou? Since it is content that I added me adding the content is not considered a revert. Esoglou blanket deleting the data FIRST before talking about it's removal here on the talkpage FIRST appears to one not acting in good faith and then two EDIT WARRING over content Esoglou does not like. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I occasionally delete, but blanket deleting, reverting a whole collection of edits, is your custom, not mine. I restored one small item out of the many changes that you undid, all together, but only after discussing the matter here and, it seemed, receiving confirmation from you that the questioned citation did not in fact support the statement to which you appended it, and only after asking if you agreed. Your only response has been to restore the irrelevant quotation. Esoglou (talk) 14:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

More Esoglou pedantic wrangling. Esoglou deletes Esoglou edit wars. Esoglou argues over Esoglou's disruptive behavior. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Have you two considered bringing in a third party to moderate? Majoreditor (talk) 00:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I have. Would you, please, be the moderator? If, of course, LoveMonkey agrees. Esoglou (talk) 06:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I think LoveMonkey may prefer someone else. Majoreditor (talk) 23:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I would like to see editors like User:ΙΣΧΣΝΙΚΑ-888 maybe invited to look at the page. With the ugliness of what it actually takes to get something added to the Eastern Orthodox section of this article since every word is contest, makes it hard (from my opinion) for outside Orthodox to see this and say that they have the time to bicker and wrangle here on the talkpage with Esoglou and now his tag team, blanket deleting partners who would rather make comments to diminish and discredit someone's sourced contributions than actually address the substance of them. [31] LoveMonkey (talk) 13:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)