Disputatio:Arianismus
Seems to me that Haeresia Ariana or even Arianismus would be better. --Iustinus 18:22, 25 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
- There could be more than 1,500 years of Latin commentary on it, with ample attestations. Anybody got one at hand? IacobusAmor 18:26, 25 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
- Likewise any of dozens of other named heresies, including (off the top of my head) Antinomianism, Donatism, Jansenism, Marcionism, Monophysitism, Nestorianism, Pelagianism, and Sabellianism. Vicipaedia might want to have a category for them. IacobusAmor 18:32, 25 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
- Isidorus says in his Historia Gothorum Haeresis Ariana, Gregorius Turonensis says in his Decem Libri Historiarum Perfidia Arriana, Heresi Arriana and Arriani. what should we stick to then?--Xaverius 20:51, 22 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
- Well, seems like Haeresis Ariana is the best way to go, attestation-wise. Of course arianismus might be better npov-wise. --Iustinus 21:56, 22 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
- If we had Pelagianismus, Monophysismus and so, I would go for Arianismus, butfor the time being, Haeresis Ariana is the answer--Xaverius 22:04, 22 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
- Well, seems like Haeresis Ariana is the best way to go, attestation-wise. Of course arianismus might be better npov-wise. --Iustinus 21:56, 22 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
- Isidorus says in his Historia Gothorum Haeresis Ariana, Gregorius Turonensis says in his Decem Libri Historiarum Perfidia Arriana, Heresi Arriana and Arriani. what should we stick to then?--Xaverius 20:51, 22 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I must dispute this title on POV reasons as well. There are many who believe there to be no such thing as heresy. And others who certainly feel that a step away from Catholicism is far from heresy, but a step in the right direction. To call something a heresy is Encyclopaedically tacky. A redirect is fine, and a disclaimer in the first sentence that in Latin it is often referred to as, and is viewed by the Catholic church as a heresy, but to be listed under this title is scary.--Ioshus (disp) 23:37, 7 Maii 2007 (UTC)
- Likewise any of dozens of other named heresies, including (off the top of my head) Antinomianism, Donatism, Jansenism, Marcionism, Monophysitism, Nestorianism, Pelagianism, and Sabellianism. Vicipaedia might want to have a category for them. IacobusAmor 18:32, 25 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, my view is that lots of words can be pejorative to some people. If we let those people decide the words we won't use, we have "left the path of wisdom" (as Gandalf said, irritatingly, to Saruman). So, because the Catholic church has considered a haeresis (a religious group adhering to a leader) bad, doesn't mean that it's a word encyclopaedias can't use. In origin it's a more positive word than the English "sect" (which refers to division, not grouping). It's a good word, I would say. But I won't comment further; I'm happy to let others decide. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:45, 8 Maii 2007 (UTC)
- I do not see how could this be pejorative for anyone. Arianism dissapeared in the eighth century...--Xaverius 10:17, 8 Maii 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we should think this all over once again? While being correct Latin, Haeresis Ariana may run the risk of being interpreted pov-wise. I propose we replace Haeresis Ariana by Arianismus as a theological (or christological, if subcategorization is needed) doctrine, not as a theological heresy. On the other hand, I think it's good to have Haeresis as a self-contained entry on a par with Superstitio. Such polemical labels with social impact are quite amenable to a npov characterization, as illustrations of the fact that culture or society are more or less dynamic fields where various interests or pov's interact or "negotiate". --Neander 21:08, 26 Maii 2007 (UTC)