Talk:Sergius Bulgakov - Revision history

ASDamick: Sign your posts!

2008-06-03T12:12:54Z

Sign your posts!

ASDamick: /* The Author of the Pastoral Text */

2008-06-03T12:09:41Z

‎The Author of the Pastoral Text

Frjohnwhiteford: /* The Author of the Pastoral Text */

2008-06-03T00:12:21Z

‎The Author of the Pastoral Text

Magda: /* The Author of the Pastoral Text */ wouldn't

2008-06-03T00:08:55Z

‎The Author of the Pastoral Text: wouldn't

Frjohnwhiteford: /* The Author of the Pastoral Text */ new section

2008-06-02T23:52:04Z

‎The Author of the Pastoral Text: new section

FrJohn: Question

2007-12-22T02:42:38Z

Question

FrJohn: /* Some Dissent */

2007-12-22T02:39:51Z

‎Some Dissent

Frjohnwhiteford: /* Some Dissent */

2007-12-22T02:29:15Z

‎Some Dissent

Frjohnwhiteford: /* Some Dissent */

2007-12-22T02:26:01Z

‎Some Dissent

FrJohn: /* Some Dissent */

2007-12-22T01:07:14Z

‎Some Dissent

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 St John Maximovich, in his book, ''The Orthodox Veneration of the Virgin Mary'' devotes an entire chapter on why the Sophiology of Sergius Bulgakov is heresy.  This heresy is as destructive as the Nestorian Heresy.
-The Moscow Patriachate denounced this Sophiology of Sergius Bulgakov as heretical in 1935 according to the Wikipedia and The St Herman Botherhood.
+The Moscow Patriachate denounced this Sophiology of Sergius Bulgakov as heretical in 1935 according to the Wikipedia and The St Herman Botherhood.{{unsigned|Nektaria}}
-:It seems to me that this article is missing a clear, generally agreeed upon, explanation of what "Sophiology" is. Am I wrong in thinking that many of those who denounced Sophiology didn't understand it the same way as Fr. Bulgakov?
+:It seems to me that this article is missing a clear, generally agreeed upon, explanation of what "Sophiology" is. Am I wrong in thinking that many of those who denounced Sophiology didn't understand it the same way as Fr. Bulgakov?{{unsigned|FrJohn}}
 == Recent Edits by Nocontinuingcity ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:09, June 3, 2008
Line 36:		Line 36:

	::The author of the text is usually referred to in citations or references I have seen either simply as "Bulgakov" or "S. V. Bulgakov". This text is king of all clergy reference text in Russian, and so in that context people have no doubt about who is being referred to, but I suppose it would be easy to be confused. I would create an article about this author, but I don't have any material on his life that I have come across. [[User:Frjohnwhiteford\|Frjohnwhiteford]] 00:12, June 3, 2008 (UTC)		::The author of the text is usually referred to in citations or references I have seen either simply as "Bulgakov" or "S. V. Bulgakov". This text is king of all clergy reference text in Russian, and so in that context people have no doubt about who is being referred to, but I suppose it would be easy to be confused. I would create an article about this author, but I don't have any material on his life that I have come across. [[User:Frjohnwhiteford\|Frjohnwhiteford]] 00:12, June 3, 2008 (UTC)
		+
		+	::: I had no idea that they were two different writers. (My guess is that others may be under the same impression, too.) In any event, it might be worth it to create an article titled [[Sergius V. Bulgakov]] which, at the very least, notes that he is the author of that text. It's at least worth a stub, IMO.
		+
		+	::: Both this article and the other could have an italicized note at the top linking to the other. —[[User:ASDamick\|<font size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">Fr. Andrew</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick\|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick\|<font color="black">contribs</font>]] <font face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy\|THINK!]]''')</font></small> 12:09, June 3, 2008 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:12, June 3, 2008
Line 34:		Line 34:

	:Good catch! How can we best differentiate on the wiki? Should this page be moved at all? I think the [[Liturgical colors]] page only referred to "Bulgakov," so I had it link here. —[[User:Magda\|<b>magda</b>]] ([[User_talk:Magda\|talk]]) 00:08, June 3, 2008 (UTC)		:Good catch! How can we best differentiate on the wiki? Should this page be moved at all? I think the [[Liturgical colors]] page only referred to "Bulgakov," so I had it link here. —[[User:Magda\|<b>magda</b>]] ([[User_talk:Magda\|talk]]) 00:08, June 3, 2008 (UTC)
		+
		+	::The author of the text is usually referred to in citations or references I have seen either simply as "Bulgakov" or "S. V. Bulgakov". This text is king of all clergy reference text in Russian, and so in that context people have no doubt about who is being referred to, but I suppose it would be easy to be confused. I would create an article about this author, but I don't have any material on his life that I have come across. [[User:Frjohnwhiteford\|Frjohnwhiteford]] 00:12, June 3, 2008 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:08, June 3, 2008
Line 32:		Line 32:

	This article is about Fr. Sergius N. Bulgakov, controversial Parisian theologian. The Nastolnaya Kniga was written by Fr. Sergius V. Bulgakov. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgakov [[User:Frjohnwhiteford\|Frjohnwhiteford]] 23:52, June 2, 2008 (UTC)		This article is about Fr. Sergius N. Bulgakov, controversial Parisian theologian. The Nastolnaya Kniga was written by Fr. Sergius V. Bulgakov. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgakov [[User:Frjohnwhiteford\|Frjohnwhiteford]] 23:52, June 2, 2008 (UTC)
		+
		+	:Good catch! How can we best differentiate on the wiki? Should this page be moved at all? I think the [[Liturgical colors]] page only referred to "Bulgakov," so I had it link here. —[[User:Magda\|<b>magda</b>]] ([[User_talk:Magda\|talk]]) 00:08, June 3, 2008 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:52, June 2, 2008
Line 28:		Line 28:

	:::Hmm... let's not worry too much about a polished article at this point. Why don't you present your side of the argument, even roughly, in another section. — [[User:FrJohn\|<b>FrJohn</b>]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk])		:::Hmm... let's not worry too much about a polished article at this point. Why don't you present your side of the argument, even roughly, in another section. — [[User:FrJohn\|<b>FrJohn</b>]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk])
		+
		+	== The Author of the Pastoral Text ==
		+
		+	This article is about Fr. Sergius N. Bulgakov, controversial Parisian theologian. The Nastolnaya Kniga was written by Fr. Sergius V. Bulgakov. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgakov [[User:Frjohnwhiteford\|Frjohnwhiteford]] 23:52, June 2, 2008 (UTC)

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 ::I do not disagree that much of the material that was added was good, but it was poorly referenced... in that it provided one footnote, with a shotgun blast of references, and it is impossible to tell without finding all the needles in the hay stack which reference covers which assertion of fact.  As the text currently stands, according to the normal conventions of footnoting, you would have to assume that all those extensive references were intended to only establish that there were 3 Russian jurisdictions in Western Europe.  But obviously, the intent is to cover all that follows.  However, this makes future editing impossible, because if I insert new information in this passage, does that footnote cover my information?  Suppose I am able to disprove an assertion in his following paragraph... which part of his footnote do I remove or modify? Secondly, there was a text here previously.  The editor that added this material, simply wiped that out... and I think the burden of working the existing material is on the next editor.  I don't think the burden of restoring white washed information should be on anyone else. [[User:Frjohnwhiteford|Frjohnwhiteford]] 03:45, December 18, 2007 (PST)
-:Fear Fr. John, I'd suggest you not worry about the footnotes, but start a new section, and write about the other perspective in that way. — [[User:FrJohn|<b>FrJohn</b>]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk])
+:Dear Fr. John, I'd suggest you not worry about the footnotes, but start a new section, and write about the other perspective in that way. — [[User:FrJohn|<b>FrJohn</b>]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk])
 ::There are some issues of fact in the text as it is that are problematic... at least the whole story is not given, and so some emendations are needed. For example, while it is true that there were three Russian jurisdictions in 1931... there were not in 1935, when this controversy hit the fan.  Evlogy had reconciled with ROCOR.  Evlogy split off again in part because of the investigation into this issue.  [[User:Frjohnwhiteford|Frjohnwhiteford]] 18:26, December 21, 2007 (PST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:29, December 22, 2007
Line 23:		Line 23:
	:Fear Fr. John, I'd suggest you not worry about the footnotes, but start a new section, and write about the other perspective in that way. — [[User:FrJohn\|<b>FrJohn</b>]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk])		:Fear Fr. John, I'd suggest you not worry about the footnotes, but start a new section, and write about the other perspective in that way. — [[User:FrJohn\|<b>FrJohn</b>]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk])

−	::There are some issues of fact in the text as it is that are problematic... at least the whole story is not given, and so some emendations are needed. [[User:Frjohnwhiteford\|Frjohnwhiteford]] 18:26, December 21, 2007 (PST)	+	::There are some issues of fact in the text as it is that are problematic... at least the whole story is not given, and so some emendations are needed. For example, while it is true that there were three Russian jurisdictions in 1931... there were not in 1935, when this controversy hit the fan. Evlogy had reconciled with ROCOR. Evlogy split off again in part because of the investigation into this issue. [[User:Frjohnwhiteford\|Frjohnwhiteford]] 18:26, December 21, 2007 (PST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:26, December 22, 2007
Line 22:		Line 22:

	:Fear Fr. John, I'd suggest you not worry about the footnotes, but start a new section, and write about the other perspective in that way. — [[User:FrJohn\|<b>FrJohn</b>]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk])		:Fear Fr. John, I'd suggest you not worry about the footnotes, but start a new section, and write about the other perspective in that way. — [[User:FrJohn\|<b>FrJohn</b>]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk])
		+
		+	::There are some issues of fact in the text as it is that are problematic... at least the whole story is not given, and so some emendations are needed. [[User:Frjohnwhiteford\|Frjohnwhiteford]] 18:26, December 21, 2007 (PST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:07, December 22, 2007
Line 20:		Line 20:

	::I do not disagree that much of the material that was added was good, but it was poorly referenced... in that it provided one footnote, with a shotgun blast of references, and it is impossible to tell without finding all the needles in the hay stack which reference covers which assertion of fact. As the text currently stands, according to the normal conventions of footnoting, you would have to assume that all those extensive references were intended to only establish that there were 3 Russian jurisdictions in Western Europe. But obviously, the intent is to cover all that follows. However, this makes future editing impossible, because if I insert new information in this passage, does that footnote cover my information? Suppose I am able to disprove an assertion in his following paragraph... which part of his footnote do I remove or modify? Secondly, there was a text here previously. The editor that added this material, simply wiped that out... and I think the burden of working the existing material is on the next editor. I don't think the burden of restoring white washed information should be on anyone else. [[User:Frjohnwhiteford\|Frjohnwhiteford]] 03:45, December 18, 2007 (PST)		::I do not disagree that much of the material that was added was good, but it was poorly referenced... in that it provided one footnote, with a shotgun blast of references, and it is impossible to tell without finding all the needles in the hay stack which reference covers which assertion of fact. As the text currently stands, according to the normal conventions of footnoting, you would have to assume that all those extensive references were intended to only establish that there were 3 Russian jurisdictions in Western Europe. But obviously, the intent is to cover all that follows. However, this makes future editing impossible, because if I insert new information in this passage, does that footnote cover my information? Suppose I am able to disprove an assertion in his following paragraph... which part of his footnote do I remove or modify? Secondly, there was a text here previously. The editor that added this material, simply wiped that out... and I think the burden of working the existing material is on the next editor. I don't think the burden of restoring white washed information should be on anyone else. [[User:Frjohnwhiteford\|Frjohnwhiteford]] 03:45, December 18, 2007 (PST)
		+
		+	:Fear Fr. John, I'd suggest you not worry about the footnotes, but start a new section, and write about the other perspective in that way. — [[User:FrJohn\|<b>FrJohn</b>]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk])