text:
Talk:Monophysitism

Proposed merge of Miaphysitism with Monophysitism
This article was redirected to miaphysitism, and the redirect was reverted with the suggestion to have a merge discussion. This initiates that discussion. Vexations (talk) 23:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Necessity for Miaphysitism and Monophysitism to be merged
There has been some discussion as to whether the Miaphysitism and Monophysitism pages need to be merged, and I would like to suggest that this is vital. There seems to be significant confusion on wikipedia as to what these terms mean (suggested by the inaccuracies in the article), which have seemed to have suggested that they are distinct positions. This is not true; monophysitism is simply an outdated term for miaphysitism, but they refer to identical christological positions.

My previous edits to the miaphysitism page would already facilitate a merge. That page currently (02/03/2020 9:05) makes the old usage clear, whilst also explaining that miaphysitism is the correct term. It may be useful to move some information from the current monophysitism page to the miaphysitism page, as the pages are currently distinct, but these accuracy and comprehensivity changes can be made at a later date. For now, the top priority should be to merge these pages, to stop the confusion currently suggesting that the terms are distinct.

 * I support the merge as the articles are now basically identical and as is pointed out the difference is merely one of terminology. I will execute the merge. Wayne Jayes (talk) 09:47, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the merge was too hasty. It is argued that, "from a practical and ecumenical point of view, the terms 'miaphysite', 'miaphysism' have an important function in helping to distinguish between two very different christological positions and thus to avoid serious misunderstandings about the christological teaching of the Oriental Orthodox Churches". Yes, "most literature about them labels them monophysites, although the Oriental Orthodox refer to themselves as miaphysites. In fact, the Oriental Orthodox Churches have always condemned the monophysitism of Eutyches and Apollinaris" (Duquesne University). They declare: "We are Miaphysite and not Monophysite." They say they "are wrongly termed 'Monophysites'".
 * It is wrong of neutral Wikipedia to enforce a disputed terminology that whole Churches explicitly reject. The obvious solution is to treat "Monophysitism" as a disambiguation page. It should certainly not be treated as a one-sense redirect. Bealtainemí (talk) 09:52, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I may be able to support the usage of 'monophysitism' as a disambiguation page, so long as it does not once again become an article. However, the debate is not as polar as may have been suggested; modern non-orthodox (as in not part of the orthodox church) theologians would use 'miaphysitism' to describe the Christological position in question. I would argue that 'monophysitism' exists only to add connotation to the term 'miaphysitism', and so 'monophysitism' is not useful as its own article. However, I support Bealtainemí's motion to turn the 'monophysitism' page into a disambiguation page, so long as 'miaphysitism' remains the page which discusses the Christological viewpoint. --BloatedPotato (talk) 09:55, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. On the one hand, "monophysitism" does not just mean miaphysitism and shouldn't redirect solely to it. On the other hand, the usages of "monophysitism" are too ambiguous for an article devoted solely to it. Bealtainemí (talk) 15:57, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Woa woa woa wooooa there Wayne Jayes, Bealtainemí, hold your horses! BloatedPotato was not agreeing to a merge and neither do I. This needs thousands more Wikipedia editors to be broight into this discussion. Basically equating the two constitutes original research and synthesis.

Monophysitism is the belief that Jesus Christ although he appeared to be physically human in every way had only one divine nature and had no human side to him neither a composite of human nature plus divine nature nor a combination of human nature and divine nature. Monophysitism posits that Jesus Christ was only God alone and nothing else. Monophysites condemned Eutychians because Eutychians believed in a composite nature made up of a human nature and a divine nature. That was basicaly just a softer form of Nestorianism in the eyes of the Monophysites. But Monophysitism was condemned as heretical by the dominant majority Chalcedonian churches. Now the problem for the dominant majority Chalcedonian churches was that they had overlooked the comments of Saint Cyril of Alexandria. Cyril was a Monophysite but because he had used the feminine form of the word one which is Mia in a semantically correct context the Chalcedonians had only that usage to grab hold of to argue that the term Miaphysite allowed for a composite nature which was a combination of both a human nature and a divine nature. But that interpretation looks identical to eutychianism from the Monophysite point if view. That view of Cyril has always been denied by the Monophysites who insist that Cyril intended to mean no such thing. Thus the word Miaphysite is indeed ambiguous and could mean two different things depending upon whether one is a Monophysite or a Chalcedonian. But the word Monophysite is definitely not ambiguous.

The original Monophysite article must be restored to an earlier stable version and the Miaphysite page must be turned into a short disambiguation article.

All of the locations in wikipedia where the term Miaphysite has been used need to be restored to the unambiguous term Monophysite unless the source specifically uses the term Miaphysite and has certainly not been influenced in any way at all whatsoever by this mistaken Wikipedia merger. That means that anyone who wishes to use the term Miaphysite must do so with sources which are not subsequent to the influence of this wikipedian error.

No matter how much we might all wish that ecumenism and Christian unity might triumph over academic accuracy I find it shocking that the agreement of two editors was all that was required to decide on this issue of such colossal importantance. This issue must be taken further. Chouvrtou (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Whoa yourself,, what made you think I was for merging? I came in too late, when the merging was already done, and said "monophysitism" should instead be disambiguated. The ground for merging, as I understand it (I think it was not sufficiently discussed and clarified), was that "monophysite" is very very commonly used to describe the theology of the Oriental Orthodox in spite of their rejection of the term. This fact, to my mind, means that the word needs to be disambiguated, not that Wikipedia should treat it, on the contrary, as unambiguous.
 * And what made you think that "mia" (μία) is the feminine form of "Mono", by which you presumably mean monos (μόνος)? The feminine form of μόνος is μόνη (mone, or in the modern pronunciation of Greek moni).  Monos/mone means "alone". Heis/mia means one. The Copts, for instance, before receiving Communion, profess their faith that the divinity and humanity of Christ was not separated from his humanity for even a moment ...  Bealtainemí (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

My sincerest apologies Bealtainemi. Please do add any corrections you see fit. Chouvrtou (talk) 18:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I have spent a lot of time with Oriental Orthodox and never found anyone shying away from the term Monophysite, quite the opposite in fact. If you have a source that makes it clear that Oriental Orthodox are supposed to reject this usage I would find it very interesting indeed. Thank you. Chouvrtou (talk) 21:55, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I have corrected my typos/autocorrects/errors and struck through as per your correction. Chouvrtou (talk) 22:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I apologize for my misunderstanding of the archiving of text between that of the assessment heading and this section of the Discussion page: in my hurried intervention on being pinged here, I wrongly thought the text was simply deleted. I'm glad to see that Miaphysitism is again a Wikipedia article and not a redirect to Monophysitism, something I thought inappropriate. (Above, on 8 March, I did give above a couple of official sources showing Oriental Orthodox rejection of the description "Monophysite" and acceptance of "Miaphysite".) I am still too busy with other matters to make some in my opinion necessary adjustments of the Miaphysitism article, but I hope to find time for it after a few days. Bealtainemí (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Perfectly understandable. Also I agree. Miaphysitism must have its own article and should never redirect here again. Nor vice versa. Chouvrtou (talk) 22:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

More Monophysite Focused article
Since I did not have time to search through all the history to find an older version of the article which might be acceptable I have made some changes to last week's article which focus it more on Monophysitism and Monophysite relevsnt issues. The Miaphysitism article needs to be turned into a discussion of the different perspectives on that term namely the Monophysite perspective and the Chalcedonian perspective. Chouvrtou (talk) 17:16, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I am going to remove all references to Eutychius from the article because that is what the Miaphysite article is for. Chouvrtou (talk) 20:49, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

The following needs discussion before any part us re-inserted to the article because this article needs to be unambiguously about *single* nature and nothing ambiguous which could refer to a *compund* nature such as Eutychianism should be inserted in this article. Everything which pertains to compound nature needs to be taken to the Miaphysite article and does not belong here. Chouvrtou (talk) 21:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC) Removed from article for discussion:

After the Council of Chalcedon, the monophysite controversy (together with institutional, political, and growing nationalistic factors) led to a lasting schism between what would become the Oriental Orthodox Churches, on the one hand, and the Eastern Orthodox and Western on the other. The Christological conflict between monophysitism, dyophysitism, and their subtle combinations and derivatives lasted from the third through the eighth centuries and left its mark on all but the first two Ecumenical councils.

The vast majority of Christians presently belong to the Chalcedonian churches (those that accept at least the first four Ecumenical Councils), namely the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, traditional Protestant churches; these churches have always considered monophysitism to be heretical, usually claiming that it implies Christ is neither "truly God" nor "truly man".

Monophysitism is also referred to as "monophysism".

Introduction

Monophysitism was born in the Catechetical School of Alexandria, which began its Christological analysis with the (divine) eternal Son or word of God and sought to explain how this eternal word had become incarnate as a man—in contrast to the School of Antioch (birthplace of Nestorianism, the antithesis of monophysitism), which instead began with the (human) Jesus of the Gospels and sought to explain how this man had become united with the eternal word in the incarnation. Both sides agreed that Christ was both human and divine, but the Alexandrians emphasized divinity while the Antiochines emphasized humanity. Individual monophysite and Nestorian theologians in fact rarely believed the extreme views that their respective opponents attributed to them (although some of their followers may have). Ultimately, however, the dialectic between the schools of Alexandria and Antioch produced Christologies that on all sides (notwithstanding ongoing differences between the Oriental Orthodox and Chalcedonian churches) avoided the extremes and reflect both points of view.

Monophysitism was condemned by the Council of Chalcedon in 451, which among other things adopted the Chalcedonian Definition (often known as the "Chalcedonian Creed").

"[M]ade known in two natures without confusion [i.e. mixture], without change, without division, without separation, the difference of the natures being by no means removed because of the union, but the property of each nature being preserved and coalescing in one prosopon [person] and one hupostasis [subsistence]—not parted or divided into two prosopa [persons], but one and the same Son, only-begotten, divine Word, the Lord Jesus Christ."

Accepted by the sees of Rome, Constantinople, and Antioch, the Chalcedonian settlement encountered strong resistance in Alexandria (and in Egypt generally), leading ultimately to the schism between Churches which would eventually combine into the Oriental Orthodox Communion (which reject Chalcedon), on the one hand, and the so-called Chalcedonian churches on the other. The Chalcedonian churches have always considered monophysitism to be heretical and have generally viewed it as the (explicit or implicit) position of Oriental Orthodoxy. However, that the Oriental Orhtodox consider their own Christology, known as miaphysitism and based heavily on the writings of Cyril of Alexandria (whom all sides accept as orthodox), to be distinct from monophysitism and the Oriental Orthodox Christians often (but not always) object to being labelled monophysites.

Monophysitism vs Miaphysitism

In a Chalcedonian sense, Monophysitism is identical with Eutychianism. Some apply the term to all who do not accept the Council of Chalcedon, even if they reject the doctrine attributed to Eutyches. The Oriental Orthodox Churches object to the qualification of their Christology as Monophysite.

The 2014 Agreed Statement by the Anglican-Oriental Orthodox International Commission said: "The term 'monophysite', which has been falsely used to describe the Christology of the Oriental Orthodox Churches, is both misleading and offensive as it implies Eutychianism. Anglicans, together with the wider oikumene, use the accurate term 'miaphysite' to refer to the Cyrilline teaching of the family of Oriental Orthodox Churches, and furthermore call each of these Churches by their official title of 'Oriental Orthodox'. The teaching of this family confesses not a single nature but one incarnate united divine-human nature of the Word of God. To say 'a single nature' would be to imply that the human nature was absorbed in his divinity, as was taught by Eutyches."

Historical development

Monophysitism, and its theological antithesis Nestorianism, were extensively disputed and divisive competing tenets in the maturing Christian traditions during the first half of the 5th century, during the tumultuous last decades of the Western Empire. It was marked by the political shift in all things to a center of gravity then located in the Eastern Roman Empire, and particularly in Syria, the Levant, and Anatolia, where monophysitism was popular among the people; neither positions were of particular debate in the West beyond Rome.

There are several major doctrines that were derogatorily considered to be "monophysite, the most famous being Docetism, which considered the human appearance of Jesus Christ to have only been a Phantom. Although Eutychianism was condemned at the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451 as a type of Monophysitism, it was also condemned at the non-chalcedonian Third Council of Ephesus in 475. Unlike Eutychianism, Docetism could truly be considered truly Monophysite from the Monophysite point of view because it did not bring a human nature into the mix. Eutychianism is therefore considered Nestorian from the Monophysite point of view as it does also other doctrines often considered to be Miaphysite such as Apollinarism and Paulianism. Monophysites, while rejecting Eutychianism, also opposed the Chalcedonian Christology on accusations of seeming like Nestorianism. Eutyches was condemned by the Monophysite Christians at the anti-Chalcedonian Third Council of Ephesus in 475.

Besides Docetism, other heretical versions of Monophysitism included Tritheism and Sabellianism which though monophysite in basis were rejected by the Monophysite Christians as heresies.

Two opposing schools of thought in Monophysitism were the Severians who considered the human incarnation of God was identical to humans in all respects including in the corruptibility of the flesh. The Themistian branch of Severians also considered God's human aspect to have also been limited in knowledge. Opposing the Severians were was the Aphthartodocetism of the Julianists who argued that the body of Christ was incorruptible.

Many attempts were made to reconcile the Monophysite and Chalcedonian Churches. Emperor Heraclius thought that Monoenergism might be the solution. When the Monophysites rejected it he tried modifying it into monothelitism – the belief that Christ was two natures in one person except that he only had a divine will and no human will, or at least had one will in general – as an attempt to bridge the gap between the monophysite and the Chalcedonian position. However, it too was rejected and also by the members of the Chalcedonian synod, despite at times having the support of the Byzantine emperors and once escaping the condemnation of a pope of Rome, Honorius I. The Nestorian Patriarch Timothy I of Baghdad also supported Monothelites. Some are of the opinion that monothelitism was at one time held by the Maronites; the contemporary Maronite community mostly disputes this, stating that they have never been out of official communion with the Roman Catholic Church.

See also

 * Conference of Addis Ababa
 * Dyophysitism
 * Acephali
 * Henotikon
 * Three-Chapter Controversy
 * Christ the Logos
 * West Syriac Rite
 * Empress Theodora
 * Armenian Apostolic Church
 * Pamphilus the Theologian

References

Notes

Citations

Sources

 * In particular chapters XI-XII, pp. 280–343.

Further reading

 * Chesnut, R.C., Three Monophysite Christologies, 1976 (Oxford).

 * Davis, Leo Donald, The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787) Their History and Theology, 1983 (Michael Glazier, Wilmington DE), reprinted 1990 (Liturgical Press, Collegeville MN, Theology and Life Series 21, 342 pp., ISBN 978-0-8146-5616-7), chaps. 4-6, pp. 134–257.

 * Frend, W.H.C., The Rise of the Monophysite Movement, 1972 (Cambridge).

 * Meyendorff, John (Jean), Christ in Eastern Christian Thought, trans. Dubois, Yves, 1969, 2d ed. 1975 (St. Vladimir's Seminary, Crestwood NY, 248 pp., ISBN 978-0-88141-867-5), chaps. 1-4, pp. 13–90.

External links

 * Agreed State noments between representative of the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Churches

Questions
1. Are there any reliable sources that the Oriental Orthodox Churches can still be considered Monophysite? If not then mention needs to be made in the article when exactly the Oriental Orthodox Churches first disowned the term. I believe it was in 1973.

2. Are the mainly Africa Christians who still boast Monophysitism Acephalic? Chouvrtou (talk) 21:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC) Chouvrtou (talk) 21:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

What is monophysitism?
I leave it to Chouvrtou and the others involved to fix this badly messed-up article. The essential first step is to clarify what it is about. It now presents a definition that seems self-contradictory: "that Jesus Christ has a single divine 'nature' alone which became human and did not unite or combine itself in any way with a human nature and that Christ's humanity has never been distinct from his divinity even for a moment." "Christ's divine nature became human": thereby ceasing to be divine? And therefore Christ was not divine, not God? That certainly is not the teaching of the ETOC or any other of the Oriental Orthodox Churches. And, in spite of saying his divine nature became human, the definition still speaks of his divinity. The OOC do not accept the definition that "Christ's humanity has never been distinct from his divinity even for a moment": they and the Chalcedonian Churches say that his humanity has never been separated from his humanity. Not the same thing. That unsourced definition seems even worse than this sourced definition: "The incarnate Christ possessed only one nature, neither quite human nor quite divine, but rather a mongrel of the two. No actual human being ever seems to have adhered to Monophytism ..." (The Evangelical Dictionary of World Religions).

Would the definition in The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity, p. 1016 be better? It reads: "Though the term 'Monophysite' occurs in dogmatic discussions of Miaphysitism from the 7th century onwards, it is technically inaccurate, being a heresiological label properly confined to the view in which the union of divine and human in Christ is seen to result either in the emergence of a distinct 'third' nature or the absorption of one nature into the other (usually the human into the divine) as in the profession of Eutyches (d. c. 554), whose emphasis on the singularity of Christ's incarnate nature appears to have led him to deny that Christ's body was consubstantial to human flesh ." Bealtainemí (talk) 09:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

 * In answer to your subsection title question, monophysitism is the Christological view that Christ had a single divine nature which was also human.

 * It is not a compound nature which combines a created human nature with a divine nature in some way or another.

 * For Monophysites, there never was a time when the divine nature of Christ was not human.

 * This is in contrast with the relatively new and much more ambiguous Miaphysitism which the Oriental Orthodox Church had certainly adopted at least by 1973. If you have a historical record which shows that it was adopted prior to 1973 please do present it. As you correctly pointed out, but only from an ecumenical point of view, Miaphysitism can be considered more compatible with Chalcedonianism. However from the hard-line non-ecumenical point of view Miaphysitism is just another way of saying Monophysitism. Hence the word Miaphysitism is much more complex and worthwhile expanding in an article which reflects the historical arguments both for it and against it.

 * But the term Monophysitism is much more clear. Chalcedonians thought that various ideas about two natures uniting into one new nature were a Monophysite but from the Monophysite point of view all such dual nature unions, compounds or mixtures were all tantamount to Nestorianism. Hence the Monophysites condemned Eutyches.

 * Monophysitism says that Christ is the divine human part or aspect of God the Father, not just like God but God from God, etc., same being (homoousion) with the father through whom all things were made. The original image of Adam that Adam was made in. There never was a time that it was not human and divine. It is God's nature constricted into human likeness. Just as Severius says it limited itself and set aside its glory to be just like a common human being in all respects during his time on earth, only revealing His glory to Simon Peter, James and John and after the resurrection in visions to Paul on the road to Damascus and John on the Island of Patmos. It is not very difficult to understand. It is very self-explanatory. A Single divine nature from the Father in human aspect which set aside its glory to become exactly like a created human in all respects while able to restore His former glory at whim for three disciples and which he did again following the ascension. Chouvrtou (talk) 22:52, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

 * I do have to take issue though with your Ecumenical Chalcedonian definition of "has never been separated" not meaning "distinct from his divinity even for a moment". From the Chalcedonian point of view you are correct, but not from the Monophysite point of view where the interpretation you object to is most certainly correct.Chouvrtou (talk) 23:27, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * All that is your opinion, unsourced.
 * Your rewriting of the article The rewriting of the article after you removed almost all its previous content also needs sourcing.
 * The New World Encyclopedia, being a rewriting of Wikipedia articles, probably isn't reckoned a reliable source in Wikipedia. Bealtainemí (talk) 05:15, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the subject. The New World Encyclopedia ref can be removed. Chouvrtou (talk) 09:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Joe9y's New World Encyclopedia ref has been removed as per your objection User:Bealtainemí and his deletion of the sources you provided has been undone. Please continue to make suggestions here. Chouvrtou (talk) 09:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I wonder what you mean by "undoing of deletion of the sources that I provided". I did provide a source that gives a clear definition of Monphysitism. I have not bothered to see whether it had been deleted. I do see that it is now inserted, but why have you inserted it, seeing that you treat it as false?! False simply because it does not agree with the ideas that you have insisted on in your version of the article.  In it you repeat several times that Monophysitism is not Eutychianism, but have provided no sourced definition of either. The source that you cite but unsourcedly reject (the one I contributed to the discussion) states clearly (and it isn't the only one) that the word "Monophysitism" has been and still is used in two different senses: one that includes but is not limited to Miaphysitism, the other that excludes Miaphysitism and practically identifies it with Eutychianism. It is a radical fault in an article to give one's own non-expert views without any authoritative definition of what it is one is talking about.  Bealtainemí (talk) 11:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Bealtainemí Thank you for your contributions, I wholly agree with you in your concern that User:Chouvrtou is not sourcing their edits and keeps insisting on "Monphysitism is not Eutychianism" when all references I can find do not support this. See the "Lack of references and balance" section at the bottom and feel free to weigh in.Joe9y (talk) 11:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Balanced POV
The article is currently balanced inasmuch as it expresses the historical and the ecumenical and the non ecumenical and the modern Oriental Orthodox points of view with equal weight. Please ensure it remains balanced and do not bring different arguments out of their sections to cause imbalance. Thank you. Chouvrtou (talk) 23:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

At some point the Miaphysite and Eurychian sections need to be shortened and moved to their respective pages for expended discussion there instead. Chouvrtou (talk) 23:36, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Lack of references and balance
I will be removing any opinions and unreferenced inferences. What one sect claim the other to believe in does not count as reliable evidence. It is an opinion or interpretation. "Modern Oriental Orthodoxy" does not, historically (from the references - see reference to the notes from the councils), seem to be different from Historical Oriental Orthodoxy. What seems to have changed is how they are labelled by the Chalcedonians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe9y (talk • contribs) 01:19, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I will also be removing your synthesis of sources to support your bias. Please feel free to play around with the Miaphysite article as you like. This article need not get complicated. If you have a source that gives a historical example of Monophysites calling themselves Miaphysites before 1973 please present it.Chouvrtou (talk) 09:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

DO your research. As things stand your edit IS biased to labelling miaphysites as monophysites. The burden is on you to find any Oriental Orthodox source pre-1973 that says Oriental Orthodox are monophysite. Moreover If we look at what these terms actually mean you will find that i have already sourced for you the Liturgy of St. Basil the Great which affirms a Miaphysitie theological position, not a monophysite one. What you have done is take all the text I have added and re-arranged it to say what you want it to say when that does not match the references. If you want me to add more references, its my pleasure, but don't change what the text says if it is referenced to say something else. That is misleading.

Just so you know the term "Mia Physis", comes from the Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D. when Cyril of Alexandria refuted Nestorianism by saying "Mia physis tou theou logou sesarkomene". This is the Christological formula upheld by both Oriental and Eastern. So the term Miaphysis not only exists from before the Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D. but was also ratified and accepted by the worldwide church at that council. The catch is, that Eutyches went too far and spoke only of one nature,, which differs from the formula of Cyril, thereby making Eutyches a Monophysite and Cyril a Miaphysite. Dioscorus refuted Eutyches and monophysitism, as I referenced in the article. If you read the minutes of the Council of Chalcedon you will see the deposition of Dioscorus does not make mention of any error in theology or faith but rather in behaviour.

I am happy to reference more if you would like me to. But, I will reverse any unreferenced inferences. At least, my edits are referenced. Joe9y (talk) 10:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

 * This article is not about the term Miaphysitism. It is about how Monophysitism has been used throughout history. It has been used to refer to many people and many sects. We don't want to give undue weight to just two of those things like Eutychians or Miaphysites because those articles already exist elsewhere. Religious and political topics often raise the temperature a bit but I really don't think insults are the way forward. The wiki consensus has rejected the idea that Monophysites and Miaphysites are the same thing and the articles will not be merged. So please don't carry on trying to push that idea. The Miaphysite article is free for you to explore if you prefer to deal with Miaphysitism. The confusion of the two things throughout Wikipedia is a very large project which needs to be cleaned up. It starts here. Chouvrtou (talk) 14:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

PS Eutyches did not speak of one nature but the absorbtion of the human nature by the divine nature. The Monophysites tried to rehabilitate him but failed to do so. That is why they rejected him. The fact that non-monophysites still call him a Monophysite has no baring on the Monophysite point of view. Chouvrtou (talk) 14:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

 * Where have I insulted you? I absolutely do not agree with merging Monophysitism and Miaphsyitism pages together as they are two completely different Christologies. Where have I said that I want to? What I absolutely reject and will not accept is any stipulations without any credible references. It is fair enough you removed a reference to another encyclopaedia but you can't then go and reference another encyclopaedia yourself to support your own view.

Study Eutyches and you will find that he truly spoke of "the absorption of the human nature but he divine which leaves us with only one nature, i.e. the divine". I don't think you understand that a lot of your edits ARE confusing monophysitism with miaphysitism. If we truly wish to make it clear that these are two different Christologies then it is useful to make this clear on the page, which with your edits at the moment is not clear. Joe9y (talk) 15:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

It was removed as per User:Bealtainemí's request.

This is not directed to any specific user just a general comment to anyone with a religious bias who wants the article to predominantly present the ecumenical view. Any attempt to pretend that Monophysitism means only either Eutychianism or Miaphysitism and to pretend that the word Miaphysitism has always been used throughout history will be corrected when I have time. So please don't try to do that when no one is here to check on your ecumenical POV bias. Some articles need a disinterested secular overview to prevent wishful thinking from smothering historical fact. This article is one of them. Chouvrtou (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Balance lost
Recent edits have disrupted the balance of the article.Thus must be rectified at earliest possible convenience. The article is not about Eutychianism nor the historically recent term Miaphysitism. Moreover, any references to Oriental Churches prior to the 20th century as Miaphysite must be proven by an historical source. Chouvrtou (talk) 07:32, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

 * You have got to be joking. You are not doing precisely what you are accusing others of. Just because historical references are there that you don't like, doesn't mean you can ignore them. Minutes and letters from the councils and epistles circulated between the churches are all historical references that were added. The Liturgy of Basil of Caesarea is a historical reference. The Original Greek transcript of Cyril of Alexandria is a historical reference, which you can see is where the word "mia" and "physis" are from. The article had the most balance it has ever had before your edits today. Proof is in the fact that those historical references are cited plus BOTH Chalcedonian and Non-Chalcedonian sources. WHERE ARE YOUR REFERENCES?!Joe9y (talk) 12:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I think youbare confusing this article with the Miaphysitism article. There was mo reference to Monophysite in the texts. If it is about Miaphysites then go ahead and use it in the Miaphysite article. Chouvrtou (talk) 18:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Chouvrtou Can you please reference and justify this section please: Monophysitism arose from the Catechetical School of Alexandria and was represented by groups such as the Severians  (known also as Verbal Monophysites, because they disagreed with the wording of the Council of Chalcedon, not with its substance, unlike the Eutychians, who are also called Real Monophysites) and Agnoetae. Moreover, many Monophysites (e.g. Pope Damian of Alexandria) were accused of being Sabellian. Appreciated. Joe9y (talk) 17:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

 * I did not write all of it but the justification is in the references. Chouvrtou (talk) 18:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Chouvrtou I've just checked out this reference for "Monophysitism arose from the Catechetical School of Alexandria" - in the reference given, I can't find anywhere that actually links the origins of Monophysitism to the School of Alexandria. This reference on page 509 says Monophysitism stemmed from Eutyches. This reference is not really a historical one (19th century) so it would be better if you replaced it or removed the claim. Joe9y (talk) 22:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that mistake out. I had just copied and pasted that reference and had thought that I had copied a new ref but pasted the old one nstead by accident. The ref should be to this line here I will correct ASAP. Chouvrtou (talk) 20:30, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually looking at that old book again there is a very good reference in it too which compliments the one I wanted to use so I will put it back in. Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature: Me-Nev", John McClintock (1876), p.509 Chouvrtou (talk) 20:55, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Chouvrtou Would you mind quoting the part of the reference you wished to cite? And I still would say this reference is not really a historical one (19th century). Thank you Joe9y (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Real Monophysites
I have removed this clause about Severians from the article for discussion:
 * (known also as Verbal Monophysites, because they disagreed with the wording of the Council of Chalcedon, not with its substance, unlike the Eutychians, who are also called Real Monophysites)cite book|author=John D. Hannah|title=Invitation to Church History: World: The Story of Christianity|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=daamDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA153|date=26 March 2019|publisher=Kregel Academic|isbn=978-0-8254-2775-6|p=153

Despite the request to distinguish from Eutychianism and to avoid giving any more weight to Eutychianism it was inserted apparently in the face of thise requests. If however it can be established in a reliable source that Docetism and Julianism were not "really" come from Monophysites then we can put it back in. Chouvrtou (talk) 18:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

 * What have Docetism and Julianism got to do with this question? The examples given by John D. Hannah (Invitation to Church History: World: The Story of Christianity) were Severians (Verbal Monoophysites) and Eutychians (Real Monophysites). The same distinction is mentioned by Bischoff and Lapidge (Biblical Commentaries from the Canterbury School of Theodore and Hadrian, p. 11) and Hans van Loon (The Dyophysite Christology of Cyril of Alexandria, p. 33). None of them mention Docetists or Julianists in this regard. Reliable sources, not our personal opinions, are what counts on Wikipedia. Do you perhaps deny that Eutychians are considered Monophysites?  Do you perhaps imagine that the only people who have been or should be called Monophysites are those who are also called Moderate Monophysites and, indeed, Miaphysites?  Bealtainemí (talk) 19:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

As already mentioned in the article (but not very clearly) from the Chalcedonian perspective Eutychianism is monophysite but from the strictly literal and monophysite pov Eutychianism can not truly be considered single-nature. It is actually two natures mixed into one. It is a perfect example of Miaphysitism. However, as it is there is already way too much weight on Eutychianism in the article and not enough to the other examples of Monophysitism. So the last thing we need is another Eutychianism reference. Especially not one which does not bring any clarity to the already confusing naming. As I am sure you are aware, Miaphisitism has been used interchangeably with monophysitism by sloppy authors so there is no way to tell whether the author actually meant Eutychianism is Miaphysite rather than monophysite which certainly from the linguistic point of view would be the case. Lets drop the Eutychianism business now and focus on Docetism, Julianism, historical monophysites etc.. We dont want to be guilty of WP:FORK. There is already a Eutychian article, so leave it all there. Likewise Miaphysitism. There is plenty more for us to focus on which is unambiguously monophysite in this article. Chouvrtou (talk) 20:42, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

"Eutychianism can not truly be considered single-nature. It is actually two natures mixed into one. It is a perfect example of Miaphysitism." How have you worked this out Chouvrtou? Christology basics - Eutyches taught the human nature was consumed by the divine, essentially leaving only the divine. Miaphysities believe “His divinity united with His humanity without mingling without amalgamation and without alteration” ~ Liturgy of Basil of Caesera. Eutychianism is completely different to Miaphysitism. Please, if you're going to contribute to this article, take some time to understand the basics first. Joe9y (talk) 22:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I worked it out because one human nature + one divine nature = one new mixed nature. How do you see it? I think your definition of "consumed" is not conveying what I feel you are trying to say which I feel from you is actually "obliterated". Please try not to be so condescending. It is rude. Now you say Eutychianism is different from Miaphysitism. However the fact is that the word Mono does not allow for any kind of composite which is what would be the case if one nature consumed the other. Mia on the other hand allows for such a composite. So what you appear to be saying is that Mono actually means Mia because Eutyches. But Eutyches doesn't mean Mia. Whichever author wrote that (if indeed you are reporting the Author's ideas correctly) well, honestly, seems a bit mad. 20:16, 3 April 2020 (UTC)Chouvrtou (talk)

 * In your opinion, Chouvrtou, "Eutychianism can not truly be considered single-nature ... It is a perfect example of Miaphysitism". Many disagree with you and state that Eutychianism is a form of Monophysitism: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Does anyone agree with you? Bealtainemí (talk) 14:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate that Bealtainemi but the problem is that we can not make the article mean Eutychianism because that would create a fork. So we have to avoid those authors on this page. But of course all such mention of equating Eutychianism and Monophysitism can and should be mentioned on the Eutychianism page. But we must not make this page into a fork of Eutychianism because of WP:FORK so since there are plenty of other things about monophysitism which we can write about other than just its possible yet controversial identification with Miaphysitism on the one hand and Eutychianism on the other. (and indeed in the references you just posted there is no way to tell whether the authors meant Miaphysitism rather than Monophysitism because of the ubiquitous cloudiness surrounding those terms.) And since there are so many other things to write about while avoiding Eutychianism and Miaphysitism we should because currently there is far too much WP:WEIGHT given to Eutychianism and Miaphysitism. The article need not grow into a monster. It should be short and sweet giving links to all things associated with Monophysitism not just 2 things. But I encourage you to post every reference you have about Eutychianism on the Eutychianism article and likewise everything you have about Miaphysitism post on the Miaphysitism page. Just not here. Post other things about Monophysites here because there are plenty of other things yet to be included. Chouvrtou (talk) 20:16, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Mentioning the Eutychianists in this article is not creating a fork, any more than mentioning the Miaphysites creates a fork. Both these groups are of such importance in the context of Monophysitism that exclusion of mention of them is what constitutes a problem of WP:WEIGHT. Bealtainemí (talk) 20:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

You misunderstand me, they should be, and have been mentioned, and that is enough. There is no need to discuss them here. To do so would create a fork. All discussions or elaboations on them need to be kept to their own articles not here. This article is not about them. Chouvrtou (talk)
 * Mentioning is enough, thank you. Bealtainemí (talk) 14:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Chouvrtou I apologise for seeming condescending, but your interpretation of "Eutychianism can not truly be considered single-nature ... It is a perfect example of Miaphysitism" is so unfounded based on the historical references available that are overwhelmingly against you in this matter. Remember that the miaphysites excommunicated Eutyches... Take a moment now. There is a clear distinction as regardless of using the word consume or obliterate for Eutychianism does not fit with Miaphysitism's belief in "His divinity united with His humanity without mingling without amalgamation and without alteration". Mia simply means fully divine and fully human in one hypostasis, Eutychianism denied His full humanity as it was consumed /obliterated by the divinity. I think you know exactly what I'm saying and have been saying. I'm also quite concerned that you think these persons are monophysites when the historical references and accounts I've seen of them say they are miaphysites: -Pope Damian of Alexandria -Severus of Antioch -Jacob Baradaeus Any references from the Chalcedonian side need to be understood in the context of their common (incorrect) labelling of Oriental Orthodox as monophysites rather than the individual theological beliefs of these people. Joe9y (talk) 23:58, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Chouvrtou, the fact that Eutychians are called Real Monophysites is triply sourced, at least. Your objection is only your opinion. WP:OR.  Bealtainemí (talk) 09:19, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Thinking and communicating on talk pages is not original research. It is very bad faith if you to try and dismiss communication and not engage. Chouvrtou (talk) 10:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

 * It is a norm of Wikipedia and of good manners to assume good faith. I assume yours. Without cited sources, no matter at what length and how persuasively one argues on talk pages, one cannot get one's original research inserted in Wikipedia. For such arguments there are blogs and discussion groups. See WP:NOT Bealtainemí (talk) 10:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Until todsy i did as everyone can see. I have bent over backwards trying to accommodate you ans support your ideas. But what you did today shows very bad faith on your part. And instead of carrying on you should have rather engaged with the discussion.s below. Bulgarios (talk) 11:25, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

"Eutychian Miaphysitism"
Is there such a thing? Who says there is? It sounds as impossible as "prolix brevity". Bealtainemí (talk) 14:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

 * Considering the ambiguity I would suggest that every reference to eutychianism as monophysite might equally as well be intended to mean Miaphysite, i.e. unclear. Why? Because Eutyches unlike the Docetists or Julianists for example actually brought a human nature into the mix while others were truly single-nature christologies. No one can know for certain. It is only a matter of Religious dogma that decides otherwise, but there is no historical factual basis to distinguishing it one way or the other. As far as I can see it is as bad as picking and choosing at whim.Chouvrtou (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Compound "one" nature Eutychianism which mixes the human into the divine is very possible but Single-nature Eutychianism is really the impossibility but the more powerful religious authoqrities at the time were able to promote this oxymoron of an identification. It is very probable they had in mind the eventual condemnation oqf Cyril as the originator of the problem in their minds very much like Mopsuestia was eventually condemned at the 5th council as the originator of the Nestorian problem. But fate would not let them succeed in their plans so we end up with this oxymoron and really rather babyishly ignorant definition of "real" single-nature-ism meaning mixed nature eutychianism. A perfect example of new-world-speak politics in action.Chouvrtou (talk) 17:06, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know of any sources that agree with your (to my mind abstruse) argument. Sources are not lacking that speak of the two as not only not identical but as opposites: 1; 2; 3. Surely on Wikipedia we must follow what reliable sources say rather than put forward original ideas about a supposed Eutychian Miaphytism. Bealtainemí (talk) 18:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Here is one certain Miaphysites came close to Apollinarius' views, as emerges especially from the accusations made against Eutyches by Diogenes of Cyzicus. The fact is, the simple reading is that mia is compound one and mono is not. Eutyches promoted a compound/ one. (Since outside of chemistry one thing mixed with another thing is commonly and naturally understood by all understood as a compound or mixture and I really don't believe anyone woukd think that is abstruse) But the names Miaphysite and Monophysite have been used interchangeably especially by people who had reasons to fog the linguistic clarity. That really is all there is to it. I think it is time to drop this issue. I have been more than supportive of your ideas and have even created a redirect for you. The matter has been discussed in the present article 3 times and once extensively. Eutyches or his doctrine are mentioned already 18 times on a page which is not even about them! Any more and it will become a Fork on Eutychianism. Why are you not comfortable with putting all your ideas there instead of here? Has someone been bullying you there? I am willing to help you out and put a stop to it if that has been the case. If you want to argue Eutychianism on every page related to it you will certainly end up indeep water. Now let's move on and focus on other things. Can we draw a line under this now please? Chouvrtou (talk) 19:12, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That source says certain Miaphysites came close to the views of Apollonarius, who was explicitly condemned by Eutyches. You have thus cited yet another source that declares Eutychianism and Miaphysitism to be opposites. To speak of a form of Miaphysitism that can be called "Eutychian Miaphysitism" is an absurdity, and should be dropped. Bealtainemí (talk) 20:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

No that is not what it says. You are reading too much into it. User:Bealtainemí, I see that you and I have very different ways of reading the same sources and you are not inclined to WP:AGF with regards to anything I have written on thr page. Would you like to call in an independent arbitrator? Chouvrtou (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Alternatively if you are able to try steelmanning where you think I am coming from so I can try and identify where the problem in our communication lays. Chouvrtou (talk) 21:06, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

There is no such thing. Period. Joe9y (talk) 23:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

That is just your opinion. Chouvrtou (talk) 07:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Chouvrtou, doesn't the source say that certain Miaphysites came close to the views of Apollonarius? Yes or No? Doesn't it also say that Eutyches condemned Apollonarius? Yes or No? If yes, how can you claim that the source shows that the doctrine of Miaphysitis and that of Eutyches (rather than of Apollinarius) are alike? As for your statements about other views of yours, they are of no importance for Wikipedia, which does not accept original research.  Bealtainemí (talk) 09:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Mono vs Mia
It seems to me that there are a few conflicting opinions all stemming from different understandings of the words Mono and Mia.

1) One position is the semantic position or simple reading position would be that since Mono means 'single/alone/solitary" it should be taken literally to mean that and therefore any kind of Christology like Apollinarius or Eutychianism which allows for a drop of another nature to be incorporated in the original divine nature can not truly (even if practically) be called Mono phusitism because such Christologies in reality incorporate some kind of mixing. The rational mind allows us to see that Docetiam is an example of this position.

2) Another position is the practical position that although Mono means single/alone/solitary it should not be taken literally to mean that and therefore allows for a more mixed sort of nature as described by Eutyches and Apollinarius. This mixing occurred at a specific point in time i.e. when the divine nature came down from Heaven and took some element of humanity from creation and absorbed it thereby changing (even if only as a drop of oil or vinegar into the sea) its original purely divine nature. Any rational brain could call this a practically Monophysite position which is also open to criticism as a kind of Semiarianism since the nature was changed slightly from the father's at a specific point in time and was not always existing in the same condition. However 20th century ecumenical politics has lobbied to get this referred to as "real" Monophysitism (although Mia is a better word for this sort of "one") in order to scapegoat momophysitism and unite the churches on the basis of a Chalcedonian interpretation of the word Miaphysitism.

3) Similar to the previous position, another position is the anti-historical position that literal Monophysitism (e.g. Docetism) never really existed and that every Oriental Orthodox Church has always been called Miaphysite throughout history. Just like the word Mia refers to a type of one which might not only mean single but could also mean a compound one so we should also understand that Mono was used no matter how inaccurately in the same general and practical sense meaning that anything called Monophysite can also be called Miaphysite but the word Monophysite is to be reserved for types of that sort of Christology which have clearly and unequivocally been condemned while the word Miaphysite should be used for those types of the same which have not been condemned and are not likely to be under the current divided but ecumenical nature of the Church. Very simply, Mono = bad but Mia = good. Don't call anything good Mia call it Mono and vice versa.

4) Similar to the preceding position is the non-ecumenical position that the two words are synonymous for the same set of heresies but there is no such thing as a good Miaphysitism or Monophysitism. Both words should be mreged into one article because they are the same thing.

5) Another position is that Monophysitism should be merged with Eutychianism because it is the same thing.

6) another anti-historical position is the categorically-semantic position which would say that Eutychianism and Apolinarianism and any kind of Chalcedonian Miaphysitism can never be considered Monophysite because they allow for a human nature to be present which negates the whole meaning of using the word Mono. All such sects could be called by the more ambiguous term Miaphysite (which can also apply to the word Monophysite) instead but only Christologies like Docetiam shoul be called Monophysite.

Is there still yet another position which I have failed to notice? Of these 4 and 5 have been abandoned. I think Joe9y is 3 and Bealtainemí is 2. For this reason we should all abandon our positions and choose a compromise neutral position of either 1 or 6 or re-visit the merging option for the article. I will certainly oppose position 5.Chouvrtou (talk) 07:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That is all original research, for which there is no place in Wikipedia: WP:OR. Bealtainemí (talk) 09:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Nothing on the talk pages comes under the category of original research. It is called thinking and communication. It is very bad faith of you not to have engaged with my attempt to communicate with you. I suppose from now on I just have to take a heavy handed approach. :( Chouvrtou (talk) 10:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Even if on a talk page you were to convince all others, you cannot then insert your original research thoughts in the relative article. What you need are reliable sources that actually state what you want to have included, not arguments about what the sources "really mean". Bealtainemí (talk) 11:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Please engage with the discussion. Do you think that that ai have categorised your position correctly or is there another position other than the 6 outlined that you can see. This is an attempt to communicate and understand where each editor is coming from and find common ground upon which we can build a general concensus. Bulgarios (talk) 11:25, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , are you Chouvrtou under another name (since you speak of having yourself categorised someone's position correctly)? Whether you are or not, wouldn't it be a good idea to make some concrete proposal that we could discuss for or against? Bealtainemí (talk) 14:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, working on my partner's mobile during lock-down didn't realise they had logged in. Chouvrtou (talk) 07:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Bad Faith Editors
From now on all Bad Fath edits will be reverted. Bad faith means ignoring repeated requests concerning (for example) WP:WEIGHT and WP:FORK and WP:OVERKILL. If you have a problem with it either engage with thoughts in the comments or bring in an independent mutually approved mediator. Chouvrtou (talk) 10:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I see that part of what you reverted without attending to the reasons given included a serious typing error by me, for which I apologize. Before repairing the damage, I intend to pause for at least a day. Perhaps it would be good if you did the same. OK?  Bealtainemí (talk) 11:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I will only be protecting the page from reinsertion of old rejected edits from now on until someone engages with the discussion here to get us out of this rut.
 * , do please join in the discussion. A fresh voice would surely be helpful. Bealtainemí (talk) 14:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

General Consensus achieved
Thank you User:Bealtainemí for your recent edits and for taking on board my criticisms. The current form of the article is very good. There are just a few sentences which I think are POV-pushing (not enough emphasis that single-nature Monophysites with no kind of admixture have always existed because Christ's humanity has been considered by such as entirely divine in origin) which can be addressed later on. Also Heraclius needs to be included so I will insert a sentence now which needs to be backed up later but I am focussed on other things this week so not going to do that now. Nevertheless, I will try to defend the current version of the article from any idiots who decide to come along and mess it up so please notify me if someone tries to destabilise the hard-won consensus that we have achieved. Keep an eye on it. I will be watching too. Chouvrtou (talk) 11:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

What is the (Western/Eastern/etc) Orthodox Position?
I am not sure but it seems that Monophysitism is being described as a heretic, or non orthodox, or at least somewhat different belief to ? ? orthodox, ? mainstream, ? popular, etc Christianity. If so then what is the difference? I think that the article should have near the start an explanation of difference between Monophysitism and mainstream/orthodox Christianity.

Errors in introductory paragraph
Unless I'm missing something, the introductory paragraph seems to not be grammatically correct, and ends with a quotation mark despite having no opening quotation mark.

Omitting the etymology, the introduction currently reads: 'Monophysitism [...] is a Christology that states that the person of the incarnated Word (that is, in Jesus Christ) there was only one nature—the divine".'

Should this read: '...is a Christology that stays that IN the person of the incarnated Word...'?

Or alternatively: '...is a Christology that states that the person of the incarnated Word (that is, in Jesus Christ) was OF only one nature—the divine".'

Secondly, where, if anywhere, does the opening quote begin that ends '... —the divine".' at the end of the paragraph? 121.200.4.64 (talk) 01:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Monophysitism


text:
Azd

The Azd (Arabic: أَزْد), or Al-Azd (Arabic: ٱلْأَزْد), is an ancient Arabian tribe. The lands of Azd occupied an area west of Bisha and Al Bahah in what is today Saudi Arabia.

Pre-Islamic Arabia
Pre-Islamic inscriptions, specifically Sabaic inscriptions from Sha'r Awtar's reign (210-230 CE), indicate that the land of Azd extended west of Bīsha, in the south-western heights of Saudi Arabia, stretching between the regions of al-Bāḥa and ʿAsīr.

Eve of Islam
Al-Azd's land during the eve of Islam was comparable to that of the contemporary Azd Sarāt, stretching from Bīsha to the Tihāma shores, the southern limit being approximately al-Nimāṣ and the northern one the modern town of al-Bāḥa.

In ancient times, Al Azd inhabited modern day provinces of 'Asir Province and Al-Bahah Province in modern-day Saudi Arabia, bordering Sabaeans in modern day Yemen. the Azd tribe have always inhabited the Sarawat Mountains in Hejaz; Azd Shanū’ah (Zahran & Ghamid) Bariq inhabited Tihamah; and Azd Mazin (Al Ansar & Ghassanids) inhabited two different regions, where the Ansaris settled in Medina, Hejaz, while the Ghassanids settled in the far north of the Arabian Peninsula.

Anthropological and Genetic Background
A genetic haplogroup often associated with Azdite tribes, J-BY74, has been indicated to have originated in western southwestern Arabia north of Yemen during the third and fourth century AD.

Branches
In the 3rd century C.E., the Azd branched into four sub-branches, each led by one of the sons of Amr bin Muzaikiyya.

Imran Bin Amr
Imran bin Amr and the bulk of the tribe went to Oman, where they established the Azdi presence in Eastern Arabia. Later they invaded Karaman and Shiraz in Southern Persia, and these came to be known as "Azd Daba". Another branch headed west back to Yemen, and a group went further west all the way to Tihamah on the Red Sea. This group was to become known as "Azd Uman" after the emergence of Islam.

Jafna bin Amr
Jafna bin Amr and his family headed for Syria, where he settled and initiated the kingdom of the Ghassanids. They were so named after a spring of water where they stopped on their way to Syria. This branch was to produce:
 * The Ghassanid dynasty in Syria
 * A Roman Emperor (Philip the Arab, a Ghassanid Arab from Syria, who ruled 244–249 C.E.)
 * A Byzantine dynasty (the Byzantine Emperor Leo III the Isaurian, also known as the "Syrian", ruled from 717 to 741 C.E.)

Thalabah bin Amr
Thalabah bin Amr left his tribe for the Hijaz, and dwelt between Thalabiyah and Dhi Qar. When he gained strength, he headed for Yathrib, where he stayed. Of his seed are the Aws and Khazraj, sons of Haritha bin Thalabah. These were to be the Muslim Ansar and were to produce the last Arab dynasty in Spain (the Nasrids).

Haritha bin Amr
Haritha bin Amr led a branch of the Azd Qahtani tribes. He wandered with his tribe in the Hijaz until they came to the Tihamah. He had three sons Adi, Afsa and Lahi. Adiy was the father of Bariq, Lahi the father of Khuza'a and Afsa, the father of Aslam.

Azd |                                    .--+.                                        |                           |                                    Mazin                     Shahnvah |                          |                       .--+--.       .+---.                |          |          |       |        |           |      |          |          |       |        |           |      |          |          |    Samala  (Banu) Daws   Haddan Thalabah    Haritha     Jafna |         |    (Ghassanids/The Ghassinids) .--+.    |   |       |     |_________________ (Banu) Aws  (Banu) Khuza'a/Khazraj | |                        .-+---+--.                         |         |          |                        Adi       Afsa      Lohay |        |          |                       Bariq     Aslam  (Banu) Khuza'a                                   |          | Salaman  Mustalik

Zahran
The Zahran tribe is an ancient Arabian offshoot of the Azdi tribe. According to Arab scholars, the dialect used by the Hejazi tribes, the Zahran and the Ghamid, is the closest to classical Arabic.

Azd 'Uman
The Azd 'Uman were the dominant Arab tribe in the eastern realms of the Caliphate and were the driving force in the conquest of Fars, Makran and Sindh. They were the chief merchant group of Oman and Al-Ubulla, who organized a trading diaspora with settlements of Persianized Arabians on the coasts of Kirman and Makran, extending into Sindh since the days of Ardashir. They were strongly involved in the western trade with India, and with the expansion of the Muslim conquests, they began to consolidate their commercial and political authority on the eastern frontier. During the early years of the Muslim conquests, the Azdi ports of Bahrain and Oman were staging grounds for Muslim naval fleets headed to Fars (Persia) and Hind (India). From 637 C.E., the conquests of Fars and Makran were dominated by the Azdi and allied tribes from Oman. Between 665 and 683 C.E., the Azdi 'Uman became especially prominent due in Basra on account of favors from Ziyad ibn Abihi, the Governor of Mu'awiya I, and his son Ubaidullah. When a member of their tribe Abu Said Al- Muhallab ibn Abi Sufra became governor their influence and wealth increased as he extended Muslim conquests to Makran and Sindh, where so many other Azdi were settled. After his death in 702, though, they lost their grip on power with the rise of Al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf as governor of Iraq. Al-Hajjaj pursued a systematic policy of breaking Umayyad power, as a result of which the Azd also suffered. With the death of Hajjaj and under Sulayman ibn Abd al-Malik as Caliph, their fortunes reversed once again, with the appointment of Yazid ibn al-Muhallab.

Influential people or branches

 * The Ghassanids
 * The Banu Tanukh
 * The Banu Tayy
 * The Bani Sakher
 * Banu Ma'an (part of the Tanukhi tribal Confederation)
 * The Nasrid dynasty of Al-Andalus
 * Al Said dynasty of Oman
 * Bani Yas
 * Al Nahyan dynasty of Abu Dhabi in what is now the U.A.E.
 * Al Maktoum dynasty of Dubai
 * Abu Dawood, collector of ahadith
 * Ibn Duraid
 * Kuthayyir, Arab poet
 * Jābir ibn Zayd, the co-founder of the Ibadi sect of Islam
 * Tribe of Balgarn (Al Garni) or ( Al-Qarni)
 * Ghamid
 * The Al Ayad tribe (Ayad) or (Ayadah) from the Northern Nile Delta and the north western Sinai Peninsula of Egypt with the Haplogroup J1
 * Second wife of Prince Ali Kamal Pasha son of H.H. Prince Mustafa Fazıl Pasha of Egypt, Princess Salha Zainab Ayad
 * Bani Shehr
 * Zahran
 * The Rawadids
 * Tribe of Bariq
 * Jabir ibn Hayyan (historicity uncertain; may also have been a non-Arab or 'client' of the Azd)
 * Hudhayfah al-Bariqi
 * Khalil ibn Ahmad
 * Urwah al-Bariqi
 * Arfaja al-Bariqi
 * Humaydah al-Bariqi
 * Ibn Al-Thahabi
 * Ibn al-Banna
 * Jamilah bint Adwan
 * Asma bint Adiy al-Bariqiyyah
 * Al Muhallab ibn Abi Suffrah
 * Mu'aqqir
 * Fatimah bint Sa'd
 * Suraqah al-Bariqi
 * Ibn Al-Thahabi
 * Banu Khazraj
 * Billasmar (Al-Asmari)
 * Jamilah bint Adwan
 * Balahmer (Al-Ahmari)
 * Bani Amr (Al-Amri)
 * Amr ibn Khalid
 * Umm al-Khair
 * Al-Dawasir
 * Al-Balush (From Qud’a’ah)
 * Bani Malik
 * Al-Tahawi
 * Al-Fadl ibn Shadhan of Nishapur, Iran
 * Attar (caste), India

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Azd


text:
User:Macho

I'm a pretty casual editor. Not spending too much time here. I'm interested in a wide range of topics from computers to hardcore punk music to european history to grammar to anarchism to art, etc.

Feel free to look also at my personal website.

title: User:Macho


text:
Bo Scaife

Oliver Edward "Bo" Scaife, III (born January 6, 1981) is a former American football tight end. He was selected by the Tennessee Titans in the sixth round of the 2005 NFL Draft. He played college football at Texas.

Early life
Scaife attended Mullen High School in Denver, Colorado with fellow NFL tight end Alex Smith and J.D. Chism. He earned Parade All-American, Gatorade Circle of Champions Colorado Player of the Year, Rocky Mountain News Colorado Offensive Player of the Year and second-team All-USA honors at tight end by USA Today as a senior. Also two-time first-team Colorado 5A All-State selection by Denver Post. Scaife led his team to Colorado 5A state title as a senior, while catching 62 passes for 1,400 yards and 19 touchdowns and rushing for 250 yards on 20 carries and one touchdown.

College career
He played college football at the University of Texas from 1999 to 2004, and was a sixth year senior after missing both the 2000 and 2002 seasons due to ACL injuries. As a sophomore, he was an All-Big 12 honorable mention, and in his last year, he won first-team All-Big 12 Selection. Scaife finished his career with 75 receptions for 997 yards (13.3 yards per rec.), and five touchdowns. He graduated with an education degree in December 2004.

Tennessee Titans
Playing for the Titans, Scaife had a productive rookie campaign. Despite being the third-string tight end, he managed to catch 37 passes for 273 yards and 2 touchdowns.

With the Titans selecting Vince Young with the 3rd overall pick in the 2006 NFL Draft, Scaife was reunited with his good friend and former Longhorns teammate. In December 2006, Scaife was sidelined by an ankle injury and rookie tight end Cooper Wallace was signed to provide depth at the position.

In 2007 Bo Scaife came in 3rd on the team with 46 catches 421 yards and 1 touchdown.

Bo Scaife is the only tight end in NFL history to rush for a touchdown, catch a touchdown, return a kickoff, and record a tackle in the same season.

On February 28, 2008, the Titans gave Scaife a second-round tender for a one-year deal. He was re-signed on April 2.

Scaife appears with Vince Young as part of Reebok's NFL "Join the Migration" commercial.

On February 19, 2009, the Titans placed their franchise tag on Scaife. On April 27, Scaife signed the franchise tag tender, worth $4.46 million for the 2009 season.

Cincinnati Bengals
After becoming a free agent following the 2010 season, Scaife signed with the Cincinnati Bengals on August 5, 2011.

New England Patriots
On June 7, 2012, Scaife signed with the New England Patriots. He was released on June 18.

Post-career
After retiring from football, he returned to school and graduated with an MBA from George Washington University in the spring of 2014. He then launched FreshEdLife.com, a life performance brand aimed at teaching life lessons, skills, tools and resources from professional athletes and other industry professionals.

title: Bo Scaife


text:
Karthik Raja

Karthik Raja (born June 29, 1973) is an Indian composer based in Chennai. He made his debut as a film composer in the tamil film Pandiyan (1992) and went on to score music for many critically and commercially acclaimed feature films.

Personal life
Karthik Raja is the eldest son of music composer Illayaraja. His brother Yuvan Shankar Raja and sister Bhavatharini, also Tamil film music directors and playback singers, have worked with him on notable projects. He was schooled at St. Bede's School and Boston Matriculation higher secondary school in Chennai. On 8 June 2000, Karthik Raja married Raja Rajeshwari at Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh, India.

Career
Born to a family of musicians, Raja had exposure to various kinds of music from a very early age. He had his formal training in Western classical music from the Trinity School of Music, mainly in piano (affiliated with Jacob John). He also had training in Carnatic music from T. V. Gopalakrishnan and Malayalam composer, V. Dakshinamoorthy.

As a child, Raja often used to accompany his father to the recording studios. At the age of 13, Karthik Raja played the keyboard for the song Kannukkum from the Tamil movie Ninaikka Therinda Maname (1987). Many such outings followed including playing keyboard for the soundtrack of the movie Nayakan. Karthik also arranged many recordings for his father and composed his first song "Pandianin Rajiyathil" for the movie Pandiyan (1992) and "Ninaikindra" for the movie Athma (1993). Around this time, he also composed some background scores for the TV series Bible.

Raja debuted as a fully-fledged composer in 1996 through the Tamil movie Alexander, soon followed by Manikkam. Then came many chart-busters that included Ullaasam, Naam Iruvar Nammaku Iruvar, Kadhala Kadhala and Dumm Dumm Dumm among others. He also debuted in Hindi films with Grahan which won him the R.D. Burman award for the best new talent.

Awards

 * 1998: Filmfare RD Burman Award for New Music Talent – Grahan
 * 2001: Cinema Express Award for Best Music Director – Dumm Dumm Dumm

title: Karthik Raja


text:
Category:Aircraft without specifications

All pages in this category are tagged with Aero specs missing. These aircraft articles do not yet have complete specifications in the format preferred by the Aircraft WikiProject. If you have a reliable source, please help us by completing them.


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic fallacy

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:32, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Economic fallacy
Several problems with the article. 1) the title "Economic fallacy" is a bit of a misnomer. Everyone agrees on what the "fallacy of composition" is. There isn't a single "economic fallacy" with the same consistent definition. 2) the content of the article is mainly a POV-heavy critique of the lending practices of the World Bank and IMF. Criticsm of those institutions is already well documented in their respective articles. For those two reasons, a merge or a redirect don't seem useful to me... I think it's better just to delete the page. Feco 19:22, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete The current content is a POV essay, and even if it were replaced, I'm not sure what we'd write in an article about economic fallacies. A fallacy under one theory can be perfectly valid under another. Rhobite 19:37, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. POV rant. android↔talk 20:29, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * I recently saw a short text made for university use about popular misconceptions about economics, but it was something of a POV piece. Feco and Rhobite are right; the title isn't really salvageable. Nor is an article that begins "To suck, to suck, the very blood to suck” a likely candidate to merge... Delete. Samaritan 22:56, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: rant. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:35, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, POV rant. Megan1967 07:24, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete; this article is poorly written and unencyclopedic, and it is inherently POV to brand specific economic theories as "fallacies" using the Wikipedia authoritative voice. Firebug 16:57, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * My first suspicion was that this was a recreation of the deleted Economic superstitions (which was, itself, a recreation of Economics superstition) but it's not. This is a new POV rant.  Delete.  Rossami (talk) 23:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text:
Talk:Benjamin Franklin Bridge

Chart
What is the ID# in the chart? == Samuel Wantman 19:22, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

States identify their bridges by number; many states mark these numbers on the bridges. All of these numbers are in the National Bridge Inventory data, most of which was submitted by the states to the feds. --SPUI (talk) 21:23, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * How about explaining this at National Bridge Inventory (or whatever it should be titled) and then linking "ID Number" on the chart? ==Samuel Wantman 23:54, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Hmmm, not a bad idea. Not sure if that's the best place to have the explanation, as it's a state-level numbering, but I can't think of any better place. Will do. --SPUI (talk) 00:30, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I've created a stub there. --SPUI (talk) 00:39, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The bridge has some pretty nice views, but the police won't let you take pictures of it, citing "security concerns". What rights can't you take away from someone, citing those concerns? By the way, you cannot reply to this post, it's for your own safety.

Categorization of bridge articles
Here is the discussion regarding categorization: Wikipedia_talk:Categorization. Here is the discussion about bridge categories specificially: WikiProject_Bridges and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Bridges  Cacophony 08:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Cacophony is correct. The issue has been discussed for over a year, leading to a recent rewrite with the guideline changes. Bridges should be in both geographical subcategories and toll bridge subcategories. -- Samuel Wantman 08:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

 * BTW, this is consistant with the categorization of every other bridge in the USA. -- Samuel Wantman 08:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

 * This is an "issue", if one can say that, that is being made far more complex and confusing then it need be. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 08:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The droping of the Bridges in Foo category, does address this issue, and prevents the redundant listing of articles in both sub-cats and the parent cats, which is the issue that i am trying to address here. The Category of Toll bridges in Foo, does satasify both the so called toll brodge and geographic requirement. This sub cat is listed in Bridges in Foo, which would satasify the Bridges by geeographic location requairment, and Toll Brodges in the United States, which also satasifies geographic requiremnts as well as the toll bridge requiremnt being that the category is also a sub in Toll Bridges. With the one category type meeting the "requirements" then the addation of the Bridges in Foo category to articles with the present Toll Bridges in Foo only goes to create a redudant listing. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 08:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

 * (edit conflict so some of this is duplication) After a year of discussion, the consensus is that categorization is primarily a means of browsing.  Subcategorization was very important before it was possible to navigate around large categories with a table of contents.  With the advent of CategoryTOC it is now possible to navigate categories with thousands of articles.  Recent discussions have been talking about having sub-categories fully populated up to the "subject article" level, so for example, Category:Film directors would be fully populated along with all the subcategories of Film directors by nationality.  The reason for this is that users would be as likely and perhaps more likely to want to browse through the large category as they would the small one.  This is also the case with bridges.  Limiting categorization to the lowest level, in this case the subcategories of toll bridges makes it possible to browse through toll bridge categories but very difficult to browse through bridge categories.  At the bridge project we agreed to populate bridges up to the state level.  In a sense this is more complicated, but I think it makes all the categories more useful. -- Samuel Wantman 08:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, see this subpage of Wikipedia:Categorization -- Samuel Wantman 08:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Well thats a really poor rational. I would replace you complicated eith confucing, and either way if you describe something as complicated, its not usefull. If you are going to do it this really inefficent way that you are doing it, then you mine as well either drop the sub cats all together or add the category heriarchy direcly to each article. I am sorry buy your category rational and implementation, consensus or not, is poor and inefficient. --Boothy443 |  trácht ar 08:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Also the page you sited, i do not see as proving your point, matter of fact it works more in opposing the current scheime. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 08:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Did you read this paragraph? -- Samuel Wantman 08:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

 * THE ALL OR NOTHING RULE — When the subcategories are a few incomplete subsets of the category. Do MOST of the articles belong in only the main category and not in one of the existing subcategories?  Is it impossible or awkward to complete the set of subcategories and move all the articles to the subcategories so that NO articles are left in the category? If the answer to both of these questions is "yes", duplication is a good idea. For example, actor Marlon Brando is in Category:Best Actor Oscar  and its parent Category:Film actors.   While it is possible to add Category:Actors who never won an Oscar to complete the categorization scheme with all actors being in one or the other of the subcategories and none in the parent category, this wouldn't make the categories any more useful, and would make it much harder to categorize actors and search for them in categories. Another example of this is Category:Bridges in New York City and Category:Toll bridges in New York City. ALL the toll bridges are listed in both categories. These situations come about when one hierarchy of categories (toll bridges in the United States) is a subset of another hierarchy of categories (Bridges in the United States). In a sense the subcategories are related categories and not actually part of the same hierarchy. It also makes it easier to see a complete list of the bridges in each location.

Yes i did read it, and based upon the exaples given, i dont see any of the categories involved would quailfy based upon thses examples. Also the inclusion of the bridge statement, is a bad idea. In that in the way it is structured it disregards the idea of all or nothing, it basically set a precident for the used of category dupilcation on virtuarly all categories. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 09:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:PATCO Speedline.svg
The image File:PATCO Speedline.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --18:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

References, Streetcar Tracks
I've just added ref needed tags to the history section pertaining to the existence of the streetcar tracks. From talking with a number of transit historians in the area, consensus is is that the tracks were never installed (due to streetcar gauge incompatibility issues on separate sides of the river), but i have not yet been able to locate any reliable documented sources to prove this either way. I'll be looking into this issue as time permits; but overall the article needs more refs in general. Hiroe (talk) 20:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

In popular culture
Yes, a non-notable production of a play was set in Philly, with some scenes occurring under the bridge. This item tells us NOTHING of substance about the bridge, nor does it demonstrate an impact on popular culture. As the WP:CONSENSUS template explains: "Please reorganize this content to explain the subject's impact on popular culture rather than simply listing appearances". However, there are no reliable sources describing how the bridge impacted popular culture as a result of this. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 02:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As I noted in my edit summary, the fact that a very notable production of Godspell (the Walnut Street Theatre is one of the major theatres in Philadelphia, not some fly-by-night operation - please see our srticle on it) was set under the bridge is an indication of the role the bridge plays in Philadelphia as a highly recognizable symbol of the city -- much as the Brooklyn or George Washington Bridges would be in NYC. Godspell doesn't call for that location, it was deliberately chosen for this production. To say that it says nothing about the bridge's relationship to the community is simply untrue and an untenable proposition. Now, according to BRD, the article stays in the status quo ante while discussion is going on, and I'm going to return it to that status now.  SummerPhD is aware, I'm certain, that to revert again is not only edit-warring, but goes counter to BRD. BMK (talk) 03:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, Godspell is notable. Yes, the Walnut Street Theatre is notable. I cannot seem to locate an article on Godspell (Wallnut Street Theatre production). Typically, maintenance templates remain on an article while the discussion is on-going. The consensus warning for this is: "When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary". Why have you removed this seemingly applicable template? I get that you feel this inclusion of the Bridge in a play means we should mention it. However, you have not objected to the removal of other productions -- notable ones. Should Woody Allen's "Manhatten" be listed in the dozens of articles for landmarks shown in it? The "In popular culture" section for the Liberty Bell could easily list several thousand notable TV shows, plays, movies, poems, sculptures, novels, knock knock jokes and Bazooka Joe cartoons that mention it.
 * You stated that "The fact that someone set a production of Godspell under the BFB tells us a lot about the bridge's familarity to the audience as a symbol of Phuladelphia". What does Ryan Oczkowski's choice tell us about the bridge's impact on popular culture? Source? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 04:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary." Your first removal says "Let's not do this please - the fact that someone set a production of Godspell under the BFB tells us a lot about the bridge's familarity to the audience as a symbol of Phuladelphia -- the pay does NOT call for that location)". There is no explanation for the removal of an apparently valid template, nor any attempt to address the issue it identifies. Your second removal and comment above state that the maintenance template should remain off "while discussion is going on". While I hardly see adding maintenance templates as "bold" (and the application of BRD as a reach), I attempted discussion (above). Per the guideline you cited, "if you advance a potential edit on the article's talk page, and no response is received after a few days, go ahead and make your edit." So I waited a week with no comment. So I made the bold edit of adding a maintenance template to identify an issue in the article. Now you've removed it a third time with no new discussion and this non-discussion-discussion: "There is no distinction between an edit which places a clean up tage and any other edit, they're both subject to BRD. Please don't diseemble, an explanation was given. Discuss on talk page, don't edit war". Saying you have discussed is not discussion. The item clearly does not "explain the subject's impact on popular culture", it is "simply listing appearances". You have not explained how this is incorrect or does not apply, other than to state that it "tells us a lot about the bridge's familarity". No, it tells us the director set the play in Philadelphia and had to set scenes in Philadelphia somewhere. How does this show the bridge had an impact on popular culture, other than appearing in this one production? It doesn't.
 * Incidentally, the repeated warnings not to edit war ring rather hollow when you ignore discussion and edit to your preferred version. I will again wait a few days, then go ahead and make my edit. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There is nothing sacrosanct about a cleanup tag, it represents a single editor's view that there is a problem to be fixed, and if another editor disagrees, BRD specifies that the article returns to the status quo ante while discussion takes place. When you continue to revert to your preferred version, you are edit warring in violation of BRD.  Returning the article to the condition it was in before the disputs is simply following BRD. As for the rest of your comment, I don't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about.  There's a discussion here, I have participated in it, there has been no consensus arrived at.  Such a state of affairs is not authorization for you to attempt to impose your own preferred version.  Unless we can reach a consensus between us, or other editors join in to participate and a consensus is thus reached, there should be no changes made in regard to this discussion. BMK (talk) 20:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You ignored the discussion for a week. After I "advance(d) a potential edit on the article's talk page", there was "no response ... after a few days". I went ahead and made the edit. Then you return to revert the edit with no additional discussion and tell me not to edit war and to discuss it on the talk page? To review: You cited BRD regarding the addition of a maintenance tag -- a tag you dislike because it targets material you like. You've removed the tag without giving an explanation of how the tag does not fit the situation. The unsourced content that is a mere mention of the bridge in a non-notable production tells us nothing about the bridge. Yeah, I guess it might have been in the production. Were any other Philadelphia landmarks demonstrating some unknowable impact on popular in culture in this production? Imagine how long a list of appearances we could dream up and add to thousands of articles that tell us nothing about their subjects. Lenny Bruce's impact on popular culture is clearly demonstrated by his showing up in an REM song -- they didn't have to include his name... big impact.
 * Your strange idea that you reverting me means your version stays is, well, strange. Hell, it's nonsensical. I know you want the consensus template to go away. I know you don't like that editors watch the template and arrive to excise the material you feel is somehow "valuable". Heck, I myself wonder how I've managed to look at the bridge for several decades without knowing that some non-notable director briefly used it as a backdrop in his non-notable production of the show. I have to wonder what other insignificant, random occurrences I don't know about.
 * To get down to brass tacks: please explain how this is not simply listing an appearance and how it "explain(s) the subject's impact on popular culture". Otherwise, I fail to see how the template doesn't apply here. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 00:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Your understanding of the process here is what's odd. I'll get back to you on the other when I'm a little less annoyed at you. BMK (talk) 01:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

After three weeks, we still have nothing to indicate how this is not simply listing an appearance and how it "explain(s) the subject's impact on popular culture". Heck, we don't even have a cite showing that anyone has ever mentioned this anywhere (other than here and copies of this article, which are all I've found). - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 23:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Never the worlds longest bridge?
This article, and all the other sources I've found, say that the Ben Franklin was, when first built, the worlds longest suspension bridge. I'm puzzled about the qualification: wasn't it the longest bridge of any kind? What, in 1926, could possibly have been longer? TypoBoy (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm well out of my depth here. I assume we are referring to the longest span. Is that from pier to pier or what? Pont de Québec, for example is a bit longer and older. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Without knowing any specific facts one way or the other, it is quite possible at any moment in time for a bridge of some other type to be longer than the longest suspension bridge. The length of suspension bridges is measured by the span from pier to pier, and they are thus limited by the available technology.  Other bridges, however, will be measure by the total length of the bridge, and can involve multiple spans across multiple piers -- see, for instance, Seven Mile Bridge in the Florida Keys. Check out List of longest bridges in the world and compare it to List of longest suspension bridge spans. BMK (talk) 19:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I see I created confusion by using the word "span" when I meant "bridge". SummerPhD answered the question I was trying to ask. The upshot is that the article is right to qualify the record as "longest suspension span", because the Quebec Bridge is older, and has a longer span. TypoBoy (talk) 15:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 09:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Benjamin Franklin Bridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130625051749/http://www.michaelpennphotography.com:80/TheBenFranklinBridge.html to http://www.michaelpennphotography.com/TheBenFranklinBridge.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Benjamin Franklin Bridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120101053527/http://bridgepros.com/projects/Ben_Franklin_Bridge/ben_franklin_bridge_celebration.htm to http://bridgepros.com/projects/Ben_Franklin_Bridge/ben_franklin_bridge_celebration.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110422043723/http://www.drpa.org/commtrav/bridge_fares.html to http://www.drpa.org/commtrav/bridge_fares.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.michaelpennphotography.com/TheBenFranklinBridge.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Benjamin Franklin Bridge


text:
User:Snarkador

Snarkadorus Rex

title: User:Snarkador


text:
William Robertson (historian)

William Robertson FRSE FSA Scot (19 September 1721 – 11 June 1793) was a Scottish historian, minister in the Church of Scotland, and Principal of the University of Edinburgh. "The thirty years during which [he] presided over the University perhaps represent the highest point in its history." He made significant contributions to the writing of Scottish history and the history of Spain and Spanish America. For his history of Spain, he was elected to Spain's Royal Academy of History.

He was Chaplain of Stirling Castle and one of the King's Chaplains in Scotland.

Early life
Robertson was born at the manse of Borthwick, Midlothian, the son of Rev William Robertson (1686–1745), the local minister, and his wife Eleanor Pitcairn, daughter of David Pitcairne of Dreghorn. He was educated at Borthwick Parish School and Dalkeith Grammar School. The family moved to Edinburgh when his father became appointed minister of Lady Yester's Church in 1733. His father moved to Old Greyfriars Kirk in Edinburgh in 1736.

He studied divinity at the University of Edinburgh (1733–41), and was licensed to preach in 1741. He received a Doctor of Divinity in 1759.

The educationalist and writer James Burgh, who founded a dissenting academy on the outskirts of London, was his cousin, describing him as his "much esteemed friend and relation".

Career
He became minister at Gladsmuir (East Lothian) in 1743 and in 1759 at Lady Yester's Kirk and Greyfriars Kirk in Edinburgh. A staunch Presbyterian and Whig, he volunteered to defend the city against the Jacobites led by Prince Charles Edward Stuart in 1745.

In 1754 he was an original member of The Select Society, also referred to as the Edinburgh Select Society.

Robertson became royal chaplain to George III (1761), principal of the University of Edinburgh (1762), Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1763, and Historiographer Royal in 1764, reviving a role within the Royal household in Scotland that had been in abeyance from 1709 until 1763. He was also a member of The Poker Club.

Writings
One of his most notable works is his History of Scotland 1542–1603, begun in 1753 and first published in 1759. With multivolume history of Spain, Robertson was recognized by the Spanish authorities, and elected to Spain's Royal Academy of History. The work was translated in Spain, with extensive additions from archival sources to which Robertson had no access. A Spanish reviewer of the draft translation of the History of America (1777), took issue with Robertson's claims and the translation never published. Historian D.A. Brading describes Robertson's history as "the first sustained attempt to describe the discovery, conquest and settlement of Spanish America since Herrera's Décadas." His biography of Charles V "provided a masterly survey of the progress of European society, in which he traced the erosion of the 'feudal system' caused by the rise of free towns, the revival of learning and Roman law, and by the emergence of royal authority and the balance of power between states. It was the development of commerce, assisted by law and private property, which was held to be chiefly responsible for the advance in civilisation."

Later life
He was a significant figure in the Scottish Enlightenment and also of the moderates in the Church of Scotland.

In 1783 he was a founding member of the Royal Society of Edinburgh.

He died of jaundice on 11 June 1793, at Grange House in south Edinburgh (the large, now-demolished mansion which gave its name to the Grange district). Robertson is buried at Greyfriars Kirkyard, Edinburgh. The grave is within a large stone mausoleum, second only to William Adam's mausoleum immediately to the south. Both stand to the south-west of the church, near the entrance to the Covenanters' Prison.

Legacy
He gives his name to the William Robertson Building of the Old Medical School buildings at the University of Edinburgh on Teviot Place, home to the School of History, Classics and Archaeology. There is also an endowed chair at Edinburgh in his name, the William Robertson Chair of History, for a specialist in non-European modern history.

Family
Robertson married his cousin Mary Nisbet (daughter of Rev James Nisbet of Old Kirk, St Giles) in 1751. They had six children, two daughters and four sons. Three of his children are buried in Greyfriars Kirkyard in individual plots behind their father's mausoleum:

 * Hon William Robertson, Lord Robertson FRSE, Senator of the College of Justice (1753–1835)
 * General James Robertson (died 1845)
 * Lt Col David Robertson MacDonald of Kinlochmoidart FRSE (1761–1845) an important figure in the history of Ceylon

One of his daughters, Mary, married the author Patrick Brydone FRSE. In 1778 his daughter, Eleanora (or Eleanor) Robertson, married John Russell WS FRSE (1753–1792), a Director of the Royal Bank of Scotland. Their children included John Russell WS FRSE (1780–1862), Principal Clerk of Session.

He was great uncle to Dr William Robertson FRSE (1818-1882).

Publications

 * The Situation of the World at the Time of Christ's Appearance (1755) (sermon)
 * The History of Scotland 1542–1603 (1759) (3 vols.)
 * History of the Reign of the Emperor Charles V, with a View of the Progress of Society in Europe (1769) (3 later 4 vols.)
 * The History of America (1777, 1796) (3 vols.)
 * An Historical Disquisition Concerning the Knowledge Which the Ancients Had of India (1791)

title: William Robertson (historian)