Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Manichaeism/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Manichaeism[edit]

This article's come a long way. A bunch of editors have fleshed it out, given it structure, and added useful photos. Right now it is very informative and deserves recognition. Ashibaka (tock) 23:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support PHG 00:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object sorrowfully. It is not complete by too long a shot. The "and Christianity" fails too greatly for support. Manicheism is a widespread and difficult heresy in Christianity, and Augustine preached against it, but so did virtually every other Father. The term "manicheism" is not simply a "synonym for heresy," as the article states, but a specific type of heresy. It is the dualist heresy. Thus, the Bogomils and Cathars were manicheans, even if they were never in any way connected to the religion of Manicheism. I.e. they had the manicheist heresy of dualism. Their particular heresy has been revived in recent years, incidentally. I'm not sure that the Albigensians were ever orthodox in any sense, much less superficially. More people will encounter "Manicheism" as a type of heresy than as a religion, I suspect, but, even if the numbers are even, it's irresponsible for the present article to have such a stunted (and incorrect) section. The rest of the article seems ok to me, except that there are copyedit issues, such as '"scriptures.", resulting,' where the period inside the closing quote (American style) is left, while a comma outside (British style) is put in to make it part of the next sentence. That's ticky-tacky and easily fixed, but the Christianity section needs a big injection. I'll be happy to help as I am able from my sources, if the authors are interested. Geogre 02:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've done some addition from an NPOV source (one unaware that anyone would try to revive it and therefore not interested in saying anything good or bad about it), but I have other objections, which are now on the talk page of the article. I have to remain objecting, so long as much of the article is reliant upon a very, very highly POV source and maintains that this is a "major world religion." I'm not sure at what point a heresy becomes a sect or a sect a denomination or a denomination a religion, but the lead suggests that this independent thing met, some time later, Christianity, and such does not appear to be the case at all. Geogre 00:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. The image Image:Tiffany Window of St Augustine - Lightner Museum.JPG has no copyright information. --Carnildo 07:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It was taken by the uploader and is thus GFDL. Fixed. Ashibaka (tock) 15:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote. I have no clear idea whether this article should be FA or not. But I like to clarify some points:
    1. I don't think Manicheism is a widespread and difficult heresy in Christianity. In my view Manicheism is a religion similar to Christianity, but independent.
    2. The statement the term "manicheism" is simply a "synonym for heresy" is an ancient simplification. Actually, not every dualist heresy / religion is Manicheism, for instance Christian Gnosticism / Gnosticism.
    3. Bogomils and Cathars weren't manicheans, but their teaching originated from Manicheism.
    4. Albigensians were Cathars, that's why dualistic. But Waldensians were nearly orthodox, they were first of all schismatic. -- Vít Zvánovec 16:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, if it originated in a Gnostic section of eastern Persia, and if it originated also in a Christian area of Persia, then it would seem to me to be of Christian origin. Again, whether it develops into a religion, as opposed to a heresy, is another matter altogether. At any rate, the article has too many undocumented and highly controversial claims -- that it was universalist, that it was not, in fact, syncretic, but rather something akin to deistic. The rest, of course, I agree with, except that I'm not sure the poor Waldensians are part of this. Geogre 18:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further objection: Given that some of the statements in the article are commonplaces and some are...esoteric...inline references or note-style citations should be used, so the sources of particular statements can be determined and examined for accuracy. WP:NOR may be at play. Geogre 02:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't see purely Christian origin (contrary to Christian heresies like Arianism). In my view Manicheism was syncretic. But distinction between religion and heresy is vague. Some consider Islam as Christian heresy, some consider Christianity as Judaistic heresy.
      Concerning Waldensians there is no connection to Manicheism, I just liked to distinguish between Albigensians and Waldensians. -- Vít Zvánovec 08:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object I didn't know anything about Manecheism before reading this article. So I thank the authors and therefore think this article should get featured maybe not this time but maybe in the future. However I knew the word manichean which means binary or polar. See [1] for a discussion. I think this article must states this meaning already in the head. This would really help. -- Vb 12:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object — I cannot see any evidence that this artcle has been through peer review. It would have benefitted from that. There is so much more that can be said on this subject: the theology section is woefully inadequate and not enough background on the religious environment of Persia is given. The article is a good introduction, but is decidedly lightweight. --Gareth Hughes 13:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Manichaeism/archive1&oldid=214553630"