This article was nominated for deletion on 6 November 2011. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is practically complete nonsense. It is packed full with fantasy information that stands in complete contradiction to mainstream scholarship. This article should be moved to Stupedia, where is it much better placed and it should be deleted from Wikipedia.
The historical information in particular is obviously false, i.e. invented or the result of ignorance. To mention some of the nonsense: Hreidgothaland is not a historical name linked to any historical group of Goths. Instead, it is take from medieval Norse poetry. Whether the historical Goths came from Scandinavia is still debated, but most scholar seem to reject this notion nowadays. Ermaneric was of course king of the Greutungi, not the invented Hreidgoths. Athanaric was never king, but iudex, i.e. judge and not of the Visigoths, which did not exist at the time, but of the Tervingi. Neither Greutungi nor Tervingi had "clergy, monks and nuns and countless believers" at the time of Athanaric.
The nonsense in this article just goes on and on and on. Again, if this is not a case for deletion, what is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.134.254.24 ( talk) 07:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I sense something fishy here. The title gets no non-Wikipedia Google hits. Is it correctly translated? Is it a real Archdiocese? What's the deal here? --
DanielRigal (
talk) 00:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
It's True Orthodox Church, not official Orthodoxy. Obviously direct organisational tradition were cut off regarding the Archdiocese at some point in the 19th century, but if the apostolic succession exist (in the Russian Orthodox Church that is) then every diocese or ecclesiastical structure may be reestablished (for instance, the Patriarchate of Moscow were abolished in 1721 but reestablished in 1917). The Archdiocese as ecclesiastical and canonical structure may be vacant as bishop seat, but reestablished. The question then is not one of The Archdiocese of the Goths/Metropolitanate of Gothia, but whether True Orthodoxy is canonically legitimate. Notable isn't an issue, but legality according the Church law-- ThomasSutter ( talk) 11:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
There's a Diocese of Goths within official Orthodoxy of Ukraine, with a Metropolit Damian II. Maybe the article should only reflect the historical Archdiocese, not the different organisations claiming to represent it today.-- ThomasSutter ( talk) 11:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
There's really no lack of references, and many sources - mostly older books - are quoted. But issues such as these are not always 'google'-friendly, especially not in the English tongue. It's primary sources that are most important.-- 193.150.228.100 ( talk) 21:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC) Edited and/or replaced sources for note 4, 7, 15 because of broken links or poor quality.-- ThomasSutter ( talk) 09:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
This whole article is a huge apologetic for whatever religious sect they're promoting. Entirely one-sided and revisionist. Needs to either be deleted or extensively re-written. I vote for deletion. -- 71.190.5.212 ( talk) 14:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
As the nominator for deletion I was a bit surprised to see this closed as a keep given the merging consensus for userification. That said, the AfD has helped establish that there may be a subject buried in here, but we stuill need to work out what it is. Here are the issues I think we need to sort out:
I am not going to be much use in doing this. All I am going to do is:
-- DanielRigal ( talk) 11:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
The term "Archdiocese of the Goths" appears to refer to a Swedish branch of the Russian True Orthodox Church. Beyond that, the connections to the Goth people (presumably referring to the Crimean Goths) and older ecclesiastical organizations such as the Metropolitanate of Gothia and Kapha appear to be an appeal to tradition rather than historical fact, and are unsupported by independent sources. There is also no independent source for the claim that it has 27,000 members. I will do a light edit now to tag unsupported assertions and improve the organization, but if sources are not forthcoming, we should remove the content referring to the pre-20th century entities from this article, and leave only references saying that this Swedish church "claims a historic connection" to them. -- Macrakis ( talk) 17:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm fairly well-read in the history of Christianity both ecclesiastically and in its relationship to secular history (as you can tell from my edits), and the entire Old Norse Orthodoxy section of this article reeks of POV revisionism and conspiracy. For example:
Many things in this article are inconsistent with accepted history and contradict other articles, such as the Christianization of Scandinavia. The claims in this article are from the POV of a fringe group. Strike that, a fringe of a fringe group. I can make minor edits, but I'm not good at re-writing. Will anyone fix this? -- 71.190.5.212 ( talk) 17:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
There is not much to "edit", as the entire article is a hoax. Not a "wiki-hoax", as it does exist online, Wikipedia is just one of several media they used. This seems to be a bunch of guys in Sweden who in 2011 decided they wanted to revive the "Archdiocese of the Goths", so they created a Wikipedia article, [1] a wordpress and a facebook page, plus they put up some weird youtube videos [2] [3] Their "Bishop Teodorik" is about 20 years old, their "Archbishop Ambrosius" a couple of years older. This is presumably something that grew out of the neopagan movement, an exact parallel would be the "Celtic Church in Germany" [4]. It may be interesting for the researcher in contemporary neopaganism, but for the purposes of Wikipedia it's just a hoax.
There are three issues here:
-- dab (𒁳) 12:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I tried to fix it for now. I will never understand how people can throw their weight around in AfD debates and then not lift a finger for a year to help fix the problem they helped create. -- dab (𒁳) 13:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 6 November 2011. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is practically complete nonsense. It is packed full with fantasy information that stands in complete contradiction to mainstream scholarship. This article should be moved to Stupedia, where is it much better placed and it should be deleted from Wikipedia.
The historical information in particular is obviously false, i.e. invented or the result of ignorance. To mention some of the nonsense: Hreidgothaland is not a historical name linked to any historical group of Goths. Instead, it is take from medieval Norse poetry. Whether the historical Goths came from Scandinavia is still debated, but most scholar seem to reject this notion nowadays. Ermaneric was of course king of the Greutungi, not the invented Hreidgoths. Athanaric was never king, but iudex, i.e. judge and not of the Visigoths, which did not exist at the time, but of the Tervingi. Neither Greutungi nor Tervingi had "clergy, monks and nuns and countless believers" at the time of Athanaric.
The nonsense in this article just goes on and on and on. Again, if this is not a case for deletion, what is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.134.254.24 ( talk) 07:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I sense something fishy here. The title gets no non-Wikipedia Google hits. Is it correctly translated? Is it a real Archdiocese? What's the deal here? --
DanielRigal (
talk) 00:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
It's True Orthodox Church, not official Orthodoxy. Obviously direct organisational tradition were cut off regarding the Archdiocese at some point in the 19th century, but if the apostolic succession exist (in the Russian Orthodox Church that is) then every diocese or ecclesiastical structure may be reestablished (for instance, the Patriarchate of Moscow were abolished in 1721 but reestablished in 1917). The Archdiocese as ecclesiastical and canonical structure may be vacant as bishop seat, but reestablished. The question then is not one of The Archdiocese of the Goths/Metropolitanate of Gothia, but whether True Orthodoxy is canonically legitimate. Notable isn't an issue, but legality according the Church law-- ThomasSutter ( talk) 11:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
There's a Diocese of Goths within official Orthodoxy of Ukraine, with a Metropolit Damian II. Maybe the article should only reflect the historical Archdiocese, not the different organisations claiming to represent it today.-- ThomasSutter ( talk) 11:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
There's really no lack of references, and many sources - mostly older books - are quoted. But issues such as these are not always 'google'-friendly, especially not in the English tongue. It's primary sources that are most important.-- 193.150.228.100 ( talk) 21:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC) Edited and/or replaced sources for note 4, 7, 15 because of broken links or poor quality.-- ThomasSutter ( talk) 09:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
This whole article is a huge apologetic for whatever religious sect they're promoting. Entirely one-sided and revisionist. Needs to either be deleted or extensively re-written. I vote for deletion. -- 71.190.5.212 ( talk) 14:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
As the nominator for deletion I was a bit surprised to see this closed as a keep given the merging consensus for userification. That said, the AfD has helped establish that there may be a subject buried in here, but we stuill need to work out what it is. Here are the issues I think we need to sort out:
I am not going to be much use in doing this. All I am going to do is:
-- DanielRigal ( talk) 11:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
The term "Archdiocese of the Goths" appears to refer to a Swedish branch of the Russian True Orthodox Church. Beyond that, the connections to the Goth people (presumably referring to the Crimean Goths) and older ecclesiastical organizations such as the Metropolitanate of Gothia and Kapha appear to be an appeal to tradition rather than historical fact, and are unsupported by independent sources. There is also no independent source for the claim that it has 27,000 members. I will do a light edit now to tag unsupported assertions and improve the organization, but if sources are not forthcoming, we should remove the content referring to the pre-20th century entities from this article, and leave only references saying that this Swedish church "claims a historic connection" to them. -- Macrakis ( talk) 17:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm fairly well-read in the history of Christianity both ecclesiastically and in its relationship to secular history (as you can tell from my edits), and the entire Old Norse Orthodoxy section of this article reeks of POV revisionism and conspiracy. For example:
Many things in this article are inconsistent with accepted history and contradict other articles, such as the Christianization of Scandinavia. The claims in this article are from the POV of a fringe group. Strike that, a fringe of a fringe group. I can make minor edits, but I'm not good at re-writing. Will anyone fix this? -- 71.190.5.212 ( talk) 17:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
There is not much to "edit", as the entire article is a hoax. Not a "wiki-hoax", as it does exist online, Wikipedia is just one of several media they used. This seems to be a bunch of guys in Sweden who in 2011 decided they wanted to revive the "Archdiocese of the Goths", so they created a Wikipedia article, [1] a wordpress and a facebook page, plus they put up some weird youtube videos [2] [3] Their "Bishop Teodorik" is about 20 years old, their "Archbishop Ambrosius" a couple of years older. This is presumably something that grew out of the neopagan movement, an exact parallel would be the "Celtic Church in Germany" [4]. It may be interesting for the researcher in contemporary neopaganism, but for the purposes of Wikipedia it's just a hoax.
There are three issues here:
-- dab (𒁳) 12:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I tried to fix it for now. I will never understand how people can throw their weight around in AfD debates and then not lift a finger for a year to help fix the problem they helped create. -- dab (𒁳) 13:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)