 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
WP:NPOV
editThe article is disproportionate to two heretics like Theodore of Mopsuestia and his disciple Nestorius that are wrongly presented as "Antiochene Christologists". Their allocutions are not so encyclopedically relevant to understand the true theological meaning of the Greek word Prosopon.
The WP article needs to be corroborated with a more solid description of the history of the notion in the Christian Patristics as well as in the Ecumenical Councils. The current article gives a minimum concern for both of them.Philosopher81sp (talk) 20:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Self-Link? Remove or Create New Article?
editThe word dyoprosopic near the end of the article links back to the same article.
Either that link should be removed or a new article expounding that term should be created.
-physitism vs -prosopic?
editIs there a meaningful difference between the two? Such as monophysitic vs monoprosopic- those seem to refer to the same concept.
These two sources seem to refer to the same concept with the differing words, but I'm not certain. If the terms do in fact refer to the same concept, this should be mentioned in both articles (Christology seems the primary one for -physitism, with various -physitism articles and Prosopon for -prosopic), and the theories in this article can be linked to their -physitism counterparts.
https://slife.org/christology/ https://www.biblestandard.com/uploads/2/1/4/9/21496142/e13_-_samuels-kings-chronicles_[web].pdf
"Unio personalis" listed at Redirects for discussion
edit
The redirect Unio personalis has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 10 § Unio personalis until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 15:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Sources
editLots of the sources don't seem to be used in the article itself. There seems to be only 6 bibliographic references used in the article, the rest are just sitting, eh unused which is odd looking. scope_creepTalk 09:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)