Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-03-05 John Zizioulas

Assessments of Zizioulas' Thought

A large part of your dispute seems to be located here. Do you agree with that, and do you both think that we should have a section on this subject? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree; I think this is the centre of the dispute. Seminarist (talk) 14:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is where the dispute started. However, we have a disagreements in other sections as well. Cebactokpatop (talk) 13:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's focus on this first then. could you both roughly say what you want to include in the section, and what you have a problem with in the section as it currently stands? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The first thing I'd like to say is that since other people have expressed views on the John Zizioulas article, they should also be involved in the mediation process. Since you are mediating, I wonder if you could invite others who have expressed opinions to participate in the mediation process?

As stands, the section reads as if there is a coherent body of 'traditional'/'traditionalist' Orthodox criticism of Zizioulas. Yet this is not the case. As with any theologian of note, Zizioulas has critics; but each critic of Zizioulas has a different standpoint, and they do not form a 'school' of 'traditional'/'traditionalist' criticism of Zizioulas. Accordingly, the words 'traditional' and 'traditionalist' amount to weasel-words which should be removed.

Of course, where reputable criticisms of Zizioulas exist, regardless of whether they are ultimately right or wrong, I have no objection to them being included in this section. But I think it's important that the balance of the article be maintained. This involves reflecting the fact that within the Church and the theological world, the reception of Zizioulas' work has been overwhelmingly positive. (Zizioulas is recognised as one of the most significant Orthodox theologians of the twentieth century, he is the Metropolitan of Pergamon, a member of the Academy of Athens, and has on a number of occasions participated in and chaired Orthodox Church dialogue with other Christian communions.)

I think this section should be restructured simply into positive and critical (reputable) assessments of Zizioulas' thought, in which each assessment is characterised on its own terms, and not grouped so as to insinuate the existence of a 'traditional'/'traditionalist' hostility to Zizioulas' thought. Seminarist (talk) 15:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

1. I do not see the benefit of inviting more people to this discussion. It is going to slow down the process, nothing else.
2. Criticism of J.Z. are based on Patristic writings, and those who are using Patristic writings to criticise work of J.Z. are Traditional Orthodox, simply by the fact that they adhere to the Tradition, rather than to a innovators like J.Z. Based on the source of their criticism, they deserve attribute Traditional (without any quotes around).
3. Statement that "reception.. is overwhelmingly positive" is not the fact, but private opinion. One will have to provide the statistics on the matter, if one wants to make such a claim. His academic background, although impressive, is not guarantee of the orthodoxy of this work. Origen was brilliant too, and yet, excommunicated as heretic.
4. I want to have clear distinction between criticism section and "positive" assessments. Claims without citation provided should not be included, like bogus claim about "positive assessments in Serbia and Greece".
5. I will make up a list of the criticisms that I want to be added to the article.

Cebactokpatop (talk) 16:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Having more people in the mediation will slow things down, but leaving people out who are involved renders mediation useless. We have to come to a general agreement amongst each other on what the article should be like. I am not willing to keep anyone out of mediation who wants to be involved.

The task we have before us is balancing the weight of support and opposition, making sure that we don't over represent either side. It would be really nice if we had a meta source, that actually claims that reception is predominantly positive or negative, but with just the criticism and possitive assessments we should be able to create something decent.

Good news is: You both want to split the section in a part with possitive assessments and crticism. I have created a workshop subpage, where you could work on splitting the section up to your likings. I changed the headers to just "criticism" and "positive assessments". Don't change any of the material just yet, just work on moving around the existing material, until you both agree on the structuring. To keep things going, we'll use a 0 revert rule. Don't revert any edits, but take a look at the merit of the other parties merits, and see how you can improve the sectioning further. You can use the talkpage for further discussion on sectioning, and problems you run in to. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I've made a suggestion on the page you've created. It seems to me uncontentious to have two subsections headed 'positive assessments' and 'criticism', and I hope that there will be no disagreement here. Seminarist (talk) 00:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not have problem if more people comes to join us. But, I think the other party wants to bring more voices in favor of his side, in order to make more noise, hoping to gain something out of it. I have added criticism references, and if other party starts removing them, we are back to square one. Cebactokpatop (talk) 18:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Cebactokpatop, the mediator was explicit: "Don't change any of the material just yet, just work on moving around the existing material." In direct contravention of this, you have just inserted all your own material onto the workshop subpage. You'll destroy the mediation if you won't abide by the rules of the mediator.

Martijn, there's no point in having mediation if the mediator does not ensure that his own rules are adhered to.

I'll continue with this mediation if the material illegitimately added to the workshop subpage by Cebactokpatop is removed and if we can proceed in the manner previously stipulated by the mediator. Seminarist (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Academic Theological Criticism to be included in the article

• In his article titled Person versus Individual and Other Modern Misreadings of Gregory of Nyssa, by Lucian Turcescu, writer exposes the differences between patristic theology and theology of the John Zizioulas.

• Peter J. Leithart in his article Divine Energies and Orthodox Soteriology touches the work of Aristotle Papanikolaou, who points to differences between Vladimir Lossky and John Zizioulas on the issue of divine energies. Lossky's work is in Orthodoxy well established and widely accepted as contemporary synthesis of the patristic theology.

• In the book "Innovatory Theology of Metropolitan Zizioulas", by Rodoljub Lazic (In Serbian, ATOS - Missionary Center, Belgrade 2002), writer explains why work of the Zizioulas differ from traditional Orthodoxy. He exposes connection between obvious Zizioulas' Ecumenistic orientation and his theology that he constructed in a way to satisfy and be in compliance with his own Ecumenism.

• In his letter, Archbishop Chrysostomos states: "...once we pass beyond the non-Orthodox, dated book by the eccentric British scholar D.M. Lang, who is quoted in the text that you sent me, as well as the mind-set of such Westernized theologians as Father John Meyendorff and Metropolitan John (Zizioulas), to the eminently Orthodox thought of Father Georges Florovsky (though Zizioulas was a student of Father Georges, his theological and philosophical thinking has deviated substantially from the Patristic principles set forth by his mentor), we see this matter in a clearer way." The Article

• In the September 1971 issue of the Newsletter Supplement to The Orthodox Christian Witness, in the article titled Concerning the Approaching Orthodox – Monophysite Union , John Zizioulas serves as an example of "muddled theologian". (Paragraph 21)

• Hieromonk Patapios in the article titled A Traditionalist Critique of The Orthodox Church, criticizing ecumenistic Baptismal theology , refers to John Zizioulas as to: "...lamentable Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon". (Part II, paragraph 27)

• In the interview by Maria Antoniadou, Archbishop Stylianos of Australia criticizes John Zizioulas for his stance, vis-à-vis Uniatism (with Rome) and asks if he (John Zizioulas) is addressing "...illiterate people or to those without a brain?" (See answer to the second question)

• Denial of the representation of the Orthodoxy by John Zizioulas can be found in the article published by the editorial staff of the magazine Italia Ortodossa, a magazine of Orthodox faithful in Italy: Is the Theologian Ioannis Zizioulas proclaiming Orthodoxy?

Information regarding the Italian magazine - Italia Ortodossa

Since the other party tried to denounce Italian magazine as "non-reliable" source, I am providing here references to the magazine showing it's position in Orthodoxy, as well as who stands behind the editorial staff.

1. Official web site: http://www.italiaortodossa.it
2. Founded in 1977, by the Fr. George Arletti of Modena, Italy.
3. Responsible director: Georgios Karalis.
4. In 1999, magazine gained recognition of all Orthodox jurisdictions in Italy.
5. Director Georgios Karalis published 4 books so far (Church: Therapy for the Disease of the Man, pp.171; The Voice of the Fathers, pp. 225), and organized 3 conventions.
6. His book is listed alongside other Orthodox authors like V. Lossky, J. Popovic, D. Staniloae, P. Evdokimov, etc. on the official website of the Orthodox parish in Milan, Italy: http://www.ortodossia.info

Based on all of the above facts, magazine Italia Ortodossa is valid and reliable academic source, and can not be rejected as "unreliable".

Cebactokpatop (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

None of this shows the Italia Ortodossa magazine to be a reliable academic source.

1. Having an official web-site does not make a magazine a reliable academic source.
2. Being founded in 1977, by Fr. George Arletti of Modena, Italy does not make a magazine a reliable academic source.
3. Having the director Georgios Karalis does not make a magazine a reliable academic source.
4. Having its existence recognised by Orthodox jurisdictions in Italy (which does not mean it has the contents of its future publications endorsed) does not make a magazine a reliable academic source.
5. Having a director who has published four books does not make a magazine a reliable academic source.
6. Having a director whose book is sold on a parish website does not make a magazine a reliable academic source. Having a director whose book is sold alongside other books on a parish website does not make a magazine a reliable academic source.

There is nothing in Cebactokpatop's comments that show the Italia Ortodossa magazine to be a reliable academic source. Seminarist (talk) 18:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Why the article on John Zizioulas in the Italia Ortodossa Magazine cannot be linked on the John Zizioulas page

Firstly, according to WP:SOURCES 'Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves.' The Italia Ortodossa article never once quotes Zizioulas and consists almost entirely of unsupported assertions. As such it is a questionable source and cannot be used in the John Zizioulas page. Moreover, according to WP:BLP, 'Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link.'

Secondly, the Italia Ortodossa article accuses Zizioulas of being 'heterodox', and asserts that his theological style and argumentation are 'deceitful', that his thought 'in no way represents the orthodox traditional theology', 'having nothing to do with the common experience shared and faithfully practised by the great majority of orthodox believers down the Christian centuries.' This violates WP:BLP; accordingly the article cannot be linked on the John Zizioulas page. Seminarist (talk) 19:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Proper Order of Discussion

I don't think any issues will be resolved if we are talking about five or six issues at once. Therefore, I think it best if we resolve one issue first, and then move onto the second issue, etc. Could the mediator please suggest with which issue to begin? (I believe the most fundamental issue concerns the inappropriate use of the terms 'traditional' and 'traditionalist'.)

I repeat my request that the other users who have voiced views on the issues over which we are discussing be brought into the discussion. Seminarist (talk) 21:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Breakdown of Mediation

The mediator determined that the mediation should begin with a workshop subpage, the subject of which would be the structure of the section of the John Zizioulas article on positive assessments and criticism. The remit was this: "Don't change any of the material just yet, just work on moving around the existing material, until you both agree on the structuring.' [1]

I then made a suggestion on the subpage regarding the structure of the article.

Cebactokpatop's first action however, instead of complying with the parameters of the exercise, was to change the contents of this subpage to the contents which he wanted in this section of the article. [2]

After I protested that this was did not comply with the parameters of the exercise [3], Cebactokpatop refused to restore the material to its original state. [4]

The mediator then asked Cebactokpatop to retore the material to its previous state. [5] Again, Cebactokpatop did not restore the text, but simply removed a few sections of the text which he had changed the subpage to contain. [6]

I then restored the text to its original content, making it clear that I was unhappy to proceed with mediation if Cebactokpatop was not going to act in accordance with the parameters of the mediation and if the mediator was unable to control the mediation so that all parties acted in line with the mediation. [7]

I then made another edit suggestion, attaching notes, regarding the structure of the subsection. [8]

Cebactokpatop, however, simply reverted the text, claiming falsely that I had deleted some material, and ignoring entirely my comments. [9]

I responded by making clear that I had not deleted any text (I had moved one entry from one section to another), and expressed concern that Cebactokpatop was not acting in a manner appropriate for mediation. [10] The mediator chose to ignore the matter.

Cebactokpatop, however, again reverted my proposal, simply reiterating the false claim (which he must now have known to be false) that I had deleted text. [11]

It is clear that Cebactokpatop is entirely unwilling to proceed with the mediation in an appropriate manner, and is interested only in trying to impose his will by force. It is also clear that the mediator will not take any effective measures to ensure that the mediation proceeds according to his own stipulations. In such circumstances, mediation is impossible, and I am therefore withdrawing from this mediation. Seminarist (talk) 21:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Material re Breakdown of Mediation, from Workshop subpage

It is clear from Cebactokpatop's actions that he has no intention of engaging in mediation. Unless the mediator steps in to do something here, it seems that the mediation has broken down already. Seminarist (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's stay optimistic here. I still believe we can make this work, even if I haven't been actively guiding this mediation over the weekend. Weekends are often slow in editing for me, but we should be able to get back on track next week. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You're evading my point. Cebactokpatop made it clear at the beginning that he was not really interested in mediation, and he has consistently acted in a manner which makes mediation impossible unless the mediator is strong and ensures that Cebactokpatop acts within the framework of the mediation in an honest manner. But you as mediator have not done this. Cebactokpatatop has five time contravened the guidelines you stipulates for the mediation or reverted text citing claims with false justification. Yet you as mediator have failed to make it clear to him that he needs to act in an honest manner according with the framework of the mediation. You are clearly not prepared to do what is required as mediator to make the mediation work - i.e. ensure that the framework of mediation is adhered to in an honest way. Therefore this mediation has broken down. In this mediation, Cebactokpatop has acted in a manner consistent with his previous editing on the John Zizioulas page. It must have been evident to you that, as mediator, you would very probably have to be strong with him in this mediation. The fact that you are unwilling to do this makes me think that it was irresponsible of you to decide to act as mediator on this issue. Seminarist (talk) 12:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes I am evading your point. That is because we have to deal with the limits of mediation here. As your mediator, I have to assume that both of you are interested in, and willing to engage in mediation. That means I have to work with the given you are trying to see each others perspectives, and find a consensus. I can't make you do anything, in this mediation itself, or on the article. My only tool is trying to give you some means of discussing your differences, and trying to make you worked together, instead of against each other. Now if you both want to continue this attempt at solving this together, I suggest we start discussing what should roughly be included in this section, and what would be unaccepable to include. If we can't solve that ourselves, we can request outside oppinions on a specific topic. If you choose not to follow this path with me any further, I could put this mediation back to new, and see if another mediator can pick it up. You could also decide to leave this path, and choose to run an RfC, and see if you can work out your differences yourself, following other steps in the dispute resolution process. I am fully willing to still help you, but if you think you'd rather have another mediator, of follow another path, I am not planning to stand in your way. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, since you effectively admit that you are turning a blind eye to Cebactokpatop's conduct (refusing to follow guidelines of mediator, making disingenuous and mendacious reversions), I simply don't think that you are able to mediate. This mediation has broken down, and I am not willing to continue. The only point in having a mediator is if the mediator is going to ensure that the discussion proceeds in an orderly and honest fashion. You have not done this; therefore I have withdrawn from the mediation, which is consequently now at an end. I am not going to add further comments on this page. If you wish to address me in future, please do so on my talkpage. Seminarist (talk) 18:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Dissimulation by Cebactokpatop

Cebactokpatop's claim that the second mediator was repeatedly taking sides against him is untrue. Here are the diffs of the second mediator's contributions to the mediation: [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] (asks Cebactokpatop to stike an incivil remark, which Cebactokpatop refused to do) [22] [23] [24] (sides with Cebactokpatop's view that the sentence under discussion should be kept rather than replaced wholesale) [25] (in response to a statement of Allyne's informs him of the procedure of requesting comment on the conduct of another user, but without passing any value judgement).

Course of Second Mediation

The second mediation broke down through Cebactokpatop's incivility, unwillingness to engage in constructive debate and hostility to other editors.

It is evident from Cebactokpatop's edits that he is simply trying to disrupt any contructive editing to force through his own fringe-theory that Zizioulas is 'heterodox'. He has repeatedly stated this view, without providing justification for it. [26] It has been pointed out repeatedly that Cebactokpatop's claims are unsupported, without justification and in violation of WP:NPOV. [27]

In response, Cebactokpatop initially avoiding justifying his claim, asserting that "Orthodox people know" what is heterodox. [28]

When it was pointed out that the vast majority of Orthodox theologians approve of Zizioulas' theology, Cebactokpatop's response then changed to the (unsuppoerted) assertion that all such theologians are really a 'clique', 'innovators' and advocates of the 'heresy of all heresies'. [29]

Cebactokpatop was then asked again to provide references supporting his claim. [30] Instead of providing references, Cebactokpatop became incivil, telling Allyne (who was asking him for references) that 'I won't waste my time with you here...' [31]

The other two editors in the discussions then agreed on a NPOV replacement sentence. [32] [33]

The mediator then asked Cebactokpatop to provide some references and asked him not to make the discussion heated.[34]

Finally, Cebactokpatop provided some references. [35] It was pointed out by other editors, however, that these references did not justify his claim that Zizioulas was heterodox, and did not provide any reasons for keeping the sentence being discussed. [36] [37] [38]

At this point Cebactokpatop became incivil. He stated baldly that he 'did not care' what was was the point of one of the articles which he referenced and simply restated his position without justification or qualification. [39] He falsely accused an editor of inventing 'imaginary' books to add to the bibliography of Zizioulas' works. [40] And in response to the all the comments made concerning his response he asked 'And what is the purpose of all this blah blah?'[41]

When it was pointed out that the purpose of the discussion was to assess the extent to which Cebactokpatop's references justified his claims concerning Zizioulas, [42] Cebactokpatop responded with the one-line incivil edit: 'Using Zizioulas to prove Zizioulas is right? ahahahahahahah... LOL :o)))) I trash your blah blah as utter nonsense.' [43] The mediator asked Cebactokpatop to strike this remark, [44] but Cebactokpatop refused, being incivil to the mediator and accusing everyone else of speakiny 'utter nonsense'. [45]

Furthermore, after claiming that Zizioulas had been influenced by 'rationalist philosophy', when it was pointed out that this was untrue, and the philosophers he was naming were not rationalists, Cebactokpatop asserted that he 'did not care' whether they were rationalists or not. [46]

He falsely accused another editor of mounting a personal attack against him. [47]

The mediator asked Cebactokpatop to provide references which supported his claim. [48] At this point, Cebactokpatop refused and was again incivil to the mediator. [49] Again the mediator asked him to provide references which directly supported his claims. [50]

A new constructive proposal made by another editor was then rejected by Cebactokpatop. Cebactokpatop provided no argument, and accused (without providing justification) that the editor was attempting 'minimize the fact that [Zizioulas] based his work on philosophy, trying to parade it as patristic'. [51]

Cebactokpatop continued to presume his anti-Zizioulas position without providing futher argument or references, and to use this position to justify his proposals for changes to the article. [52] Ignoring the objections to his references, he expected them to be included in the article in the way in which he stipulated. [53]

A second constructive proposal was developed by two editors (through much discussion and some difference of opinion) which would have yielded a new sentence incorporating some of Cebactopkatop's wishes. [54] Cebactokpatop's response was a one-word edit, 'Rejected', giving no reasons why he did not accept the proposal. [55]

With this, it became clear to the other editors that Cebactokpatop was not interested in constructive discussions, and that he was only concerned to force his own tendentious views through in a destructive and antagonistic manner. [56] [57]

Cebactokpatop's response was to assert that all other contributions besides his own were 'utter nonsense' and that to engage with them would be 'an insult to my intelligence'. [58] He then rejected the mediator, claiming that the mediator was biased against him. [59]

Seminarist (talk) 18:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

---