Talk:Great Doxology

POV-statement
Someone added the tag to the sentence: "St. Hilary had been banished to Phrygia for four years (c. 356) by the emperor Constantius II because of his defense of the faith against Arianism." The editor left no comment here on the talk page, so I would like to address the issue. It seems to me that the sentence in question is actually a statement of historical fact rather than an opinion. Hilary's banishment was a result of his defence of orthodoxy. Unless someone can show how the statement is POV, or provide a conflicting scholarly opinion, I think the tag should be removed. Any input is welcome. MishaPan 13:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's biased. It privileges one doctrine (Athanasianism) over another (so-called Arianism). Jacob Haller 14:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

No, stating a historical fact doesn't show any bias against Arianism. If it's disputed whether or not Hilary was banished, then it is POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.189.237 (talk) 23:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

In fact, here's the Wikipedia article about St. Hilary: Hilary_of_Poitiers. Here's a quote from the article:

"About the same time, he wrote to Emperor Constantius II a remonstrance against the persecutions by which the Arians had sought to crush their opponents (Ad Constantium Augustum liber primus, of which the most probable date is 355). His efforts were not at first successful, for at the synod of Biterrae (Béziers), summoned in 356 by Constantius with the professed purpose of settling the longstanding disputes, Hilary was, by an imperial rescript, banished with Rhodanus of Toulouse to Phrygia, where he spent nearly four years in exile."

I'm removing the POV tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.189.237 (talk) 23:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)