Talk:Metropolitanate of Gothia

Problems
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)


 * The archdiocese doesn't exist in English-speaking countries, and obviously no information in English on internet either. If one googles "Gotiska ärkestiftet" (Swedish) or "готфский архиепархий" one get some hits. That diocese is an registered religious body with the Swedish state, organization number 252004-1664. The Archdiocese is a part of the True orthodox church (http://www.katakomb.ru/).--ThomasSutter (talk) 09:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, so this isn't the Orthodox Church as we normally understand it then? This seems to be the Russian True Orthodox Church instead. That is a much smaller organisation and things it recognises as an Archdiocese are not necessarily notable. 27,000 members would seem to make it borderline. If this one really did have an unbroken history going back to 1283 it would be notable. However it seems that this is just a new organisation (established in 1994 and registered by the Swedish government in 2008) using an old name. That is no good. I would expect English language Google hits for this if it is notable but I did search on the two phrases suggested. The results were not indicative of notability. I think AfD is the next step. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:56, 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)


 * It may be that I have got it wrong but I am still struggling with the lack of references that refer to this subject under the names given. Anyway, I have already started an AfD on this. I think the best thing you can do is make your case there. I have added it to the list of Christianity related AfDs so we should get some knowledgeable people look at it. If your arguments are sound then they will agree with you and the article will be kept. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:04, 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)

POV
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)

Where now?
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:


 * What is the correct article title? "Archdiocese of the Goths" is not a phrase Google Books or Google Scholar recognise. What is the name that other sources use when writing about this subject? We need to get the article renamed. If nothing else it will help people trying to research the subject to find sources if they know what the thing is actually called.
 * Remove all rambling, synthesis and POV.
 * This might mean removing all mention of the modern organisations, or it might me an rewriting it on a more solid footing.
 * If we go for the later then I think we want to focus on the historical organisation and have a section called something like "Successor churches" or "Successor organisations" (if continuity is generally accepted as real) or "Modern churches claiming continuity" (if it not).
 * If there is an official Russian Orthodox Church successor then I think that has to have priority over the Russian True Orthodox Church successor, although I am not against the later being mentioned briefly.
 * Do we want a merge with Gothic Christianity? That is a commendably well written article that anybody can read and understand without getting confused but which has some bug blank sections. Maybe this article's content, if refactored correctly, would fit there?

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)
 * Remove a little obvious verbiage and digression that is just confusing.
 * Tag for expert help


 * Some detailed responses to the above.
 * Archdiocese of the Goths is unquestionably the name of a certain modern entity which claims to be the successor of an entity which last functioned in 1786. I don't think there's any problem with the name "Archdiocese of the Goths" for the modern entity, but it is not the usual name for the older entity, and they should not be treated together.
 * Agreed about removing "rambling, synthesis, and POV".
 * I would say this means separating the material on the modern and the historical entities. This article can cover the modern entity.  I would not want to use this article's text as a basis for the historical entity(es) -- too POV and poorly sourced.
 * The official Russian Orthodox Church successor last functioned apparently in 1786.
 * The articles on Gothic Christianity, Crimean Goths, and Principality of Theodoro have some good material -- certainly better than anything in this article. I don't think they could benefit from anything in this article, so I would not suggest a merger, just a removal of the redundant and irrelevant material in this article. --Macrakis (talk) 02:01, 12 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)

"Old Norse Orthodoxy" section
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:


 * The claim of 'apostolicity' through St. Andrew. This same claim is made by churches in the Ukraine, Romania, Russia, England, Ireland, and Scotland. There is no real evidence for those claims, let alone the claims this article makes for St. Andrew and Sweden.


 * The claim that Adam of Bremen's account is a piece of propaganda and that he believed all "Christianity besides Roman-Papal faith was a paganism".

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)


 * Be bold and edit! Of course, with suitable reliable sources. --Macrakis (talk) 17:53, 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, a wordpress and a facebook page, plus they put up some weird youtube videos 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". 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)
 * the content on early Gothic Christianity is a WP:CFORK of Gothic Christianity (if the claims turn out to be correct. It is not currently a diocese, but apparently it was one until the 1770s, so if this is verified, fair enough, this is about a historical diocese)
 * the content on the medieval diocese of the Patriarchate of Constantinople is in principle valid, and could remain under this title, but it has severe issues of tone (WP:NPOV), "in 1475 they became servants to the greatest slave-state of known history"
 * finally, the Swedish outfit of 1994/2008/2011, this is just goofy, either delete it, or merge it into Russian True Orthodox Church if the association is factual, or just lose this part (WP:NOTE).

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)