" 

 :I am not sure I understand entirely what you're trying to say, but this Schism is not just an event of the past, it is also a fact today, It is a Schism between the the Western and Eastern Churches today. This article does not refer just to the event(s) which happened in 1054 (although there are some other ""candidate"" dates as 1014, 1204, but their less popular), it refers mainly to the schism/separation (as a fact now, not the historic event) and it tries to explain why this Schism (as a fact) is still present today. Maybe its name it's not well chosen, but this is what the current article shows, do you think it needs renamed to ""East-West schism""? Also, since I am not an english native speaker, it may be possible that I don't notice the name problem. There is also a an article History of the East-West Schism offering more detailed information on the historical events which. Since it is a religious schism (as a fact), it makes sense for theological matters to have most importance here, the history section of the schism deals mainly with the question on how these theological differences appeared in history. This schism (as a fact) exists today because of the theological differences (for example, the schism (as a fact) would end nearly instantly (despite all other sad historical events), if the Pope in (Elder) Rome would become an Orthodox theologian, I'm sorry if this example upsets other users, I was only trying to emphasize the importance of the Theological differences.) Regarding, the section in dispute, in my opinion the section should stay until other users add the view of the ""Western Church"", as far as I know wiki articles are not made overnight, they are made/improved continuously (at least, as long Wikipedia will be).   "