Jump to content

Talk:Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
reference info for Bartholomew I of Constantinople
unnamed refs 0
named refs 0
self closed 0
explanations

delete

[edit]

I have withdrawn a clause after persistent subversion. It ran: 'after advocating certain aspects of Turkish foreign policy'----Clive Sweeting

Disputed

[edit]

I do not think that the titles of the Patriarch are correct in the Greek language. Perhaps someone who speaks Greek fluently could check it. The titles in English are correct. I checked them with the first line of: http://www.ec-patr.org/athp/index.php?lang=en --Msl5046 16:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The title of the patriarch is correct in the Greek language. http://www.ec-patr.org/athp/index.php?lang=gr --Jstamos 01:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other

[edit]

this page contains no actual information...

Well, it's a year later, but now it does contain some info. --Delirium 01:21 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Pontian Greek community that was largely killed or expelled by the Turks in the early 20th century. Nothing but point of view and propaganda. Zfr 22:23, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The replacement nonsense legitimizing murder as "as a result of agreements" is nothing but point of view and propaganda. --Delirium 09:46, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

Hahaha! <== This is a POV!

I think its time for an update of this page, and also a new photo. Patriarch Bartholomew is the second most important person in Christianity

No, he's far more important than the pope, Dr. Dobson or anyone else you can come up with. Proeliator Sancti 15:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Febuary 29 in which calendar? Jackiespeel 18:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the Gregorian.--Hectorian 00:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I heard he was Ex-KGB, is there any truth to this? Proeliator Sancti 15:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think u are confusing him with Patriarch Alexius II of Moscow. Hectorian 17:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This entire article seems to be completely opinion based, especially with regards to the language and scarce usage of quotation marks in the "Green Patriarch" section.--Aidenn (talk) 19:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The slash

[edit]

I put the slash back in because he was not born Demetrios Archontonis Δημήτριος Αρχοντώνης, but rather Δημήτριος Αρχοντώνης; the slash makes clear that the same name is being presented in two alphabets. Biruitorul 08:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When will something of importance apper on this page....jstamosSep 23 2006 

The article being discussed here is a nominee for the WikiProject:Eastern Orthodoxy collaboration of the month. If you wish to add your vote on it, please go to WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy/COTM.

Some remarks

[edit]

If Pope Benedict visits Istanbul this November, this will be the 3rd papal visit to the Patriarchate since the Schism, not the 1st, as is written in the article. Pope Paul VI was the first who visited Constantinople (he met Patriarch Athenagoras) and then Pope John Paul II came again visiting Patriarch Demetrius. Furthermore, Patriarch Bartholomew is a honorary doctor, not professor, of the universities listed here, and he has never been a Professor of the Gregorian Pontifical University. As far as I know, he has taken his doctorate there. (Obviously the writer has confused the titles doctor, meaning the holder of a doctoral degree, and professor, meaning an active university tutor) Besides there is virtually no information about his studies in the text...

It was me who added the info about the universities where he is a honorary tutor... I, cause of my backgroung, may confuse the titles of "tutor" and "doctor" (in Greek, doctor=γιατρός, meaning doctor, in the medical sense, and "doctora" in Greek, means a form of post-graduate degree...). Feel free to make changes needed. i also do not know where Bartholomew got his doctora from-if u are sure, add it, with a source pls... As for the Papal visits, this is the first time that a Pope will officially visit an Ecumenical Patriarch. this is what is exceptional with this. Papal-Ecumenical Patriarcal meetings have occured 4 times so far, i think: 1st in Jerusalem, then Athenagoras visited John Paul I in the Vatican, then John Paul II went to Constantinople, then Bartholomew visited John Paul II (the later had sceduled a visit, but he did not make it, cause of his illness and then death...). I can't remember of a John Paul visit to Demetrius... But, in any case, this is the first official visit in 1 thousand years... Hectorian 02:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer. John Paul II's visit was to Demetrius (I think it was in the early '80s). What I fail to understand is in what sense the forthcoming papal visit is official compared to the previous ones. As far as I know even during the Middle Ages very few popes visited Constantinople and these were not actually 'official' or brotherly visits, but after the invitation of the emperors, in order to settle questions of doctrine and ecclesiastical discipline. So if there is something special about this papal visit, it will probably the first of this kind in history. In any case this will certainly be of particular interest given the opinions expressed by the Turks for this pope and vice-versa. If the whole thing does take place at all.

I don't believe any medieval pope visited Constantinople, and they certainly didn't after 1453. 99.231.111.157 (talk) 07:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restructure

[edit]

Just added a infobox and restructured the article. Didn't make any changes to the actual text, though. OrthodoxGuy 01:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The Patriarch is a Turkish citizen with Greek ethnicity (See Istanbul Pogrom)"

[edit]

Delirium, the wrong thing is not with the paranthesis, or the "see ..." format. The problem is that the link to Istanbul Pogrom article really doesn't belong to that paragraph, and is an instance of "see also" push people do when they feel angry about something in the past and they want to make it known by linking the article from every place possible. Adding a "see Istanbul Pogrom" to the Patriarch's biography just because he is of Greek origin is clearly an instance of this. It is also why the link stays in parantheses unlike the rest of the links in the paragraph, because there really isn't a clear mention of how this event relates to the Patriarch's biography. Atilim Gunes Baydin 15:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just some incidental protocol corrections: Re: His All Holiness BARTHOLOMEW I: His DENOMINATION is more correctly GREEK ORTHODOX not 'Eastern Orthodox Christian'; one would not write Western Catholic Christian when referring to ROMAN CATHOLICS. The 'Christian Church' is Greek (Hellenic) not by nationality/ethnicity, but by its PATRISTICS (the wisdoms of its writings identified): THE NEW TESTAMENT was originally written in Greek, and came from the Apostles out of Israel not Greece, our first OLD TESTAMENT translation came out of Egypt not Greece. So, when referencing The Church in Serbia, it is formally THE GREEK ORTHODOX CHURCH OF SERBIA, or THE GREEK ORTHODOX CHURCH OF UKRAINE, or THE GREEK ORTHODOX CHURCH OF RUSSIA, or THE GREEK ORTHODOX CHURCH OF HELLAS, and other NATIONAL CHURCHES.

Additionally: His RESIDENCE: Since you are writing in ENGLISH, the residence district of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Istanbul (Constantinople) is spelled PHANAR: Your wording, 'FENER' would be correct in a Turkish language article.

Chicago 1/27/12 19 chicagodelicious 39 (talk) 18:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GRAPEVINE

[edit]

Please read the guidelines, contentius info must be removed about living persons. --Ceco31 (talk) 10:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are referring to "first among equals" as the contentious phrase in question here, per the edit by Laurel Lodged (talk · contribs). I would like to point out that the policy only refers to unsourced or poorly-sourced contentious assertions. This phrase is neither. You have provided no evidence that it is contentious, and it is sourced at the Christian Post article, reference number 4. So no, you do not have license to violate WP:3RR, and you will be reported for edit-warring if you continue on this tear. Elizium23 (talk) 20:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will also point out that Laurel has incorrectly applied WP:PEACOCK. This guideline only applies to unattributed assertions which do not impart verifiable information, which is plainly not the case here. Elizium23 (talk) 22:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Leader of worlds all 300 million Orthodox is a Peacock unofficial definition, for a living person contenitious material must be deleted whether it is positive or negative without discussion in accordance to WP:GRAPEVINE. Please read it it is clear, there must be no jokes with living persons.--Ceco31 (talk) 22:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, you have presented no evidence for your case, and the evidence against you is already in the article. These are well-sourced statements and therefore they do not fall under WP:GRAPEVINE or WP:PEACOCK. Elizium23 (talk) 00:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceco31:, you apparently are unaware that "first among equals" refers to honorary position only, not to any authority within the church administration. It is the English translation of the phrase that has always been used to describe relative position among the highest Orthodox authorities in the church, resting upon the see of the highest precedence. Before the East-West Schism, the eastern Christians that eventually came to comprise the Orthodox churches conferred this honor upon the Pope of Rome, since Rome was the seat of the see of highest honor. After the schism, the honor devolved to the Patriarchate of Constantinople as the see of next highest position. If the Orthodox and Catholic churches ever reconciled, the honor would presumably rest once again with Rome. But the phrase itself is now used also to differentiate the Orthodox and Catholic views of the role that the holder of the "highest" see takes in the church. Unlike Orthodoxy, Catholics regard "first" as a description of authority as well as honor. The "ecumenical" patriarch of Orthodoxy then, is a spiritual leader recognized and honored by all the Orthodox Church, but is not responsible for administration of more than the one patriarchate. "First among equals" is definitely not a "peacock" term, having been in recognized use for centuries. Evensteven (talk) 23:21, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with the "first among equals". I am not saying this is peacock and contentious. What is contentious about a living person is "leader of worlds 300 million Orthodox Christians", isnt it? What would you say about that? A claim that is ABSOLUTELY unofficial AND PERSONALLY INTERPRETED and including 5% of the worlds population isnt contentious and peacock? I think its clear and I wonder why such a large talk grew from this.--Ceco31 (talk) 18:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He is a Patriarch, by definition a "leader". He is the first among his equals, the other Patriarchs who are also leaders. It may be honorary in the sense that he does not carry the burden of authority over the entire Orthodox Church. Nevertheless, all those leaders are more than just administrators. They are also the living spiritual leaders of the autonomous churches, taking the leading role in services wherever they go. Except that this Patriarch would be given that leading honor there as well. It is how it has always been done in Orthodoxy, and every Orthodox person is aware of it. Moreover, the respect given to clerical offices, according to their rank, is understood universally; it is not given for the sake of the person (although that may additionally be given), but for the office and role first of all. Leadership is leadership, good or poor, but the leadership roles of the Orthodox are clear and hierarchical, and number one resides here. The numbers of Orthodox in the world are virtually uncountable with any great exactitude (mostly because of secular politics), but they are much greater than some in the west realize. The numbers are what they are, facts are facts, and the best estimates we have found give a count. Find a better estimate if you can, but be sure to avoid the biased estimates (they do exist). There's nothing contentious or peacock about stating what the sources say. Evensteven (talk) 07:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Layman opinion polls

[edit]

I have opened a similar section at the Patriarch's article. Please reply there. Dr. K. 20:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bartholomew I of Constantinople. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bartholomew I of Constantinople. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you using the formal style of address in the infobox?

[edit]

Wikipedia is a secular, religious neutral encyclopedia. Accepting or using the formal style of address violates the NPOV principle. I 'd suggest we follow the example of other prominent clerics, ie pope Francis. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with NPOV. It is just a standard field of the Template:Infobox Patriarch. As far as the pope, they use a different infobox type. Dr. K. 23:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we should apply the pope's infobox here. Wikipedia just mention the style of address of each priest, not use them. Using them implies accepting that they are really great and Holy, and that God exist -which is not verifiable. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 06:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion, but you cannot impose it until someone agrees with you. Meanwhile, cease edit-warring and the infobox-patriarch stays until there is consensus to remove it. Dr. K. 06:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of Course is my opinion, it is legitimate to talk our opinion in a Talk Page. I wonder what the counter argument is.Τζερόνυμο (talk) 07:17, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It definitely is ok to give your opinion. Edit-warring is not, however, an acceptable practice. The argument here is that the infobox-patriarch has been designed with a field for the honorific-prefix. The infobox is designed by Wikipedians and its use is widely accepted and has WP:CONSENSUS. The field for the honorific-prefix is also widely accepted and it also has consensus. If you have any ideas that they should be changed, you have to wait until more editors agree with your reasoning. Trying to unilaterally impose your preference by edit-warring, is, obviously, not recommended. Dr. K. 07:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am definitely willing to play by the rules. Can you please inform me where the current consensus for the honorific prefix was shaped? (just a link, if available) Τζερόνυμο (talk) 07:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned before, "The infobox is designed by Wikipedians and its use is widely accepted and has WP:CONSENSUS. The field for the honorific-prefix is also widely accepted and it also has consensus." If they did not have consensus, they would not have been designed to be used. If you want to make them disappear, you have to gain consensus. I hope this helps. Dr. K. 08:12, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Τζερόνυμο, I am sorry but this is not how Wikipedia works. Infoboxes were the result of cooperation among Wikipedians, not something that certain editors may add or remove at will. Infoboxes are here to stay, like it or not. Each infobox is designed around the needs of the person, whom the information displays. As you may have noticed, the Patriarch certainly is not Pope, and for that reason, different information is displayed about Patriarch than about Pope, reflecting each religion's differences. To come here and blatantly demanding that the Patriarch has his infobox replaced, is bound to cause only problems, not solve them and can be considered a form of disruption. I do not know when the infobox was created and by whom, but this talk page is about the Patriarch himself, not the appropriate page for discussing about infobox's creation, coding, technical aspects, and functions. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 08:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SilentUser, Wikipedia changes, and that is the only way to improve. Infoboxes can change as well. This is how Wikipedia works. Coming here and blatanly demand everything stays as it suits your POV, is bound to cause only problems, not solve them and can be considered a form of disruption. I am very willing to argue why it should change and this is the only way forward. That is the discussion and you can not forbid this. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 09:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to change infoboxes, this is the wrong venue. You should make a proposal at WP:VP. Meanwhile, you should follow WP:CIVIL and not accuse people of being disruptive. In addition, the editor's name is not Silentuser, it is SilentResident. Dr. K. 09:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Τζερόνυμο, the fact that you are demanding a change of the Patriarch's infobox type even though the current infobox type is specifically made for that Patriarch and serves the article's needs better than Pope's infobox could ever do, and accusing the other editors of POV instead of trying to discuss with them the reasons for why such a change is a necessity, (sorry but a mere title isn't a valid reason for changing the entire infobox), is very disruptive and I highly recommend you leave this article alone, unless you are here to contribute positively and are interested in fixing a broken thing or two instead of edit warring with other editors like you have done with Dr.K.. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 09:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr.K. and SilentResident: for your information, this request is definitely a spillover from the ideological shitstorm that is raging in the Greek WP. Given the frequency in which practices in the English WP are cited as models in other WPs, I suspect this has come up there, and Τζερόνυμο is now trying to alter it to support his/her preferred view. Whatever merits this suggestion might have otherwise, the motives behind bringing it up at this juncture are not kosher. Constantine ✍ 18:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas: I didn't knew that. Thanks for letting me know. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 18:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Kostas or letting us know. This account is edit-warring on the Greek wikipedia on exactly the same article, but got also reverted. He is currently blocked on el.wiki. Meanwhile, a Greek editor has already noticed this account's edit-warring here. What a party. Dr. K. 18:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite depressing, really. I only got aware of it (and involved in the fringes) recently, but ultra-nationalists and ultra-leftists battle it out like there is no tomorrow, with name-calling and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS mentality in buckets. Constantine ✍ 19:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can see how a situation like this can arise. It seems that some people cannot learn from history. Dr. K. 20:19, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 14:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the arguments used here are not strictly precise, so please allow me to straighten out a few bits.

There is no specific Template:Infobox Patriarch. That page is just a redirect to Template:Infobox Christian leader, which is used for popes and thousands of others. It is therefore the same fields in all cases. The field "honorific-prefix =" is sometimes used, sometimes not; it is not required, but it is available. For the nearest couple of predecessors to Bartholomew, it is not used. For a long series of patriarchs before that, the infobox is not even used. Going back further, the infobox is back, sometimes with the prefix parameter, sometimes not. For other types of "Christian leaders", the use or non-use of the parameter varies a lot. For some types there seem to be consistent use (or non-use), for others not.

Consensus in this case can be seen on three levels. If Τζερόνυμο wishes to disallow the use of the field completely, they would need to raise the discussion elsewhere and gain consensus for removal of the field, probably best in the talk page of the template. If they want to create a consensus for consistent non-use of the field for all patriarchs, they would also need to raise the discussion elsewhere, perhaps at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies. But if the goal is to remove the title from the infobox in this specific article, the discussion should take place here in this talk page.

The current consensus is to use the title, simply because it has been there, unchallenged, for a long period. Consensus can change, and one way to change the consensus could be to make the change and see what happens. If the change went unchallenged for a long period, there wouod be a new consensus. But in the same moment as the change is challenged or reverted, that road is closed. Reintroducing the change at that stage is edit war. The only road then is to raise a formal discussion in this talk page, preferably as a RfC. Edit war or personal attacks will not change any consensus. --T*U (talk) 09:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer. I would never initiate an edit war because I abide the Rules of WP. So, I 'll follow your suggestion as soon as i can. Cheers Τζερόνυμο (talk) 09:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comments on whether WP should apply the formal style of Address when talking about Patriarch

[edit]
Ending this because:

A.) It's incorrectly formatted, and this can't really be called an WP:RFC

B.) It's not neutrally written. I mean, there wasn't even an attempt to write it neutrally, which is a violation of the guidelines outlined in WP:RFC

74.70.146.1 (talk) 01:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I would like to request for comments on whether WikiPedia should address the Patriarch with the formal style of Address. I have to be clear that I do think that addressing the Patriarch (or Priests, Kings, Queens etc) is a crucial information that should be available to the reader, but Wikipedia should never use it when stating something about the Patriarch, so not to indirectly accept that there is validity in his address. Some example:

  1. Within the text: "The formal style of address of the Patriarch is "His All Holiness" and ...." - Should be 'accepted
  2. Within the text:"His All Holiness the Patriarch Bartholomew I was born in ...." should not be accepted
  3. Within an infobox: "formal style of address: "His All Holiness" -Should be Accepted
  4. Within an infobox: "His All Holiness Bartholomew I" -Should not be accepted

The reason I suggest that we do not use the formal style of address, is because, using it could suggest that there is validity in "holiness". Giving validity to holiness means we state that holy is real thus God is real. God might be real, but it is not verifiable yet, so we should not imply that he is.

The same reasoning with Patriarch applies to all priest, or God-given Rulers. I am mentioning it here because I jump on this article first. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 09:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: " Wikipedia should never use it when stating something about the Patriarch, so not to indirectly accept that there is validity in his address". I am not sure I understand what you mean by that, or what concrete changes you propose. The article already seems to be in line with your "accepted" versions. More broadly, do you mean to imply that Wikipedia will "endorse" that the patriarch is "holy"? It is simply a mode of address, just like "Majesty", "The Right Honorable", "Excellency", or, for that matter, "Mister" and "Comrade". It is true that such usage in English (and in other languages), is inherited by feudal and earlier practices and hence rather anachronistic, but a) it is in common use, and Wikipedia follows common usage, and b) is not sufficient reason for removal. We are not here to correct the way people talk or think about something, but to report that people do so. I sort of get the point you are trying to make about the uncritical acceptance of religious self-portrayal, but I am not sure this is the correct way to make it. Focusing on such cosmetic issues hardly affects the crux of the matter, and has the feel of symbolic point-scoring. I linked WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS above, and this seems like a textbook case of it. Constantine ✍ 11:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I may not have been clear enough in my outline of the alternatives here. The way you have introduced the RfC, this is clearly a case of general guidelines, not specifically Bartholomew. Then the RfC belongs somewhere else. The only place in this article which would be affected by your suggested rules, is the heading of the infobox. Either you should be addressing that detail here, or you should create a central discussion somewhere about the principle. What you have done here, is neither. --T*U (talk) 11:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am mentioning it here because I jump on this article first. You forgot to mention that you "jumped on this article first" after you got reverted on the Greek wikipedia on exactly the same article. In other words, you are trying to score points on the English Wikipedia, to then go back on the Greek wikipedia — on which you are currently blocked for edit-warring — and continue your arguments there. As Kostas mentioned above, you seem to be trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and I add that this is WP:DISRUPTive and WP:POINTy behaviour, across two wiki projects. I suggest, if you are serious about contributing to this wiki, you choose a different article and a more substantial area to contribute to, rather than wasting other editors' time with commonly accepted stylistic issues. Dr. K. 16:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do find the above comment as PERSONAL ATTACK. Indeed I think it is wrong to address the Patriarch as "his holiness" both in English and GreeK Wikipedia. I do not see any wrongdoing in trying to change the aforementioned address in both Wikipedia. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 15:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stating obvious facts is not a personal attack. You have been disrupting two wikis with edit-warring and POV-pushing. That's a fact. You got blocked twice on the Greek wiki for edit-warring within two days. That's also a fact. You should be a little more introspective and try to learn from these setbacks instead of accusing editors of non-existent PAs. But do I hold my breath that you will follow my advice? No. Dr. K. 17:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Bartholomew I of Constantinople. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of broken communion restored

[edit]

I have undone this edit which falsely claimed the segment was unsourced. Per WP:LEADCITE the lede is a summary of the body of the article, which is where citations belong. I have furnished two extra citations in case there is any question about the material being restored. Elizium23 (talk) 22:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Elizium23: Both sources confirm that there is an ecclesiastical schism, however they do not *explicitly* state that the Ecumenical Patriarch isn't considered anymore as the spiritual leader of the Orthodox people. Nowhere in the provided sources point to ecclesiastical schisms as a loss of the status of spiritual leadership. Also none of the sources you gave us, claim that the ecclesiasatical communion and the spiritual leadership do affect each other. Had there been a case of a formal ecclesiastical leadership, however, then sure, it would make sense that it has been affected, but here we are talking about spiritual leadership, not formal ecclesiastical one. Can you provide the necessary quotes backing your claim? I can't find them. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 23:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SilentResident, you are referring to a claim that is not made in the article, so I am not sure what you're on about. Elizium23 (talk) 23:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In your edit here [1] you claim that 100 million Orthodox people do not consider the Ecumenical Patriarch as a spiritual leader. The provided sources however do not confirm this. Can you provide me the quote in these sources confirming the claim? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 23:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SilentResident, the edit does not claim that. I have made it a separate sentence so it is even more abundantly clear to even our blind readers that that claim is not being made. Elizium23 (talk) 23:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When you place the 100 million followers next to the sentence about 300 million followers viewing him as Spiritual leader, only separated by a (;) then you make a claim as the one acts as a pointer to the other. So I will ask again: what the severing of communion has to do with the 100 million here, and what it has to do with the spiritual leadership at all if the one is unrelated to the other? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 23:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I let the info on broken communion stay, but have the figures removed, as the way they stand next to each other still gives the false impression that they may relate to each other. Everyone is welcome to restore the adherent figures if a better rewording is found that avoids linking the two cases with each other. And obviously, the rewording will have to respect what the sources say on the matter. Have Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 00:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SilentResident, the edits are mostly like hitting a fly with a sledgehammer. The awkward positioning of the statement now is logically connected to nothing else in the final paragraph. The omission of the total number of Eastern Orthodox faithful would seem obviated by the moving of the statement, but now the lede paragraph has no sense of scale whatsoever. Elizium23 (talk) 08:52, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph introduces the readers to the person, not to his tenure. Frankly, the communion break up, an event that occured during his tenure, doesn't fit at all on the Lead section, hence I avoided adding it myself. But since you insisted in adding it, then its current location (in the tenure paragraph) is the only logical place. We gotta keep the lead organized and tidy as before: the introductory paragraph is about the person, his titles and his role, followed by a paragraph of his early life in a chronological order, and then a paragraph about events marking his tenure as a Patriarch. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 11:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Elizium23, as I was looking more thoroughly in the history log, I found some problems. The user TheGlaswegian whose edits [2] I reverted partially and then you restored, tried to give disproportionate weight to the event of the schism by mentioning it twice on the Lede (one sentence in 1st paragraph, and another one in 3rd paragraph), and also constituted WP:OR by claiming that the schism affected the Patriarch's spiritual leadership as he didn't provide any sources verifying this. Given this, I will revert further this editor and only keep your own, sourced additions to Lede. Update: edit is done and can be found here: [3] --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 16:22, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why "I" on Bartholomew's title?

[edit]

Bartholomew is the only patriarch of Constantinople called Bartholomew, and he does not appear (e.g. official biography) to call himself "the First", so why does Wikipedia call him Bartholomew I? Surtsicna (talk) 11:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do use the "I" stylization as well, and is WP:CONSISTENT with how the previous Ecumenical patriarchs, such as Bartholomew's predecessor, Demetrios I of Constantinople were titled as well. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 12:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While it is true that, as SilentResident notes, "sources do use the I stylization as well", these sources do not seem to represent the majority of sources discussing Bartholomew -- at least according to my Google search results (c. 16 thousand results for "Bartholomew I of Constantinople", c. 24 thousand results for "Bartholomew of Constantinople"). I think that, as per WP:COMMONNAME, I agree with Surtsicna's proposal and the "I" should be removed. Besides, Bartholomew is barely ever referred to as "Bartholomew the First" in the context of his ecclesiastical activities in Greek and, were we to follow the argument on consistency, I don't see why we should follow the article on his predecessor and not the one on e.g. Kirill of Moscow, whose article is currently titled Patriarch Kirill of Moscow. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, a page move is reasonable. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 22:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SilentResident, thank you for your response. May I also add to what I wrote above about the most usual way of referring to the article's subject that it seems that this (= [i] including the word "patriarch" in the title and [ii] not including any numbering for those who are the only prelates of that name to have served in this bishopric) is the standard approach that has already been adopted for the majority of the titles of article for the current Patriarchs of the old Eastern Orthodox Patriarchates (Alexandria: Patriarch Photius of Alexandria, Jerusalem: Patriarch Theophilos III of Jerusalem, but Antioch: John X of Antioch,) and even the new ones (Sofia: Neophyte of Bulgaria, Tbilisi: Ilia II of Georgia but: Belgrade: Porfirije, Serbian Patriarch, Bucharest: Patriarch Daniel of Romania, Moscow: Patriarch Kirill of Moscow). Ashmedai 119 (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your valid points there, about the omission of the term Patriarch from the person's title, show how there is a lack of WP:CONSISTENT among articles of Patriarchs in Wikipedia and therefore, there is a need for a Page Move to correct it. However, if you allow, my two cents here: Bartholomew isn't a Patriarch but an Ecumenical Patriarch. He may be called Patriarch for short, in an unofficial capacity, but his title is Ecumenical Patriarch. Given this, if his title has to be added to the article title, it should be the correct one.
I can see how "Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople" may be a long title, and I suspect it possibly is one of the reasons the title was omitted from the article title in the first place, (much like how I suspect the same was done for Demetrios I of Constantinople). However, this wouldn't justify as a reason for not adding the proper title.
Besides the obvious encyclopedic ones and ecclesiastical reasons for using the term Ecumenical Patriarch over Patriarch, there are also the political ones: his ecumenical title and role are being challenged by the current Patriarch of Moscow, who, as a corrupt and controversial figure, and a close ally of the warmongering President of Russia, has been trying to exert ecclesiastical authority beyond his canonical one and contributing to his country's expansionism for personal gains. Wikipedia needs to avoid taking sides in the POV dispute regarding his ecumenical role, by carefully reflecting on his proper title which is Ecumenical Patriarch instead of how certain political Russian sources are trying to demote him (regular Patriarch). Titling needs to be neutral as to not give any light of legitimacy to any Russian POV on the dispute that in my view is WP:UNDUE.
Anyways, article titling requires WP:VERIFIABILITY and to reflect on sources; the term Ecumenical Patriarch I am suggesting for the article's title, is also how the vast majority of the world and sources are addressing and treating the person in question. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 19:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you once again, SilentResident. I am aware of the polemics concerning the character and extent of the primacy of the See of Constantinople in the Eastern Orthodox Church and the role Moscow has played in actively undermining it since at least the Panorthodox Council of Crete onwards, but I do not think Wikipedia taking a position regarding this controversy should be the factor determining the article's title, although I suppose this might be the explanation for the discrepancy between the title of the article on Kyrill and the present article. In any case, I had not previously considered "Ecumenical Patriarch" as an alternative and, other than it being the actual title of the Patriarch of Constantinople, as you correctly pointed ou, the rudimentary Google search for "Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew" seems to clearly suggest towards this title as most commonly used (c. 140,000 results), so I do accept your point and proposal. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 06:02, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Being the fool I am, it was only now that it crossed my mind that the articles's naming conventions policy might contain something specifically relevant to the case at hand. The policy relating to articles on members of clergy clearly states in the section dealing with Patriarchs: "For patriarchs, whether the Ecumenical Patriarch, Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria, or otherwise, use the format "{episcopal name} {ordinal if more than one} of {episcopal see}". Do not use a patriarch's personal name; e.g., use Patriarch Nikon, not Nikita Minov." It then seems that SilentResident's proposal for renaming the article to "Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople" is the policy-compliant choice to make. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 06:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ashmedai 119:, oh thank you so much for finding the section dealing with Patriarchs! I have been looking for it and I wouldn't find it. I had stumbled a long time ago upon it but somehow I lost it. Wouldn't figure out where in Wikipedia it was located. I am grateful. As for "Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople", is our safest bet: it is policy-compliant, neutral from any POV issues, faithful to the content and the sources, and reflects on the subject's title. The only (minor) trade-off for this is that the proposed article title might be a bit longer than usual but that's ok. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 22:39, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SilentResident: Please accept my many thanks for your participation in this discussion. I've now moved the article to its proper, policy-compliant title. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am thankful too for your interest in dealing with WP:INCONSISTENCY on article titling across in Wikipedia. Considering that there has to be WP:CONSISTENCY even among Ecumenical Patriarchs, I was thinking that Bartholomew's predecessor in that ecclesiastical body, also has to follow the Wiki Project's naming policies. Shall we initiate a Move Request for Demetrios I of Constantinople? I have attempted to do this page move myself to save you the inconvenience, but seems like the article already exists: Ecumenical Patriarch Demetrios I of Constantinople # No Redirect but an editor Log| moved Demetrios' page to one that is missing his title, in violation of the naming policies, and without explaining the reason for this move in their summary. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 10:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pinging me, SilentResident. I am somewhat hesitant to initiate myself a move request such as the one you are proposing, though it seems to me to be very much warranted, as my presence here is, at least for the time being, wildly irregular and it might happen that I am not able to meaningfully contribute to the discussion that is generated by the request. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 15:51, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Numbering

[edit]

It seems to me that Bartholomew should be numbered as the 269th bishop, not the 270th. The numbering was added on 19 May 2014 without any source. The list of patriarchs used to include 269 patriarchs since June 2014 and this was not changed until January 2023, on the basis that "most articles consider Bartholomew to be the 270th bishop". Oddly enough, the old list included a fictional "Theophanes II", but did not count the very real Callinicus III. Theophanes II was removed and Callinicus was included, but the numbering was left unaltered (???). Then in December someone added Martiros of Crimea, but I can’t find anything about him. Kiminas also counts 269 patriarchs (the official list of the patriarchate includes every patriarch but I don't have the time to count them individually, however, it certainly does not include a “Martiros”). Either way, I wonder why do we even bother with numbers. The early bishops probably never existed (the earliest sources consider Metrophanes the first) and Byzantium didn't become Constantinople until 330. Tintero21 (talk) 06:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ecumenical_Patriarch_Bartholomew_of_Constantinople&oldid=1258535196"