Talk:Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Layman opinion polls

I have reverted the addition of layman opinion polls regarding the standing of the Patriarch as irrelevant. The opinion of laymen has no bearing on the ecclesiastical standing of the Patriarch or even their own church's official position. As such, political metrics such as polls, as opposed to informed, scholarly, ecclesiastical opinions, have no place in a religious article and they are just political POV. Dr. K. 20:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree. To do so, is to not know what the Ecumenical Patriarch is about. --SILENTRESIDENT 04:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

This is fine with me. After the opinion poll information was added, I tried to figure out what to do with it, as I didn't want to unilaterally remove sourced information. But if there is a consensus for removing it, that's good too. Ohff (talk) 05:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I detect some bias even though I am not an Orthodox Christian. What would be any reason to remove the response of the Orthodox Christians themselves to an intruding proclamation of an external body of the church? What these polls and the rest of the information actually show is that the Patriarch is usually rejected as a leader by the Orthodox Christians and that this is not the position of any other but the Greek Orthodox Church. A brief debunking of this proclamation by the public adds well to the intro or the sections and is more than irrelevant. Have my support to add it anywhere. Whether the article of the Pope is the only one for imitation or not, the whole poll may be better represented at Eastern Orthodox Church or Eastern Orthodoxy by country. It is already sufficiently promoted that the Patriarch is widely considered a leader of the Eastern Christians but that he is widely rejected is not on the lead despite this proclamation is clearly controversial. There is no guideline saying that bias can be justified but that balancing aspects of any controversies improve the articles. While ressecting some policies and guidelines, Wikipedia:Ignore all rules should be used in case of misusing some of them in order to impose misleading interpretation such as with wp:consensus. Censoring opposing views is tendentious and all editors' legitimate concerns should be represented in any consensus. Otherwise, such a thing hardly can be called a consensus, Ohff. Each of you try to add your views and present it correctly describing and selecting well the sources presented.

I am not sure why the poll would be layman if presented literally, e.g. only with a table and percentages in let's say the article about Orthodox Christians by country. Any gnome may then show a brief redirection to the polls. The CBS news are layman and no other churches are quoted as describing the Patriarch as a spiritual leader except the site of the Patriarchate. The correct representation of the provided sources would be that the Patriarchate's position is such. There is disagreement and controversy between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Patriarchate as for the recognising of some churches. The view of the Patriarch of Constantinople as a spiritual leader of the Orthodox Christians is not anywhere near widely agreed either as it is implied in the intro. But this appears only to be a minority view of the Patriarchate within the wider Eastern Orthodox Church. He may also proclaim as a leader of churches he doesn't recognise or which don't recognise him.Judist (talk) 15:59, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I followed the suggestion. The controversy is extensive and needs to be explained in an appropriate section.--Machkata (talk) 23:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

You don't "follow the suggestion" of a disruptive account, against current consensus. You explain first, and after others agree with you, then you act. You currently have it backwards. Also read what the reliable sources say. Ignoring reliable sources to add your own analysis is disruptive and must stop. Dr. K. 23:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I didn't add anything disputing the rest of the information, just added positions of other authorities besides the table. How it ignores the reliable sources and which are they? The subject is controversial and clearly needs to be explained in the section. What is disruptive in this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Machkata (talk • contribs) 23:50, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

When most of the world considers the patriarch to be the spiritual leader of the Orthodox church, and this fact is supported by reliable sources, it is not up to you to add controversies at the lead. Turkey is a country of a different faith that has a political view of the patriarch, has a long and established record of suppressing the Orthodox faith, as well as many other minorities and religions, and its view is both predictable and unimportant ecclesiastically, and for sure it does not deserve to be at the lead. Your edit also introduced a layman poll in the form of a table. This is disruptive editing. This is not a political article and layman polls have no place in it. A layman poll in the form of a table just adds insult to injury. Finally, the article never said that the Patriarch is the undisputed first among equals etc. just that he is generally considered to be so. So we don't have to renumerate every church leader who does not accept him as such at the lead. I have not checked all your sources, but some of them appear to be controversial, making controversial statements, and some appear to be junk. Conclusion, you add this stuff to this article, or any other similar article, when you obtain consensus, not by edit-warring like you have been doing for days. Dr. K. 00:41, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

"Finally, the article never said that the Patriarch is the undisputed first among equals etc. just that he is generally considered to be so. So we don't have to renumerate every church leader who does not accept him as such at the lead. I have not checked all your sources," Dr.K., are you bluffing or you do realize that there are plenty of sources disregarding but not only such that regard what would you like to be regarded? If it is as not undisputed by other churches as you acknowledge then it should hold mention in the lead. Sorry very much. Wikipedia is not a place for propaganda of a specific view. As I suspected some churches oppose this status of the Patriarch. How are the rejections of the heads of specific authorities who are alleged to hold a lesser political status by somebody else(Bartholomew) not relevant for the article? It is like deleting the disputed status of Crimea or Kosovo to impose a propaganda. Check what is due weight and what is controversy and agreement. Using reputative account does not mean you are not possible to abuse it for POV pushing sometimes(as I clearly remember you saying that everybody has POV) or that you should be exempted from personal attacks which may be considered worse than what you perceive as a disruptive account. You ignored all the talk page and sources and claim that the reason is WP:OR - your edit summaries are becoming completely fictional now. Machkata's concern is legitimate and does not contain OR while yours was a source bombing aiming weasel wording only to use Wikipedia to promote the view that the Patriarch is regarded and not disregarded as the prime figure. Then you remove and ignore anything else. You did what? You turned a whole controversy into a single statement that supports your view? And then "most of the world" is like this. Classic POV and complete violation of neutrality. A POV tag in the article is necessary. Аll except the table describes a disputed political controversy and should be reverted. You even try to abuse wp:consensus with own POV while there is also no consensus for your addition and other subjective wording in the article. Machkata doesn't have it backwards. Having something blanked is not a normal way to seek a consensus. The addition of this account should try to seek consensus normally through editorializing process and you shouldn't blank new additions per Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Achieving_neutrality but you should place tags if you want to dispute. Otherwise you become an edit-warrior and must stop. Additions may be own analysis but a contribution and this is no reason for blanking. Most of the Orthodox world clearly doesn't consider Bartholomew as what he regards him - this is completely misleading. The title is ruled out illegal by a court in his location(Turkey) so this also has place in the lead. Please, avoid tendentious edits on controversial issues.Judist (talk) 02:30, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:TLDR, WP:DNFTT and that's on top of your stalking my edits and those of SilentResident. Dr. K. 02:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

If the user Judist is an object of hatred, he/she shouldn't sabotage the discussion and the conversation should continue normally by ignoring a possible trolling.Machkata (talk) 04:24, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Judist's arguments against the Ecumenical Patriarch are the poorest I have ever read to this day and by no means can be considered WP:NPOV. From his argument that the court of a muslim country as having religious authority over the Christian Church(!) and so that this could have place on the lede, to his perception of the "widely regarded" as meaning "unanimously regarded"(!), and his references to the Russian politics as a proof(!), he clearly is trying to politicize a religious article. At this rate, I couldn't be surprised if Judist starts requesting the rename of the article to have the title "Ecumenical" removed. Scandalous.

Edit: Machkata, I strongly recommend that you refrain from politicizing this article like how you have tried to do with your edits, which Dr.K. reverted. The ecclesiastical standing of the Ecumenical Patriarch cannot be not determined by political or personal views on the matter. If you have something useful to add to the article, you are more than welcome to do so. But such edits contesting or challenging the Ecumenical Patriarch and his ecclesiastical role/title within the Orthodox Church, have no place here. Have a good day. --SILENTRESIDENT 08:32, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

SilentResident, in the controversy section only the political views of Turkey were added. They are not as essential as the rest of the controversy. A neutral article should present point A and B in a dispute. That is the mentioning of challenging claims and the responding position of other Orthodox patriarchs about the memebers of their patriarchate. The poll does not show Bartholomew as widely regarded by the 300 million Orthodox community as a leader. Most of them are anyway against his actions and ecumenist unity with the Catholic Church. He is in favour of ecumenism with the Catholic Church and unlikely to be accepted by such a large community. --Machkata (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Machkata, your response again shows a basic ignorance on ecclesiastical matters and their difference from non-ecclesiastical ones. I am afraid you can't simply cite a poll -which reflect political views depending the country, the results of are ephemeral and do not reflect the historical and ecclesiastical aspects of the role and the symbolism his position bears within the Church- as determining whether the Ecumenical Patriarch is widely regarded as the representative of the Orthodox Christians worldwide. Furthermore, your argument that "most of them are anyways against his actions" and that "He is in favour of ecumenism with the Catholic Church and unlikely to be accepted by such a large community." simply shows your POV and OR on the matter and why your edits are unacceptable. No representative of any Christian Church in the world, be it the Catholic, be it the Protestant, or Orthodox, or Oriental, is spared from criticism and differentiating opinions within the church's communion regarding his stance on various matter or actions, and that includes both the Pope and the Ecumenical Patriarch. Everyone in the church has the right to agree or disagree with certain actions or positions, and this is very natural, but I am afraid this doesn't change the fact that the leaders are still regarded as the spiritual representatives of their Church's adherents. Like I said: layman polls have no place on this religious article, and any attempts to have it reinserted are just a waste of time and will be reverted immediately without any prior warning. Have a good day.--SILENTRESIDENT 21:18, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree with SR here. Look, the fact remains that Patriarch Bartholomew is widely regarded in the world as the first bishop of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Adding polls to the article trying to prove that some countries' people don't consider him as such, does not alter the fact that historically he is regarded by most sources as the first bishop of the EOC. This is not a beauty contest. This is an ancient historic principle of the EOC and as such it is not subject to polling. As SR mentioned, the pope has similar problems. That doesn't mean that we have to flood his article with polls trying to score political points against the pontiff. Let me give you another example: Several of the sources you added mention that Vladimir Putin is pushing the Russian Church against the Patriarch of Constantinople:

So now Vladimir Putin is in power in Russia. He wants to ignore the historic role of Constantinople and also ignore Lenin’s destruction of the Russian Orthodox Church, and put Moscow in the leadership of Orthodox churches worldwide. So Russia has also announced that it will not be attending the ecumenical council in Crete this week.

Now, do you want me to add in the article of the Russian Patriarch that he is a puppet of Putin? Here are some sources for that: Putin's Patriarch Does the Kremlin Control the Church?, An evil collusion between a tyrant and a man of God, PUTIN’S GOD SQUAD: THE ORTHODOX CHURCH AND RUSSIAN POLITICS. Do you think I can go now to the articles of the Russian Church adding controversy sections and calling it Putin's God Squad? Or, even better, add that patriarch Kiril is alleged to have been a KGB agent?

The church has never openly explored its KGB past. When archives were opened at the start of the 1990s, both the previous and present patriarchs were revealed to have been KGB agents—but the files were quickly shut before details of their activities could be explored.

Dr. K. 22:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

What articles do we discuss? The poll was added in articles concerning Orthodoxy by country. Why not showing polls about anything in Orthodoxy in different countries in this article? As for Bartholomew political conspiracy theories, there are articles- Wikileaks Confirms US Influence on the Patriarchate of Constantinople, Ecumenical Patriarch denies he is a Freemason. Conspiracy theories are denied by Kirill or Bartholomew and there is probably no way that they can be written here. They don't change the controversy existing among Orthodox patriarchs and peoples, which is not about political influences. There has been no consensus in the EOC. In the Catholic Church there is a consensus for the head. As for Bartholomew he signs a declaration on the behold of all Orthodox Christians for unity with the Catholics: Pope and Orthodox leader seek to ‘promote unity of all Christians’ Pope Francis & Patriarch Bartholomew sign joint declaration. He participates in ecumenist prayers with representatives of other denominations. Kirill followed him with the Joint Declaration of Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill. The primacy of Barthlomew and Kirill is a disputed proclamation and they are not de facto leaders of the entire EOC. They act without the consensus of other Orthodox patriarchs and then argue for a status within the entire Orthodox world.

Lambriniadis summarizes the challenging position of the Moscow Patriarchate, which he explains with the unwilligness(incorrectly) of dialogues with the Catholic Church:
"Two points are worth noting from the outset, which are indicative of the intent of the Church of Russia's Synod: (2) To challenge in the most open and formal manner (namely, by synodal decree) the primacy of the Ecumenical Patriarchate within the Orthodox world, observing that the text of Ravenna, on which all the Orthodox Churches agreed (with the exception, of course, of the Church of Russia), determines the primacy of the bishop"
on first page of First without equals: A response to the text on primacy of the Moscow Patriarchate. By His Eminence Elpidophoros Lambriniadis, Metropolitan of Bursa.--Machkata (talk) 19:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I gave you the examples of political attacks on the church and the patriarchs to demonstrate to you that not all political events, even if reliably sourced, should go in any religious articles. You attempted to add the poll in the article Eastern Orthodoxy by country (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). In your edit summary you called it, correctly, by its name: "Poll". Yet, in the section you created, you called it "Authority". This act betrays your POV. A poll is in no way associated with authority in religious matters. Only in politics, polls give some temporary authority to politicians. In religion, it does not matter, because religion is based on historical tradition and religious dogma. So you cannot put a poll, which is ephemeral and unrelated to dogma, in any religious article. To call the poll, falsely, "Authority" is your own POV and WP:OR. This makes matters worse. In addition, Kirill has not challenged officially the PoC yet. I suggest you wait until he does so and then perhaps we can add this to the article. But when we do, we should also mention that Putin has put him up to it, as the reliable sources suggest. Dr. K. 22:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

The removed sentences contained references with official challenge of Kirill of the title first among equals and insistance for that the ROC should take take the leading role in EOC "Глава РПЦ опасается, как бы у православного народа не сложилось впечатление, что Константинопольский Патриарх Варфоломей является не «первым среди равных»"

One year ago, prior to the the Pan-Orthodox Council, Kirill sent a letter to Bartholomew, challenging him as first among equals, the letters is completely quoted in the Greek newspaper To Vima.[1]^{За 15 дней до созыва Всеправославного Синода на о. Крит Московский Патриарх Кирилл направил письмо патриарху Варфоломею, который в ультимативном тоне подымает две протокольные проблемы по поводу мест расположения участников собора, которые, если не будут решены, будут препятствовать участию Московского Патриархата в работе собора. Поставленные вопросы показывают озабоченность Предстоятеля Русской Церкви по поводу того, что как бы складывается впечатление, что Вселенский патриарх не является «первым среди равных» , и первым из остальных 13 глав автокефальных Православных Церквей. Письмо было обнародовано в греческой газете «Вима», сообщает болгарский сайт «Двери в православие».} Then the churches of Russia and Bulgaria rejected to recognise him as first among equals..com/national-security/2016/06/20/20-jun-16-world-view-historic-orthodox-christian-gathering-crete-exposes-sharp-divisions/ The poll contains free expression of the public attitude, is adequate and the publicator is reliable. Should you request for comments if you keep it removed?--Machkata (talk) 07:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry but you won't see me making up my mind on this and do not expect WP:CONSENSUS for your political additions. Such things by no mean can change the ecclesiastical protocol and function of the Eastern Orthodox Church and its hierarchy. I highly recommend that you will heel to the warnings and refrain from trying to add content reflecting propaganda and political positions of a certain country into any religious articles like this, as they go against Wikipedia's standards and you will leave me no other option but file a case against you on the ANI and have you blocked. --SILENTRESIDENT 12:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

As I told you before, the very source you are using, breitbart .com, says that Putin instructed Kirill to do it:

So now Vladimir Putin is in power in Russia. He wants to ignore the historic role of Constantinople and also ignore Lenin’s destruction of the Russian Orthodox Church, and put Moscow in the leadership of Orthodox churches worldwide. So Russia has also announced that it will not be attending the ecumenical council in Crete this week.

So, if you want to add that Kirill challenges Bartholomew, I will add that Putin made him do it. Again, until it is official, in a statement from the official church, this factoid does not deserve mention in this article. As far as the poll, I, and SilentResident, have already explained to you, multiple times, why it is useless. I think you don't want to understand what we are telling you. But that is your problem, not ours. I think it is time now for you to drop this subject. Dr. K. 16:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC about the primary status of the Patriarch

Should the articles about Patriarch Bartholomew I or the article Eastern Orthodoxy by country mention the following content(please answer each point separately): 1.) This poll with at least a thousand of participants per each country.
2.) The statements written in a letter of the Patriarch of Russia[2], rejecting the previously agreed by all churches historical status "first among equals" of Patriarch Bartholomew, as well as the unwilligness of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church to recognise it.com/national-security/2016/06/20/20-jun-16-world-view-historic-orthodox-christian-gathering-crete-exposes-sharp-divisions/.
3.) The banning[3] of Patriarch Bartholomew from using the term ‘Ecumenical’ in the location of the Patriarchate(Turkey), which led to the prosecution of Bartholomew on charges of infringement of Article 219 of the Turkish Criminal Code, following his statement describing the Patriarchate as "Ecumenical", a word meaning "representing a number of different Christian Churches"[4].
4.) The view of some authors and the website of the Patriachate of Constantinople within the Eastern Orthodox Church, which defines Patriarch Bartholomew as a "spiritual leader to 300 million Orthodox Christians worldwide"[5] or the view, which can be seen at the article now - "the represantative and spiritual leader of the 300 million Orthodox Christians worldwide". 14:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)~

Comment This RfC is not neutral. It is invalid. You use weasel words to push your POV comments: This poll with at least a thousand of participants per each country.: You advertise the "credentials" of the poll, as if RfC participants are unable to judge for themselves. The statements written in a letter of the Patriarch of Russia[1], rejecting the previously agreed by all churches historical status "first among equals" of Patriarch Bartholomew, as well as the unwilligness of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church to recognise it[2]: More POV pushing a letter that is not the official position of any church. The banning of Patriarch Bartholomew from using the term ‘Ecumenical’ in the location of the Patriarchate(Turkey): A hostile, illiberal regime of a different faith, has no position in defining the historical role of the Patriarch, yet you make it appear as if Turkey has a role in defining the position of the Patriarch within his Church. You have not accepted any of the arguments we made in the long thread above, including the one about Turkey. This is disuptive editing on your part. The view of some authors and the website of the Patriachate of Constantinople within the Eastern Orthodox Church: "The view of some authors and the website of the Patriarchate"? Your POV is laughable. You summarily dismiss the prevalent opinion of most RS, 18 of them should be enough. But your POV is so large, it just crashed right through them. The required neutrality of your RfC is in tatters. Dr. K. 17:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

The RfC was started, because no compromise was provided for any of the deleted content. Especially there was no compelling reason for removing the poll. You didn't accept that it is the view of the public attitude, but threats for a block instead were shown. A thousand is not an impressive number for whole countries. If the correct information is going to neutralize, the numbers of the polled are between 1513 and 2471 people per country, see at page 174. An indicative point is the first one, whoch shows the unwide acceptance of the believers of a particular self-styled proclaimed position that is described at the fourth point. You probably never heard of Balancing different views and opposed any mention of the view of the majority of the Eastern Orthodox Christians. I questioned the fourth point, because it was recently added. I don't object mentioning any of the fourth points in the article, while agreeing that the last one is solidly sourced, but rather question what is the correct wording of the fourth with the two given examples, i.e. is the definition "representative" widely regarded? As this statement is so solidly sourced then you shouldn't bother about it's inclusion, which is certainly going to be granted by consensus. Machkata (talk) 18:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

indicative point is the first one, whoch shows the unwide acceptance of the believers of a particular self-styled proclaimed position that is described at the fourth point. Calling the almost universal acceptance of the PoC self-styled proclaimed position just further illustrates your toxic POV against the Patriarch. But we knew that all along. You don't have to verify it so many times. You probably never heard of Balancing different views You are in no position to lecture me on NPOV, after your ceaseless attempts to insert your disruptive POV into this religious article. Dr. K. 19:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment by SilentResident: User:Machkata's RfC needs be dismissed immediately as it does not meet the criteria set for valid and legit RfCs. A RfC needs, first of all, to be neutral as per Wikipedia:Writing requests for comment. Any attempts to instill a certain POV perception to the third parties through the RfC upon which they are called to answer, goes against RfC's principle which is to provide a neutral opinion on the matter by a uninvolved third party.

1.) This poll with at least a thousand of participants per each country.

• More participants in a poll does not give the poll more credibility nor it can change how the ecclesiastical protocol and the constitution of the Orthodox Church are defined, I am afraid. I never heard of such thing happening anywhere and with other churches. Imagine the layman polls having the power to illegitimatize the Pope and deprive him of his titles and positions in the Catholic Church. Ridiculous! Same goes for the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Orthodox Church. Such polls have no place here.

2.) The statements written in a letter of the Patriarch of Russia[6], rejecting the previously agreed by all churches historical status "first among equals" of Patriarch Bartholomew, as well as the unwilligness of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church to recognise it.com/national-security/2016/06/20/20-jun-16-world-view-historic-orthodox-christian-gathering-crete-exposes-sharp-divisions/.

• I looked anywhere and I couldn't find any official documents confirming that any church have refused to recognize Bartholomew as "first among equals", including Bulgarian Orthodox Church. Instead, I only could find news confirming the communion between Bulgarian Orthodox Church and the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantionple during the Ec. Patriarch's visit to Bulgaria just a few years ago from today. To me, it looks like Machkata is trying to POV-push the article, not improve it.

3.) The banning[7] of Patriarch Bartholomew from using the term ‘Ecumenical’ in the location of the Patriarchate(Turkey), which led to the prosecution of Bartholomew on charges of infringement of Article 219 of the Turkish Criminal Code, following his statement describing the Patriarchate as "Ecumenical", a word meaning "representing a number of different Christian Churches"[8].

• Since when the authorities of a Muslim country such as Turkey, have a saying into the Christian affairs? The internal ecclesiastical affairs of the Eastern Orthodox Church are none of Turkey's business. That the seat of the Ecumenical Patriarchate is in Istanbul, modern day Turkey, by no means entitles Turkey in dictating on how could the Christian Church function and run. Another blatant POV attempt by Machkata.

4.) The view of some authors and the website of the Patriachate of Constantinople within the Eastern Orthodox Church, which defines Patriarch Bartholomew as a "spiritual leader to 300 million Orthodox Christians worldwide"[9] or the view, which can be seen at the article now - "the represantative and spiritual leader of the 300 million Orthodox Christians worldwide".

• If Machkata has a problem with how a spiritual leader perceives himself or how the ecclesiastical protocol has defined his role, then it is Machkata's problem, not Wikipedia's.

User:Machkata's WP:Tendentious edits, combined with a highly biased RfC despite our warnings, left me no other option but to consider reporting him on the ANI after this RfC is over. This disruption must stop immediately. --SILENTRESIDENT 18:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)