Talk:Eastern Orthodox Church/Archive 10

Recent structural edits
It is clear that you are trying to improve the article boldly, but I would suggest that you make a greater number of edits in smaller pieces while you are acquiring your editing skills here. The organizational changes you have made are not especially helpful, both in regard to sections and their names, and in regard to the merging of paragraphs, as in the "Enumeration" section. The separations make for greater readability. Furthermore, the lead paragraph to the "Adherents" section is meant to be summary and introductory, for those for whom that information is sufficient. It should not be buried inside all the details. Your removal of the "Administration" section was premature also, as it will likely be expanded somewhat, but it is a placeholder at the least that is required to move forward. However, your expansions regarding the Ecumenical Patriarchate and "first among equals" is much overkill, far too extended to be in balance with the rest of the article. Perhaps a little more of that detail could be added to Bartholomew I of Constantinople. You also seem to be focused on the equality of the autonomous churches. That is not in dispute in the article, but there are good reasons for distinguishing the four ancient patriarchates from the rest, as that reflects some of the church history and makes later expansion clearer. There is also no reason to substitute "self-headed" for "autonomous": the link gives the term definition, and "self-headed" is a clumsy expression. The autonomy article also makes clear the distinction between "autonomous" and "autocephalous", which applies directly to the wording here (and in other articles on Orthodoxy).

As you can see, the changes you make here can have impact on other articles and presentations in Wikipedia, and it takes some time to become aware of such implications. I hope you will not take my reversions of your edits nor my comments above as discouragement, but simply as a part of the learning curve we have all had to climb in order to improve our own editing. Thanks for your contributions, and I wish you well as you continue your efforts. I anticipate that they will have increasing effect as you grow. Evensteven (talk) 18:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

You are right, I made a main reconstruction of the section without stating why, so you are right to revert me. I tried to correct some of the edits, are you fine with the current version? I think that the church bodies and the leasdership is part of the administration so I merged those sections. Do you find the sections order, i. e. - Church bodies, leadership merged into organization and administration? I omitted some repetive äutonomous", ïndependent", "self-headed" as you say it is senless. By the way good job you for the introduction, there was a lot of insufficient information you mooved to the sections that was given a a higher priority. I think that the sections may be shrotened similiarily to the way the intro was, if the info there is too insufficient to remain in the article can be moved to another articles, for example in Bartholomew I of Constantinople. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Machkata (talk • contribs) 22:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I am sorry for the complete reversions again, but there is simply too much change that doesn't work to keep sifting what does work. Please try smaller edits. We will make little progress unless we can work out what should be left out from what should be put in. Usually that means doing the work on the talk page before editing the article, so that the article that others see can remain stable. Our work needs doing more behind the scenes. Also, there are several things you are trying to do. Each needs separate consideration, so it won't be productive to combine them all into one edit. Let's take it one piece at a time. If you are having difficulty recognizing what changes are separate from the others, that is also a skill that needs enhancement, and talk page discussion can help you to sort that out. It can take some time, so be prepared to be patient.


 * I take issue with many of the section name changes you have made. They change the meaning of the section topics inappropriately and mislead the reader from what is the point. Or, they become too generic and don't really focus the topic properly. In your latest edits you have continued to combine far too much material into one paragraph, often by merging paragraphs, sometimes through expansion. Your merging of sections themselves can have similar effects. These things affect the presentation of material in major ways, and need to be handled with care.


 * You apparently have some information that could be valuable on the membership counts. There may be more on the various churches and their relationships to the communion as a whole, but the whole editing community needs to see sources for that information, especially because both the information itself and the manner of its presentation can be sensitive matters. Changes for each church should be handled separately, or paired, and not combined with structural changes. Structural changes should be made without significant change to content. Then issues can remain clear for discussion.


 * This particular area of the article is one of those that is in need of major structural work. However, it's not so much that the lists require much re-organization, but more that they need to be moved to the appropriate article, Orthodox Church organization. You keep merging the movable material with the more general descriptive material that should remain here, and shuffling them. Please take a look at the other article. Make carefully separate edits to the information there, or separate edits to restructure there. That article should contain the details: lists of names, specific information about the intricacies of canonical status and communion, that kind of thing. When your new information has been accepted through consensus, then it will be time to remove the detail from this article and leave the more general descriptions behind. My changes to the article structure have been designed to keep these portions separate so that the moves can be done in a fashion that is clear to everyone. That is one reason why your edits have not been helpful, for they impede that process. But the end goal is similar to what you are aiming for. It's the process of getting there that is too murky in your large-scale editing.


 * Please note that it is possible to make a substantial number of smaller edits at close to the same time. If they don't overlap text changes, are isolated from each other, then the individual contributions can be easily seen and confirmed, or challenged, each on their own merits, and anything acceptable can remain while only the rest remains in question. The article can advance while necessary details are worked out in discussion.


 * I hope this makes sense to you. You have hit upon material that does need work and improvement, and it's a shame to be reverting it all just because an entire batch of changes in one edit cannot be accepted. Evensteven (talk) 01:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, your statement is pretty long but I remain somehow confused because it somehow lack specificity — by smaller edits what do you mean and why? Do you actually mean that I should reinsert my changes by editing a single section because otherwise you can not see the difference between the versions because of the long edit? As for the name "Nomenclature" I got it, it should be "Orthodoxy" instead, I do not insist on my edit about this but anyway both titles can be used. Despite the long explanation, I remain somehow confused, Could you please poin out why the rest of my version is wrong, why is your correct, or you think that it is not entirely incorrect? So, because of obvious errors in the current version, I think that I am not wrong in all my edits at least, I propose we both to point out what we believe is wrong in the other one's revision, so to clear out the errors in the article, because in your version there are errors, I am going to say what I believe is wrong in your revision, some of the errors are obviously wrong and I think you are going to agree with them, unjustified to be reverted. E.g. you said my error was merging to make too long paragraphs, but now actually they remain the same length(first) and why church bodies being administration topic should be placed separetely in the bottom of the article in the section "History"(second error, why it is reverted)? This is obviously inappropriate, I think you would agree with this as I would agree with my obvious mistakes, so the complete revert have to be undone instead of an intermeddiate version that corrects the errors of both versions I think. May be I can do it by doing smaller edits as you suggested? As much as I read your post this is one of the reasons why I am worng, and the second, because I am not doing the work on the talk page before editing the article, this logic literally means that I shall revert to the version prior to mine and yours undiscussed edits, lets's say 5 July as I have not still reverted your reconstruction of sections (sorry for that statement if you are an experienced user or an administrator). So, I continue with pointing out what I believe is wrong in your version, I do not know if you have already checked all my edits you reverted the last time, please check them if you can not check at once due to the long edit i can reinsert them in smaller edits, so, even the figures with links on adherents reverted, this was only a correction of wrong figures(third error of the current version which obviously makes the current revision to be undone partially), this evidences that you do not explain why you are reverting much of my edits, please do, I spend like a whole day finding this latest data and now you did not mention why it se reverted. I would like see an explanation for each of the information you reverted given the time I spend on improving the article. I Despite your fine plan on improving the article, I do not see how exactly my version makes it harder to complete your tasks, I mean for exampletransfering text to other articles can be done in the future either way. I would be glad if you point out my errors on the last version more concrete so to correct them, as I pointed what I believe is wrong in your version. The current version keeps the same length of information, just with more errors, for example just messed around in different paragraphs, it is still not moved on the appropriate articles you are talking about, so I do not understand why are my edits are reverted. For instance, the issue about the leadership, it is claimed that somebofy is a leader based on a popular belief in western news agencies - cbc news that the church has a single leader, not according to the teachings of the Eastern Orthodox Church which teach that the first among equals is equal to other bishops and has no more authority than the others(fourth error in your revert, this one being obvious), the list with the leaders of the sees was deleted who are the only equal leaders in the church(fifth your error in my opinion) and instead of a section for leadership now there is a paragraph for organization and administration where most of the text is about the status first among equals so the info about the issue just prevails in the section and thus removing the section's appelation "leadership" and at the same time calling a section "Curch councils" where most of the information is about the first among equals status of the Constantinopolitan patriarch is simply wrong (sixth error in the article that I remember). These are the errors I remember, do you agree with any, point out mine and lets reach a consensus. I propose to work in team, let's not revert each others edits as long as they do not contain wrong information, but we should find out what information is wrong and what is not on the talk page probably. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Machkata (talk • contribs) 04:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * First, when you edit a talk page, it is customary to "sign" your comment by following it with four tildes ("Evensteven (talk) 05:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)"). Next, you can use colons (":") to indent your comments.


 * I agree there are problems in the article, but the question is not how many things are right in your edits, but what precisely are the things that aren't. When you change too many things, you disturb the article, and the customary response is to revert the article back to its previous stable state in order to work things out. Your method of editing the article as a "proposal" is not the way things are done when there are some objections, and it is not other editors' function to sort out all the differences. You need to identify one error or problem at a time and deal with that in a single edit. Then deal with another in another edit. If you become adept at that technique, then you will learn more about discussing, about the article, and about the editing community. Eventually, you will have the experience to handle larger chunks in ways that don't confuse discussion, because you will see better what might be controversial or questionable and be able to separate that from what is less so. I see a variety of errors in your edits, but I see some good material too. I revert it all in order to preserve the article, and to get you to do the separating, for that is your job, not mine. Editing must be orderly in some way, and that means transparency. Therein lies the difficulty here. Try just one thing and see how it goes. Evensteven (talk) 05:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Afterthoughts, : I ask again that you consider making your edits to administration and adherents topics to the main article for that scope - Orthodox Church organization. With updated corrections in place there, the duplicate information here can be removed and replaced with much shorter summaries, and the details referred to the other article. This is one reasonable way to shorten this article while still preserving information. It seems to me that this is exactly what the other article is for. This article is too long right now, and that is the way to trim it. But whatever is done, information shouldn't just be removed. Its organization can span multiple articles sometimes, but summaries and referrals are often needed to give readers some introduction and coverage as well as the access to more if they want it. This article currently has both summaries and details; it is poised for exactly this type of improvement. Please do not merge material first. Rather, transfer and correct it. Then go back and make sure of the adequacy of the summaries and referrals. One can't make a referral until one knows where the detailed material resides in corrected form, and it isn't going to stay here, so this is the reasonable course.


 * I don't have time to train you. But I hope you can see my points and start again one thing at a time. For as you say, you have corrections, and you have worked hard to gather the materials. Just don't assume that the gathering is the end of the work. The presentation can be very difficult, and a lot more effort. But I like your table of the leaders of the autonomous churches. That ought to work well at "Orthodox Church organization". Evensteven (talk) 07:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * A further thought, given your newness to WP. I have assumed that you know how to access the edit history of the article; is that so? (The View history button) Your edits are all there, and you can access them at any time to produce revised presentations of your work. Nothing is lost. Evensteven (talk) 08:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I like your proposal to move the tables into the orher articles, what i do not like is that you do not answer some of my questions and do not explain large part of your edits. Your proposal of shortening the info of tables etc. is good, but instead of cutting the info you just misplaced it to more inappropriate sections without explainijng why, the titles of the leaders and church bodies are stated again but in the section "present", the same length, the same text, just in another wrong serction, why? I would like you to explain why is the section in the bottom "present" suitable more for stating the leaders and the church bodies which are in fact part of the "organization and leadership" topic. That way the info on the same topic is mentioned throughout the whole article, which contradicts your view of briefing the article, if you was more selective when undoing edits not just revert it all, you would notice that in your revert is not cutting the length of the too long article but only misplacing it to inappropriate sections. So yes, the idea is good, but the actions - not.

As for your propsoal of moving the tables to other articles, actually the leaders table is comparatively compact, if we are more objective the section abouth adherents repeats exactly the same information about percentage in sentences and in the long table, one of which is obviously insufficient and should be removed. Anyway, what I do not like is your unargumented statement saying, only do not merge sections without an argumentation. Would you explain why, what is your argument on this? Why an information about the same topic should be spread throughout the whole article, why the church bodies should be mentioned in the bottom while they are part of the Orthodox Church organization? Certain sections and sentences are obviously the same topic and should be merged, in addition there is another information about adherents in USA in the section "present" that should be transferred to the "adhrents" section. I explained myself on this, please do like me. In the section "organization and leadership" at least most of the text is abouth the status first among equals, so the either the title or the content requires a change. There are hardly any other decisions of the chruch councils stated thzan their poionts on the first among equals either for the pope or the patriarch. So, finally, I agree with removing the double-repeated text about the adherents, but I stil disagree with your mispalcement of the the same-topic text I merged, because this is still an unexplained edit of yours despite the long discussion.--Machkata (talk) 15:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * In these comments, you show your need for experience, that's all. You are mistaken that my reversion means I oppose these ideas as a whole, and have not understood when I have spoken about how to manage the need for several or larger changes. It is important that articles retain their stability. It is important that changes can be discussed. It is important that material is not removed without good reason, and that when it is removed, both the material itself and the reasons for the removal are clearly seen. It's hard enough to communicate here in the face of disagreements without having other factors obscuring the issues.


 * You have walked into a pile of issues and problems, and you cannot see all the implications. You seem to be insisting that your work must be done first in this article. It does not, as I have already said repeatedly. It would be more helpful to do some of it in "Orthodox Church organization", and once it is in place and stable there, then removal of some things can happen here. Working here first makes the whole process more difficult and more murky.


 * Of course that section "Present" is out of place, and repetitive. It's one of the problems in this article. But you are merging it into the wrong material. It needs to be merged into "Orthodox Church organization". One of the problems is that the two articles duplicate too much information. The other is that when such duplication is removed here, there will still need to be explanatory material left behind, a summary.


 * If you are determined not to listen to me and to do this your own way, there is not much more I can say to prevent it. It is, however, my opinion that your exact edits have introduced at least as many new problems as they have addressed, and do not represent an improvement to the article overall. I have said before that your work is not useless or entirely off track, and I have given suggestions for how to proceed, based on my experience here. But I don't much like facing the prospect of having to do your topic sorting for you, or to try explaining in detail all the implications all at one time. What is wrong with the idea of taking things a step at a time? You need to come to a better understanding of how to accomplish what you have in sight here, and WP can benefit from your work. Why is it you resist working cooperatively? I think it is not resistance so much as a lack of understanding. I can't just hand that understanding to you. You need experience. Please try to accumulate some by taking things a bit slower. That's all I'm asking. The article(s) will benefit too, and so will the readers. But it's your decision how you will proceed. Evensteven (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

You correctly saw some repetitive info. I have already done what you suggest at List of Orthodox Churches and Eastern Orthodox Church by country. So what is next in this article? Should we remove the repetitive info ,I mean the table for adherents which is repetietive and the church bodies from the article? Whatever the merging can be, the church bodies are the organization itself and must be mentioned in the general article at least in brief, but there is a lot of repetetive info in "present"that should be removed. Excuse me but in fact you insist that only your work must be done first and I do not know why you should keep only your own changes. While inisting that only they should be applied, you do not even bother to expalin why. Meanwhile I am giving explanations for all my edits. Ýou may think that you explained your edits by stating them, for example you stated that the merging of "present" section" I've done is incorrect to you and should be merged with "Orthodox Church organization", but you never state why. So I cannot understand when you do not explain your edits. A useful discussion can not be achieved, unless we explain our edits and answer our questions. So what is next, can I revert anything or you are just going to keep your revision? I asked you a question for the revert of the adherents table, but you did not answer, do these changes bother you or anything - although you have not answered yet there seems to be no possible reason for removing the changes I made at least in the adherents table, it is the latest referenced data, would you revert them? Claiming that it is important things to be discussed, you seem to have not any problem to discuss your changes first prior to applying them to the article, as you insist to do I, I mean I am a man as much as you, so do you think it would be better to revert deeper before the edits of us both? --Machkata (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I have been lurking in the discussion here from its beginning, and I support EvenSteven's position on how the article should be improved. Machkata, you're a brand-new editor here with quite a few ideas, and that's great, but please remember that Wikipedia is a team effort, centered on collegial editing, so do please try and work with us. Elizium23 (talk) 23:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I, myself, first proposed to work in a team in my comments above. But what Im trying to point you out is the mistakes you reverted. For example in the Administration section it is said that Church of Sinai is one of the fourteen autocephalous churches, which is not true, the Church of Sinai is aoutonomous under the Patriarchate of Jerusalem. There are several other mistakes that Evensteven reverted, I am trying to make you to see them but nobody does, my changes must not be done first in the article, you should wait, you should dicuss your changes, the article is long and etc. off-topic answers, are the ecplaantion for such mistakes. Would anybody people see the silly mistakes in the article I am asking you to check for days?--Machkata (talk) 01:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Would you please see that the biggest problem is not the article's mistakes but the approach to editing, and the need for careful presentation? You need to correct your focus, for it is causing you to misinterpret the help that is being given. Evensteven (talk) 03:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Your last edit is largely a repeat of the edits that have already been challenged. You are also in need of learning more about disruptive editing and dispute resolution. While I see your understandable frustration and have no doubt of your good faith, there is more to editing than having material, even if supported by reliable sources. While I am not going to revert you at this time, you have already been told that your presentation is not helpful, and I reserve the right to revert later. However, I am not at liberty to keep opposing you, as I have other work at hand. I would ask that you back your own changes out and proceed more as I have suggested already, which would be a sign of continued good faith in me. Something is not silly just because it appears to you to be silly. I'm sorry for your struggles in understanding these things, but they can't be allowed to obstruct the process of actually improving the article, which must be the goal for us all. I ask you to believe that I am trying to work with you in good faith. But you are not the final arbiter of what is silly or not. And that is one of the things about collegial editing that we have all had to learn. It can be a painful thing sometimes, yes? Evensteven (talk) 03:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Why is the Church of Sinai claimed to be autocephalous? Why it is claimed that the autonomous churches are three only? I mentioned it, but you do not wish to correct it. How exactly is going an article with basic mistakes to be an improved one? The church bodies should be placed in the organization section, once again.--Machkata (talk) 18:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, the Church of Sinai (Monastery of St Catherine) is autonomous, not autocephalous, but as I am a little unsure and have no confirmation from a reliable source, I have not touched the article in this respect. And until we have a reliable source to confirm that this is an error, the article should remain as is wrt this detail. I suspect, however, that it would not be too difficult to find a source, and if you have one, by all means make the change and be sure to reference the source.


 * Pretty much the same procedure applies to the autonomous churches. What is common knowledge (like "the sky is blue") doesn't particularly need reference to a source, but at some point knowledge becomes less common. It is then that "knowledge" entered by an editor can be challenged, demanding the confirmation from a reliable source. I would say that the list of autocephalous churches definitely requires such backing, so if you have them, be sure to include them in your edits. If you don't, the article pretty much stays as it is. But if the article doesn't already have backing from reliable sources for what it says, you can challenge it. Demand a source by using the ("citation needed") template, or find one yourself and correct the article. For highly dubious or obvious errors, material can sometimes be edited out of an article, but in that case, "obvious" means that it should be pretty obvious to everyone, not just to yourself, and you should always leave a clear indicator of your reasons for removing material in the edit summary or on the talk page.


 * Once again, we retain the previous state of an article as a default position, for stability, not out of a claim that the article is flawless. That state of the article represents a kind of consensus, sometimes weak enough that it just means "nobody has challenged it yet". But only sometimes. There are other occasions where a firm consensus has already been reached by the editing community in earlier discussion, and then there is a much weightier burden of proof imposed on one who would overturn that consensus by making a change. When you can bring confirmation of correctness in the form of reliable sources, then there is often a clear justification for editing, such that other editors can confirm the correctness, and then the edit changes often stand.


 * So, I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying you must back up your corrections, for otherwise no one can tell that they are correct either. The editing community as a whole is the arbiter of correctness in cases of disagreement. But that is the way that articles are ensured to contain reliable information. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is always a work in progress. Improvement comes only with some sort of guarantee. Go for it! Evensteven (talk) 19:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I have overturned your last edits, and will be doing the same to your earlier "corrections" made 10 July 2015 @ 00:50 also. To reiterate, you must be able to prove some information is incorrect before you can correct it. Your editing technique has been challenged, and until you can learn the how and why of editing, I'm afraid it will continue to be so. You are just not showing understanding, but this is disruptive, even though unintentionally so, at which point it becomes a matter of WP:COMPETENCE. I'm sorry, but there are proper ways of doing what it is you want to do, and you are neglecting them. Improper ways cannot stand. Change requires verification. Evensteven (talk) 19:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

You are right, the case for the Church of Sinai is controversial, which I did not know, now I found out, thank you for the cooperation.

The source I found (https://books.google.com/books?id=gESOAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA10&lpg=PA10&dq=sinai+under+jerusalem+patriarchate&source=bl&ots=lD0c0pEKjB&sig=2i8Yngt0LwU8pIsu6EOLNtgrEMg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2COgVdSoJoH-sQGVtbTICw&ved=0CF0Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=sinai%20under%20jerusalem%20patriarchate&f=false) lists in terms of taxonymy the Church of Sinai among the autonomous church bodies of the communion, in contrast with the Orthodox Church of America which is placed among the autocephalous, but at the same time says that one author describes the Church of Sinai as autocephalous, another as autonomous, while the list also features much more autonomous churches than the 3 stated in the administration section. Given these controversions, the Church of Sinai along with the American, and Estonian churches, may be placed among those with controversial status.

For now I know that First amogn equals is viewed as a leader of the Orthodox by the popular media but is unknown to me if the Orthodox communion and its primates claim to honor the title as leading, anyway the source used to cite the statement that the Orthodox communion widely honors the primate with the title for leadership just says that the patriarch holds the honorary title of first in order (http://christianity.about.com/od/easternorthodoxy/p/orthodoxprofile.htm) which is different. I don not know, as I did for Sinai, does anybody know about that? First among equals is very much of controversion and paradox as a title, I do not know if it has a leading position. --Machkata (talk) 20:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You are not going to find hard and fast answers to all the questions, because they don't exist. For example, the OCA (Orthodox Church in America) is considered autocephalous (I think) by the Russian Orthodox Church, but not by other churches of the eastern communion. That's only one of the ways that status becomes uncertain. With the various disputes over calendar and other things (even politics in Macedonia and Greece), recognition is not uniform throughout the communion. The particulars are simply beyond the reach of this article to handle, which is one reason it all belongs in Orthodox Church organization. But that doesn't mean that this article should have nothing; some kind of summary is needed - just not the details. Approximations are necessary for any summaries, and encyclopedias themselves are compendia of summaries. Deal with it: it's what we do. But this is not an area I concentrate on. No vast expertise of subject to draw on.


 * "First among equals" goes back to Catholic claims of papal supremacy and the east-west schism, the Orthodox response. There is also a hierarchy of honor among the ancient patriarchates, but nothing since the last ecumenical council because that's who sets the hierarchy. But all are equal in authority within their jurisdictions. None of that should be left out of WP. Details that are too many for a short exposition here belong in another article, I think. Evensteven (talk) 21:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, American, Sinai, these are all with controversial status. This is not very important to concentrate anyway.

I am curious about first among equals, I understand that the definition is for honor not authority, but as term is literally a paradox is the honoring a leadership by the Orthodox communion true? What do the equal primates claim, Barthlomew and the others, do they declare him a leader, a shepherd, a spiritual guide or something like that?--Machkata (talk) 21:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "Controversial" status? Not so much. "Uncertain", yes. "Controversial" overstates the matter considerably, as I don't hear a lot of arguments going on. Careful choice of words always matters, sometimes critically.


 * "Honor" means that when the leadership gathers in synod, they give precedence of position. Thus, the Ecumenical Patriarch presides over the meeting. However, he does not make "final decisions", dictate results, or ensure compliance. The meeting itself is collegial, among "equals" as much as any meeting of humans is. There are always natural leaders, persons with special gifts, etc., and their voices may end up carrying more weight. Consider that St. Athanasius was just a deacon at the First Council of Nicaea, yet his voice was heard quite clearly, and listened to intently by the bishops. Rank is only rank: it counts, but not for everything. Evensteven (talk) 21:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

But no other autochephaloes primate declares Barthlomew as his leader, do any? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Machkata (talk • contribs) 11:28, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "His" leader? As in "having authority over me"? No. As in "I embrace him as a fellow leader in the faith and honor his position"? Yes. As in "I always follow his lead"? No. As in "I always listen and give weight to his words?" Yes, I would think so. Collegiality is a "sort of / kind of" equality, a combination of that with respect and mutual engagement. It's also dynamic. Influence works in many directions, sometimes all directions at once. Influence is not domination, and domination works against collegiality. I wonder if you are not looking for some hard and fast, even legal, definition here. I don't think a legality applies, and I actually think that is one of the arguments Orthodox have with Catholics regarding the Pope. Even trying to formulate a strict rule frustrates the whole intent of collegiality, which must remain flexible in order to work. Consider metallurgy. Why are buildings not constructed with supports made of titanium? It is lighter, stronger, harder than iron or steel. Answer: it is also more brittle. In composition with softer metals it strengthens and hardens them, and then its particular virtues lend themselves better to most applications. The key here is that the leaders of the autocephalous churches have a dynamic, flexible, flowing relationship when they meet together. It's not exactly "equality", but it ebbs and flows with the Holy Spirit who guides us all. It doesn't sit there fixed in stone; it lives. Evensteven (talk) 17:54, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

You did not answer my question, in the article it is said "widely honored by the Orthodox communion as first among equals for its leadership", while there is not any source cited claiming that by the Orthodox communion, and most prominently by the 14 aurtocephalous primates in the communion(including Barthlomew himself), thi is recognised as leadership? The only cited sources for his leadership is CBS News by the journalist Bob Simon. My question was, as in the article is claimed that "the Orthodox communion honor first among equals for its leadership", have the autocephalous leaders of the Orthodox communion really declared these claimed views yet? Whatever really is this sentence in the article is made up of a source falsification which I am going to explain below.

So what is this positon in faith and honor, first among equals or a leader? First in order does not literally mean a "leader", so the view that it is both needs to be supported by something. The first among equals is accepted by the other autocephalous primates in the communion, but its definition leader is not and I doubt it. Obviously this definition leadership is still an unsupported claim by any of the 3 sources cited, except by Bobo Simon. You said that other primates view Bathlomew as a leader in the context of "I always listen and give weight  to his words"(anyway which primate of which church body would say this, Russia, Bulgaria, Romania?) but according to the position of the church the Constantipolitan bishop's words carry no more weight than this of the others, this is what says the current position of the church in the article,  though this is most probably true I suggest, it is also unsourced: "According to Orthodox teaching the position of "First Among Equals" gives no additional power or authority to the bishop that holds it, but rather that this person sits as organizational head of a council of equals (like a president). His words and opinions carry no more insight or wisdom than any other bishop. It is believed that the Holy Spirit guides the Church through the decisions of the entire council, not one individual. Additionally it is understood that even the council’s decisions must be accepted by the entire Church in order for them to be valid.", so though unsourced this challenges your claim, but your claim that the communion recognise a leadership is unsourced too and includes a source falsification or OR, or defined anyway.

The claim I am talking about on leadership with three sources in the Administration section, including one fine source and two sources, which are both the same one cloned, citing the statemnt of the CBS journalist Bob Simon, and last but not least includng a source falsification. By source falsification I meant, that the statement in the article say "leadership" which is unsupported by noneof the three sources, The first used source says only "first in order" and nowhere acknowledges a leader, so leadership is a blatant own intepretation and the two are not synonyms. This may be a reliable source, but must be inetrpreted otherwise than currently. The second and the third used are CBS, saying a single statement, that "Patriarch Bartholomew, the leader of 300 million Orthodox Christians, feels crucified living in Turkey under a government he says would like to see his Patriarchate die out. Bob Simon reports." That's it without any additional explanation. Excuse me but the journalist Bob Simon's claim is not so convincing that it does not need an explanation, in fact I do not know if he has any idea on the topic. Anyway if you think the claim of Bobo Simon is realiable leave it. But please, unless you find an acceptable source stating otherwise, remove the source falsification that "the Orthodox communion(i.e. the autocephalous patriarchs) recognise a leadership of Barthlomew". They have never declared so and the sources do not say so and this is untrue until proven otherwise, can you prove it?

The church bodies in the administration section are stil inccorect, autocephallous are not these both with or without disputed status, autonomous are much more than the three stated. Based on my whole statemnt I challenge the rentability of these serious statemtns and the whole Administration section that you created as either unsourced or news-sourced by ignorant journalists. --Machkata (talk) 09:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I did answer your question. If you do not understand the answer, it will be more difficult for you to locate reasonable sources to make your edits, and that is your job. You must understand that equality is not the determinant. The autocephalous leaders are not equal. No group of human beings is equal. They do have the same authority and responsibility in their jurisdictions, if that makes for equality of position. But some jurisdictions are larger than others, and some have greater challenges. How equal is that? There is also no strict equality within the Orthodox Church; there is hierarchy; hierarchy in heaven, hierarchy in the Church. Among the leaders, the four ancient patriarchates are ranked in honor: Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem. It was established in ancient times, and I have heard it was confirmed at one or more of the ecumenical councils, though I don't know details. There has been no such council to establish a ranking among the newer jurisdictions, so that is not a definitively decided matter. But hierarchy of honor there is. That hierarchy is not unchangeable either. Constantinople was a new city in 321, and its see displaced Alexandria in the ranking when the eastern capital was established. (Rome was first.)


 * But you are looking to make something out of this honor ranking that it is not, or to erase it. In Synod together, the leaders work collegially. That is also where the honor is shown, and the first rank presides over the Synod. But it is not a synod such as practiced under the Roman church. There is no authority or domination inherent in the rank. Collegiality. Clear? The Church as a whole also understands this honor and ranking enough to acknowledge it in general, although that acknowledgement has no bearing on the administration of the church. You must understand that when convened in synod, the leaders are no longer simply the top of the hierarchy in their jurisdictions. The gathering itself is done in order to govern the wider church, even the whole church. Collegially they confer, but conciliarly they govern, and each leader contributes to that governing whatever he brings to the council. And furthermore, councils seek the mind of the church, and the continuance of the faith, and hence the guidance of the Holy Spirit. How's that for unequal? For Christ is head of the church, and whatever men do, He is also able to bring things to conclusion according to His will. For decades the Arians tried to undo Nicaea I. By faith in God, Athenasius and others opposed them. By God's will the Church became whole again, and Nicaea was confirmed. But only after decades. Such is Church governance.


 * As for the administration and enumeration sections, you are still apparently unable to distinguish what material belongs in this article and what should be moved. I would suggest again that you edit "Orthodox Church organization" instead of here, because that is where the most detailed information on those topics belongs and that detail will eventually be removed from here. But not everything. If you are unable to distinguish what is what, leave it to those who can. Support your edits with what you consider to be reliable sources, and the editing community will decide if they see anything questionable, but otherwise will let it pass. But do it at "Orthodox Church organization". That's where it has a future.


 * One more thing. There is no deadline at WP. If other editors do not respond to you fast enough to suit you, it is your job to practice patience. This also is why editing in smaller pieces is so often beneficial. It gives everyone the chance to communicate. When things get out of hand at an article, expect reversions simply because of the need for stability. That's the way it works. Evensteven (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I enjoy discussing with you, I appreaciate your time and energy, but I think we filled most of the page and discuss for a little long time few simple things, not even about worshipping God but about administration, so I would propose to simplify it if you would not disagree. We'd better concentrate on important issues. Would you provide sources supporting your statements? Because I doubt your claim that that the "first among equals" is not equal with the equals but is higher in hierarchy, and that these who are said equals autocephalous leaders are not actually equal. The title first among equals literally means that the equals are equals so I can not remain undoubtful about that.--Machkata (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I can't right now. Within 24 hours I will be away from regular Internet service for 2-3 weeks, and other concerns occupy me. But this is your best question yet. You're getting to the heart of things. I basically agree with you about "equals" as you describe it, but words are only words, and "first among equals" is an approximation, a summary, widely used. I have been trying to get you to see that as well. You will need sources for changes you make to an article, that's all. Again, please not here. That can be fixed after, and that's a different issue. See you when I return (or get a window of opportunity). Evensteven (talk) 02:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Break of Anglicanism with Eastern Orthodoxy?
Sentence 5, paragraph 2, section 1 (Orthodoxy), "[T]hough it was united to Orthodoxy when established through the work of Saint Augustine of Canterbury in the early 7th century, its separation from Orthodoxy came about indirectly through the See of Rome," is problematic in its structure. Directly or "indirectly", the final, and thus main, thrust of this sentence is that Anglicanism's break with Orthodoxy was somehow the doing of the Roman church. Nothing could be further from the truth: at the time of the establishment of the Church of England, the Great Schism was already 500 years old and so had nothing whatsoever to do with Anglicanism or vice versa. Augustine of Canterbury did not "unite" the Church of England to anything, much less to Eastern Orthodoxy. Augustine was a Benedictine - therefore a (Roman) Catholic - who converted various of the English people to Rome's (liturgical) version of Christianity. Already at that early date (c. 600 CE) there were differences in liturgy (but not theology) between Rome and Constantinople. England was converted to the Roman variety, not the Constantinopolitan variety of liturgical practices and so no separation from Eastern Orthodoxy is logically possible. Furthermore, the Schism (1054) between Rome and Constantinople neither could, nor did, anticipate another schism (1534) between Rome and England 5 centuries later. Rome (as in the Catholic Church headquartered in Rome) is the epitome of Catholicism (notice the capital "C") and the disunion of English Christians was a break with that Catholicism: the break of 1534 had nothing to do with Orthodoxy in the least.

Additionally, I don't think a narration on the why's and how's of the establishment of the English Church has any place in a discussion on Eastern Orthodoxy unless all other denominations of Christianity are similarly treated (for comparison's purposes, perhaps - but no, it doesn't belong in this article at all). The paragraph mentions/implies the establishment of the Assyrian Church as being the result of certain Christians refusing to accept the doctrines of the Third Ecumenical Council, and the establishment of the Oriental Orthodox Church by similarly refusing to accept the doctrines of the Fourth Ecumenical Council. To be logically consistent, the evangelism of Augustine should be balanced by whomever evangelized the (geographically placed forebearers of the) Assyrian and Oriental Orthodox Churches. Since neither of those two are mentioned, neither then should the other (Augustine). The article gives the antecedent causes of the establishment of the Assyrian and Oriental Orthodox Churches but doesn't balance that with the antecedent cause of England's break - the (4th) sentence merely states that England "separated" from Rome. Of course it did, but why? If it is necessary to mention the causes (3rd & 4th Ecumenical Council disputes) of the splits of the other two churches mentioned, then it is also necessary to mention the cause (Henry VIII's demand for divorce) of the split of the third church mentioned - and not go on instead about the establishment of that third church.

Another point: the article mentions that along with Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism, Assyrian(ism?), and Oriental Orthodoxy make claims to being "...today the continuation and preservation of [the early] Church." But don't Lutheranism, Presbyterianism, Methodism, Baptism, and a whole host - indeed all! - Christian denominations make a similar claim: isn't that the entire raison d'être of each and every distinct denomination? Why are none of them mentioned? Furthermore, since there is a Patriarch of Moscow, why isn't the Russian Orthodox split from the Greek Orthodox Church mentioned in this paragraph? I think the paragraph is necessary - or at least informative - but needs to be reworked in a more logically consistent fashion, and since the paragraph's topic is on "splits", especially without reference to the evangelism of any particular person. LB2Accra (talk) 07:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)LB2Accra (from Accra, Ghana), 14 Jul 2015

United in communion with...
Currently reads "with the Latin Church". I would suggest Holy See as a better description. There are 23 other Churches in the Roman Catholic communion. Elizium23 (talk) 01:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It used to say "United in communion with Rome", which I think we can all agree was ambiguous wording. I changed it to "the Latin Church" because that is the most accurate description of the state of affairs before 1054: The Greek- and Slavonic-speaking Chalcedonian Churches in the East were united with the Latin Church of the West. Then they broke apart. Then, at various later dates, the other 23 Churches you mentioned united with the Latin Church to form the present-day Roman Catholic communion. But in the immediate aftermath of 1054, the Roman Catholic communion was composed solely of the Latin Church (and perhaps the Maronites, but that is a controversial assertion). So the thing that existed for the first millennium and ceased to exist in the 11th century was unity between the Latin Church and the Eastern Chalcedonian Churches. Things got more complicated in later centuries, but we don't need to go into that for the purpose of a short introductory sentence. Ohff (talk) 02:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Table of adherence by country
We already have a separate article titled Eastern Orthodox Church by country. So, there is no point to list every single country here in this article (I'm talking about the table in the "Adherents" section). I propose that we make some kind of inclusion criteria and to list only those countries that are:
 * listed in the List of sovereign states, and
 * whose at least 10% of population are Orthodox or at least 100,000 of citizens are Orthodox.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  18:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I also have in mind that we should unload this level of detail from this article. I would suggest that we might do with very simple summaries here, not bothering to make lists, and then direct the reader to the details article. (I am suggesting there be truly minimalist treatment here.) This article is already very long, and needs lightening, and adherence is a topic that is less significant than many others, and that also requires a mass of material to cover. It's appropriate that all that material be placed in a separate article, and this one left to highlight the faith, history, practice, and relationship of the church, sometimes in contrast to other Christian churches. So I would go further than you in restricting demographic material here, but I fully support your basic idea. Evensteven (talk) 18:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So, you propose to remove the table altogether? Actually, I think that you are right. The article is already too long, most of the information in the table is already presented in the body text, and of course, there is a whole separate article about adherents. I agree.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  19:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Excellent. And not just the table, but any text that talks about national/ethnic details. Gross general demographic summaries can stay, and then the reference to the other article. But no textual lists either. Sound right? Evensteven (talk) 19:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I was bold and removed some data from the article. I removed the table and percentages, and also data about those contries that have less than 5% Orthodox population. I removed excessive text about the history of Orthodoxy in the United States, as we have a separate article on that.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  19:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I like the change here; thanks. My other thought is for the "Eastern Orthodox Church by country" article. The now-removed material was recently edited and, while it needs checking, might provide updates or better sources. (I was away from all Internet for 2.5 weeks in July, and couldn't get that done.) You're welcome to look that over too, if you wish. Thanks for the action! Evensteven (talk) 20:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh! Well! It seems user Machkata made changes there too. I really should have looked in advance of writing here! Evensteven (talk) 20:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Cleenewerck
Since June, I have pointed out on various Orthodox pages about a self published work by an Eastern Orthodox priest that describes, a fringe theory in my opinion, but nobody responded to what I wrote in my edit summary "Added to Cleenewerck's "His broken body"; see Talk:Primacy of the Bishop of Rome for the discussion. Even without the questionable statements, this work remains tagged  in several Eastern Orthodox articles for months. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 22:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems like you should just delete 'em. tahc chat 03:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No, not so simple since some content attributed to Cleenewerck may be correct. Cleenewerck's work is self-published and unreliable but some content may be correct and better references may exist. Its not my editing style to force my opinion into articles or indiscriminately delete, I prefer to markup and wait for discussions. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 12:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)