Talk:Esphigmenou

NPOV dispute
The article on the Esphigmenou Monastery is very far from beeing neutral. The autor does not hide that he is a supporter of the monastery, he accuses the present patriarch of Constantinople of beeing an heretic etc. I think an entirely new article, worthy of Wikipedia, should be written by a competent person. As this monastery is quite a lot in the international medias, I think it is important. Fratersolberg 11:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)fratersolberg


 * The article is too far from being neutral. It has been edited by anons expressing the radical view of the Esphigmenites. It does not need cleanup or de-POV-ing, it needs a complete rewrite... --Michalis Famelis (talk)  15:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Complete rewrite
I have completed a full rewrite of the article. IMHO it is in much better shape now. At any rate, any feedback is welcome. --Michalis Famelis (talk)  19:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the article is now biased against the monastery. The claim that the old brotherhood in Karyes, whom the article unneutrally calls "squatters," attacked the new invaders is disputed. There is also no mention of the monk that was killed or the years long blockade of the monastery that has prevented food and medicine from reaching these aged monks. They are even prevented from fishing right outside their monastery. Wikigator 21:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

the term squatters is completely unfounded ---ba —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.148.49.52 (talk) 05:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Terrible POV bias after recent edits
There has been some recent edits moving from one bias to another, now to an extreme. Things are going to have to change, the article is full of unsourced, POV pushing material at this point. I will post some problems later and see what can be agreed on? 75.73.114.111 (talk) 12:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Things have been much improved thanks to "Dr.K" who cut out POV pushing from both sides. One thing though, I feel we should supply links to not only the main website for the current occupants, but also for the second group who also claim the monastery but do not currently occupy it. So, you can see I added both links in, so you can see both sites and both sides. I hope "Dr.K" agrees with this.75.73.114.111 (talk) 20:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)