Talk:Mount Athos

Protected edit request on 19 January 2018
Can an admin please replace the now-cited, status quo ante first sentence of the section called "Ottoman era"? Here is the sentence:

"The Byzantine Empire was conquered in the 15th century and the Ottoman Empire took its place."

Softlavender (talk) 02:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much Softlavender. It is refreshing to see someone uninvolved determine that the source supports the original sentence. Best regards. Dr.   K.  02:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Replace what? El_C 02:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


 * thanks for the request. I tried to do this myself (just common sense - disruptive edits that lack any consensus, have no place in the articles), but unfortunately I had to self-revert per ANI outcome and Admin request. I am glad that uninvolved editors are seeing how problematic the contested edits by the blocked editor are. Supporting your Protected Edit Request - hope for the best. -- ❤ S ILENT R ESIDENT  ❤ 02:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


 * meant restoring this sourced edit removed by edit-warring. Dr.   K.  02:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The cited sentence I quoted in my request. Softlavender (talk) 02:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

--- ✅. El_C 02:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Disputed sentence, request for discussion


I think that the current section "Ottoman era" with the introductory sentence:
 * "The Byzantine Empire was conquered in the 15th century and the Ottoman Empire took its place."

is better than without it (see the above edit request). But I would like to see some discussion on why this introductory sentence is better than the one proposed by FkpCascais:
 * "The Byzantine and Serbian empires were conquered in the 15th century and the Ottoman Empire took their place."

especially as it immediately follows a long section on "Serbian era and influences". Paul August &#9742; 11:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


 * First, the Serbian section was added recently and it is badly sourced with many sections unsourced. Second, the current sentence is supported by a reliable source and that source mentions only the Byzantine Empire and not the Serbian Empire. Third, the Serbian Empire, according to its own article and even the recently added section in this article, lasted until 1372, about 80 years shorter than the Byzantine Empire. The Ottoman Empire was thus the successor of the Byzantine Empire, and not the Serbian Empire which had eclipsed 80 years earlier; see also The empire created by Stefan Dushan did not long survive his death (1355): Athos was lost by 1371; and by 1389 the Serbs had become vassals of the Ottomans.. Fourth, the Byzantine Empire lasted for hundreds of years at Athos, so it would be UNDUE to add it in the same sentence with the short-lived Serbian empire. Last, but not least, there is no text that I know of that makes the connection between the Byzantine Empire and the Serbian Empire in the same sentence as the one edit-warred on by the now blocked editor. It is just pro-Serbian POV/SYNTH.  Dr.   K.  11:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you make a persuasive case. Paul August &#9742; 11:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you Paul. Dr.   K.  11:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I also see no reason to group Byzantine and Serbian empires together in the same sentence, even if it were true that both empires were conquered in the same century. I would like to change the first sentence to "The Byzantine Empire was conquered in the 15th century by Ottoman Empire.". The "took it place" phrase is too clumsy. 141.136.223.3 (talk) 21:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I agree. I also agree that the phrase you mentioned sounds clumsy. Dr.   K.  22:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I support the change 141.136.223.3 suggests. -- ❤ S ILENT R ESIDENT  ❤ 12:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The Serbian era section should be written from scratch, not to mention that most info there is Ottoman-era.Alexikoua (talk) 15:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Greek Wikipedia page
Can this and the Greek WP page (which has limited inter language WP links) be cross linked. Jackiespeel (talk) 09:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm, this seems complicated. Apparently there are a handful of foreign-language Wikipedias (including French) that have up to three distinct articles: one about the mountain, one about the peninsula, and one about the monastic polity. Up until recently, we here and most other Wikipedias had only a single article for all three. Now, EN has this main article (mountain+peninsula) and another for the polity. Our main article is linked to the French "mountain" article. The same is true for the bulk of the single-article items in the other foreign Wikipedias. However, the Greek Wikipedia has one whose title and lead sentence emphasize the peninsula more than the mountain, and another for the polity.  So the Greek "peninsula (+mountain)" article is linked to the French "peninsula" article.
 * There may be different ways of restructuring this conundrum, but I'm not sure which is best. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps there could be two pages - the geographical (peninsula and mountain) and the 'monastic state' - but there should definitely be more inter-language-WP linking (including English-Greek). Not something I know how to do. Jackiespeel (talk) 18:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Russian Name
The most common name in Russian is not "Святая гора" (the Holy Mountain) but "гора Афон" - Mount Athos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.17.216.1 (talk) 12:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I thank you for noting that and I fixed it; however, having always heard it called just "Athos", thus did I change it to. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 22:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Mihailo Tolotos (1856-1938)
Mihailo Tolotos, thought to have been born in 1856, who was a monk at the monastery, is said to have lived for 82 years and died, without ever seeing a woman: e.g. storypick.com. I'm guessing this is all exaggerated nonsense? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:42, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's another (probably unreliable) source. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:53, 5 June 2022 (UTC)