Talk:Panagia Portaitissa

title
Since the icon is apparently Greek, and on Mt Athos, we should use a Greek or English title, rather than a Russian one. Also an art historical view of the date & origin of the work is needed. Also the picture looks like a modern rendition of the subject, which should be clarified. Johnbod (talk) 15:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Is this the same as the "Panagia Portaitissa" ? The stub is really remarkably uninformative. Johnbod (talk) 18:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Since this is the English Wikipedia, any title that is chosen should, imho, be in English: "Our Lady of Iveron", "Iveron Theotokos" "Iveron Icon of the Theotokos", etc. (but the simpler the better). My vote would lean towards "Iveron Theotokos", since that is simplest, and the direct translation of the mixed Greek-Russian title it now has. The other terms could be made into redirects here. We should also discuss whether we should have Portaitissa as a seperate article. I feel we could use more imput from "those in the know" before formulating an opinion on that quesiton. MishaPan (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Some ghits: Portaitissa 3,250; Iveron Theotokos 5; Our Lady of Iveron 211; Iveron Icon of the Theotokos 10; Panagia Portaitissa 388; Portaitissa icon 75. Portaitissa seems to be how it is known both to visitors to Athos & art historians, whilst the others occur more in religious contexts. I think Portaitissa should be in the title somehow, & also that we should not have a separate article on the type - it would be either very similar or very short at present. We combine type and prototype in Hodegetria & others (btw prototype needs an art section - currently completely lacking).  Certainly we should have many redirects.   Johnbod (talk) 00:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe the title of the article should be as most common among the experts in that field. I dont object renaming with relevant redirects.Ans-mo (talk) 13:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Without sounding rude, since the original form of this Icon is 'owned' by the Greek Orthodox Church, it is therefore technically correct to use the authentic name given and used among the Orthodox Community, which is Panagia the Portaitissa. All other names are derived from the copies made after the event of her appearance to the monks ... the origins of the name Portaitissa tie into the Tradition and also the prophecies associated to the Icon that exists at the Monastery of Iveron. Also, to call it the Virgin of Iveron is wrong, since this monastery has other icons of the Virgin with other 'surnames' ... An additional note, the terminology for the 'surnames' of the Panagia is THEOTOKONYMIA ... as a rule of thumb in iconography, the name Panagia is used in preference to Theotokos ... so, technically, any articles that relate to names of icons of the Virgin Mary should not be anything other than Panagia of ... or Panagia the ....  as originally defined by the Orthodox Church ...not anglophonic speaking people. No offence I hope .. I do not intend to offend but if this is Encyclopedic then you should use official terminology NOT terminology that makes life 'easier'. My name is Vasiliki, you may contact me as Ixthis888 off www.OrthodoxWiki.org. 25th January 2008 at 12.31pm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.0.99.5 (talk) 01:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your expert comment. I do not object, if somebody changes the name of this article to proposed "Panagia Portaitissa". Although the Russian Orthodox web-sites often translate icon names, as "Theotokos of ..." (see one of many examples). "Panagia" also belongs to a separate type of icon of Theotokos, as stated in Orthodoxwiki, together with Hodigitria, Eleusa, Panakranta, Agiosortissa, Oranta. As for me, I am not expert in this field, so I do not object, if experts copyedit and change, according to their knowledge. Ans-mo (talk) 07:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed jpg void
There was no any image there, so it got removed.190.207.187.233 (talk) 16:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC) .................................... The article asserts that for fifteen years (1982–1997) myrrh continued to flow from the Montreal Icon, as well as from the copy of it in the Russian Orthodox Church in Hawaii in 2007. The obvious defect in this assertion is that the article cites no independent evidence for these claims--only church sources. No witnesses or scientific studies of the matter are cited. Why not? I think the article needs to be rewritten to explain the lack of independent evidence. Perhaps the myrrh flows only when devout Orthodox Christians watch it, but never when anyone else watches it?184.180.87.188 (talk) 14:41, 5 March 2020 (UTC)