Talk:Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople

message: Somebody named Tekleni is constantly changing the Turkish translation. I don't myself belong to any religion, but I guess I know Turkish and English sufficiently enough to tell that there's nothing called "" (Konstantinopolis in a Turkish document in 2006 - yeah sure! - )
I removed the turkish translation as Ecumanical Patriarch since they don't recognize the ecumenical status and removed the greek translation as Fener Patriarch since they don't accept it. Make your statement on the subject here before making further edits on the titles. 85.102.60.83 18:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkish Translation 

message: I am concerned of the strange edit and continual reverts that made the majority of the text a unneeded nationalist apologia on attempting to justify the repression of the patriarch. I think my countryman ought to excercise restraint in just using what he has been fed to rewrite make broad and unbalanced changes in a way that adds really terns the article into a nationalist polemic, and one with decreasing support in Turkey. 
E.G., his/her comment" Well not restricted to Patriarchy but I think I also should mention that it has been the position of the Turkish governments since 1923 that all the issues relating to the minorities in Turkey were settled in the Treaty of Laussanne and Turkey is under no international obligations to provide more rights to its minorities.
If this is were the case, then this article must list a huge body of work by intrernational organizations, and indeed Turkish human rights experts, showing this assertion is patently false, and especially for the patriarch.
We would also need to add perhaps three or four paragraphs on the Istanbul Pogrom of the 1950's which in Turkey is now known to have a government pogrom against the Greek minority, which also targeted the Patriarch. Then we would have to add the unfortunate treatement of Pamuk, showing that even our majority commenting against the government line brings heavy persecution.
The version shown as Irpen is a balanced view. It does indeed mention Turkey's assertions but avoids allowing nationalist issues to pervert this article.
tesekkur ederimHanukoglu 15:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size and character of "issues of Religious freedom" 

message: Adding a couple of links and removing some. In wikipedia we do not have the Orthodox view or link on the history of Catholic Pope, not the Baptist view on the Pope, links etc.
The links to New Advent are highly biased Catholic interpretations fo the history, and present serious NPOV issues.DaveHM 19:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So pro-Orthodox links are allowed but ones to counter-balance those are not? Hairouna 18:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Should we begin by adding anti-Catholic links to the Roman Catholic Church article?  —Preost talk contribs 21:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  links 

message: The Orthodox sometimes claim that the Apostle Andrew founded the See of Constantinople. I think this is demonstrably spurious, but I think the claim is common enough to warrant a mention in the article. Hairouna 17:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Andrew as Founder? 

message: I would like to ask from editors to stop removing the fact that the Ecumenical Patriarch can only be an ethnic Greek of Turkish nationality. The only reason I didn't source this in the first place, is because I really regard it as common knowledge. It has a great importance on the modern politics of Greece and Turkey, the former trying to increase its minority in order to preserve the patriarchy, and the latter trying to eliminate it. So please stop being so obtuse and refrain from making blind edits which don't agree with your liberal principles. Miskin 13:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is (saddly) 100% correct. The patriarch has to be an ethnic Greek, Turkish citizen. Ankara refuses to grant Turkish citizanship to a a non-Turk who might be elected Patriarch. Copmpare this with the Vatican (a Polish, then a German Pope). Also compare this to a non-Greek monk who is accepted on Mount Athos, he is granted Greek citizenship.Politis 14:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnicity of the patriarch 

message: Okay, let's discuss reputable sources.  The "spiritual leader" language is used in a lot of press releases and news stories.  It is not, however, one of the EP's official titles, nor does it seem to be used in scholarly sources on Orthodoxy.  Let's try to cease the endless reversions and hammer out some agreed-upon citations.
The EP's website does use the phrase spiritual leader to describe the current EP, but it is at one point in the article modified by the word primary (thus, "primary spiritual leader"), which definitely qualifies the role in a way different from the "spiritual leader of the world's [insert figure] Orthodox Christians" language one often sees in the press.  I actually think the 2nd paragraph in that article does a good job of expressing what we're talking about here as the EP's unique role:
:As Archbishop of Constantinople and New Rome, Patriarch Bartholomew occupies the First Throne of the Orthodox Christian Church and presides in a fraternal spirit among all the Orthodox Primates. The Ecumenical Patriarch has the historical and theological responsibility to initiate and coordinate actions among the Churches of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Russia, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, Georgia, Cyprus, Greece, Poland, Albania, The Czech Land and Slovakia, Finland, Estonia, and numerous archdioceses in the old and new worlds. This includes the convening of councils or meetings, facilitating inter-church and inter-faith dialogues and serving as the primary expresser of Church unity as a whole. As Ecumenical Patriarch he transcends every national and ethnic group on a global level and today is the spiritual leader of approximately 250 million faithful world-wide.
The last sentence in particular indicates that the EP sees the title "Ecumenical Patriarch" as something not bound to the Roman Empire, but rather as an indication of his unique position among all Orthodox bishops.  This is what the patriarchate means when it uses the phrase spiritual leader to describe the Patriarch.  We could include this quotation in the article and record how the phrase is used and understood in the press.  —Preost talk contribs 12:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: Is this the right article to place this picture? -- Scriberius 14:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pic

message: I am removing the line:" He has been historically known as the "Greek Patriarch", as a distinction from the Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople."
In all respect to the individual who added item I dont think they studied the history or terminology and are making a statemetn that is objectively false. 
I have looked at a good deal of the Ottoman history, and Roman and the Byzantine history and the Modern Turkish history of this institution and its self descriptions, descriptions by other Christian denominations, primary historical sources through its approximately 1700 years of existance.
To say "historically known as 'Greek Patriarch'" is very strange construct and reflects a poor knowledge since for most of the institution's "history" such a name would not just be rare, but actually NEVER occured either by the institution itself or by any outside observer for almost all of its history.
Probably 1000 yesars with no one saying the phrase "Greek Patriarch" at all!
Historically one has the overwhelming dominance of "Patriarch of Constantinople".  Following this 1000 or more years, we have Ottoman times.  His name was still in his title, and that of both other Christian worlds "Patriarch of Constantinople." 'By the Ottoman authorities other Moslems his name was continiously and exclusively "Rum" Patriarch. Rum is a shifting term, but one can say for certain that it was not the term the Ottomans used to mean Greeks. So it is not translated then nor should it be here now, as equal to "Greek". They did not consider the Patriarch "Greek" (Yunan), and indeed the Patriarch was often not in the sense we think of today.  So they may have diffentiated from the Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople but they did so with a term that does not translate as "Greek.
The actual "Greek" identity or usage (not the same always) in naming by anyone is everything BUT  historic, in fact decidely "recent" and in recent times it is still a minority description. 
The term "Greek Patriarch" appear only in a certain small area of certain exarchies after the formation of exarchies in the Balkans. This is an extremely narrow time relative to the history (decades),  the term "Greek Patriarch" is used by this people as part of identity/national movements. Yes,  from 1870 Bulgarian, from 1870's Romanian, nationalists (I don't use this perjoratively) as well as Macedonian identity (with or without Bulgarian identity) and various advocates used this term "Greek Patriarch" to refer to the Patriarch of Constantinople differientiate themselves. Observers of the nationalist phenomena might also use the term in describing event sat that time in that place. the central Balkans is the very small minority of Orthodox (excludes Anatolia, Greece, Russia) so for almost all Orthodox they never used that term even at that time. Futhermore they stopped using this term after full political independence. In the history after 1920's they mean it mostly to be the Patriarch of Greece in Athens (a differnt person). 
So one is making incorrect statement and injecting the narrative and language of nationalist movements that represent a small portion of the Orthodox Church and for a small very time.
This leaves two other usages of Greek Patriarch to refer to him. They are both minor in scope. First is some some option of visiting or commenting western non Orthodox persons (again Orthodox would say "Patriarch of Constantinople"), differentialting with the Armenian Patriarch. But this is absurd to use here since the same adjective description is used then and now in Jerusalem, Alexandria etc where there is also an Armenian Orthodox Patriarchs. So the term "Greek Patriartch" means several different persons contermporainiously in other places. 
When you see it used by serious people anyway refering to Istanbul OR Jerusalem OR Alexandria , it is "Greek Orthodox Patriarch" not "Greek Patriarch." 
The last is in Turkey. Again, No Ottoman would have called him Yunan Patriarch. Without going in deep to the politics of this, through most of modern Turkish history he is refered to as Fener Patriarch, or  Fener Rum Patriarch. This is translated these days since the mid 1950s more as as Fener Greek Patriarch. No one in Turkey is aying this is to avoid confusion with the Armenians. Some Turkish academics and Human Rights Groups are saying the change from Rum to "Greek" has been about imposing in the name a foriegn and threatening identity of the Greek boogeyman, and in the "Fener", which is a small district, reducing his stature. (This iswhy the state is crazy against Ecumenical.) 
In my opinion these movements away from the title he offially has from his own religion are about in some cases western bias, in this some short bursts of ethnic identity movements by others, and in other sad cases, fear of religious freedom or government acts acts agaist it. I think of some of you take some time to look at what is really going on, you will see that taking away his title and description his church gives him maybe is  reinforcing an ongoing and sad wrong.
Of note, the Pope's wikipedia page has his titles and descripotors reading like his offical biography.
:::::::: LOL, I hope noone has been confusing a single letter here, with GREEN Patriarch, which is a commonly known nickname title for him, given his widely acclaimed efforts in promoting ecological interests and developing an Orthodox ethics of the ecology. Eugene-elgato (talk) 14:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing historically known as the "Greek Patriarch" 

message: Guys, I'm not actually quite sure what you're debating here, but judging from the article's edit history you are engaging in another silly dispute about names. Baaaaad. 
First, can we please distinguish the question of 
#"what's his title in Turkish" 
#:from the question of 
#"what's his title as recognised by the Turkish government"? 
These are not the same thing. Because the Turkish government doesn't own the Turkish language. There are people who recognise his orthodox titles and people who do not do so, and either can speak about him in any language, Turkish, Greek, English or whatnot. So: "Evrensel Patrigi" is his religious orthodox title translated into Turkish. As such it's presumably what a Turkish-speaking Orthodox Christian would use. "Fener Rum Patrigi" is what the great majority of non-Christian Turks use. Which of these titles is favoured by this or that government is of absolutely no concern for Wikipedia. Why don't you guys simply give both versions?
Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the article's title is Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, so it doesn't belong in the first paragraph. We could mention in in the "Issues of religious freedom" section where the Turkish government's position on his rank is explained.--Tekleni 18:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you will tolerate only the "affirmative" religious versions of the title in the lead sentence, that would smack a bit of non-neutrality. The article is not only about the religious concept but about the real-world institution, and all names that are commonly used to refer to it in the real world, whether they be affirming its religious role or not, should be treated equally. I suggest to take all the non-English versions out of the lead sentence and join it with the "Greek Patriarch" thingie into a short names-and-titles passage at the end of the lead section. The patriarch is referred to as X by A, Y by B, and Z by C.... Rule of thumb: whenever non-English names need explanations, disclaimers, POV annotations etc., they should preferably be in such a position. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How is this?--Tekleni 18:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't edit-war against it, as far as I'm concerned... Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Problems remain. For eample "Greek Patriarch" is not either an official title nor an accurate "real world" title/descriptor. The "Greek Patriarch" seems to refer to other Patriarchs. We can't say it is historical, that is even more innacurate. The government of Turkey's title also belongs in the religiuos freedom section not the starting paragraph. 4.251.124.73 10:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkish title 

message: I do not know Turkish nor am I an expert on Turkey but I had a question on the following statement in the intro.
:His title is not recognized by the Turkish government, who only recognize him as the spiritual leader of the Greek minority in Turkey, and refer to him only as the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of the Phanar (Turkish: Fener Rum Patriği).
Is this really the best translation of the Turkish designation (or do the Turks themselves use this English language translation in official discourse)? From my puny knowledge of Turkish my understanding is that this is more correctly translated as
:Roman Patriarch of Phanar
Presumably all of you reading this know the history behind the intertwining of the "Roman" and "Greek Orthodox" identities. I realize that in this context the "Roman" designation is intended to refer to "Greek Orthodox" as is common in Turkish but, nevertheless, is this not an inaccurate translation?
--163.181.251.9 18:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor translation question 

message: :Image:Constantinople coat of arms.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 05:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Constantinople coat of arms.PNG

message: A phrase in the intro reads, "... the title has been attacked in the West as incompatible with the claims of the see of Rome." This is fatuous. This title has persisted concurrent with the original one church in the Pentarchy. While the bishop of Rome is currently "out of communion," it is Rome that was recognized as "first among equals." The Patriach's title has never been in question. Just his communion (and, reciprocally, that of Rome's).Student7 (talk) 22:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; my understanding of the disputes is that Rome doesn't object to the title, as it couldn't really because the title was confirmed by councils that Rome considers canonical. However, it'd be useful if someone who has access to the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church cited as a footnote for this statement could quote what it says on the subject. Then we could figure out if this is a mis-summary of the source, or else a disagreement between sources. --Delirium (talk) 22:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

text: "Attacked" sounds somewhat bias. I suggest finding better suitable word (challenged perhaps?). --Paxcoder (talk) 14:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: At the very least, perhaps give the background above with footnotes to explain. As Paxcoder says, "...surprised if Rome finds anything wrong with it (today)." Student7 (talk) 18:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Attacked in the West

message: An editor has said that Turkey does not recognize the Patriarch. I think that the editor needs to show, rather, that the Patriarch is recognized in some notable way by secular, non-Orthodox governments of the west in order to demonstrate the sort of prejudice he is reporting. A secular government really shouldn't be "recognizing" any religious figure, I would think.
Having said that, I wouldn't be surprised either that the Orthodox suffers prejudice at the hands of an increasingly conservative Islamic government. But let's be sure we have our facts straight and aren't just "spoiling for trouble." Thanks. Student7 (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am in no way an expert on the subject, but the issue of the patriarchate's recognition, not only as "ecumenical", but as any sort of institution whose authority transcends Turkey's borders, is crucial to its function and future survival. It is also one of the foreign policy issues between Greece and Turkey. For a brief overview, check . Regards, Constantine   ✍  23:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Impressive reference. I added something to the text. Seemed too tedious to put in the lead. See what you think. Student7 (talk) 23:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, as far as I understand, the non-recognition of the "ecumenical" title is not, per se, a violation of the Treaty of Lausanne, which does not stipulate an exact title of reference. It does however contravene established Ottoman and international practice (other churches and governments routinely use that title, IIRC the US government has issued formal declarations to that effect), as well as the de facto standing and role of the patriarchate within orthodoxy, and is clearly an attempt to limit its prestige and influence to some sort of local minority church. Constantine   ✍  10:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, your rewording has the advantage of being less controversial. Unlike the reference writer, you appear not to agree with the supposed "Lausanne Treaty" violation. My point was not that the feelings of the Parriarch were hurt or his dominion curtailed, but that Turkey was in apparent direct violation of a signed Treaty. Student7 (talk) 12:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Unrecognized by Turkey

message: It is discomfiting to see that the Patriarch might have been "threatened" by thugs. The article says that the authorities found nothing.
Here is a anecdote about policing in Turkey: Turkey wants to join the EEC. So the EEC sends over folks to monitor police (along with dozens of other govt functions). They ask "can we examine your police reports." The police looks at each other. Huh? What do you do when someone makes a report of something stolen for example? What the police did is go down to the neighborhood where it happened, pick someone at random and beat the living stuffing out of him! When they let him go, they told him, and that will keep happening until you guys straighten out burglars in this neighborhood!
Maybe they have changed, but I would not put much faith in any third world's policing ability. This most certainly includes Turkey in this case. My point is that editors are frequently Western-centric when reporting these things. Reporting what the "authorities" found in this case may be absolutely meaningless. There may have been no investigation at all! Student7 (talk) 23:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, BTW, beating up people works. Not a lot of crime. Just not quite the Western way. And "investigations" still means nothing more than likely. Student7 (talk) 23:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "Turkish authorities"

message: Someone needs to put a fine point on what the "spiritual leader" actually does, and what he, as an "administrator" actually does. For most religious leaders this sometimes is not very dynamic. like a business or anything. Does he select priests to become bishops, for example? Does he carve out/merge dioceses? Does he ensure that others do this? A generic job description might already be available for lower-level prelates, that could be linked. Student7 (talk) 13:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Actual authority

message: recently there was a documentation on cnn about the institution and especially it's future ("the last patriarch?"). according to it, turkish authorities offered to grant citizenship to foreign bishops in case of the election of bartholemeus' succession in order to grant them eligbility in this election. this would be eminent against the background of the demographic decline of the greek poulation in turkey, the impossibility of the formation of new greek orthodox priests in turkey because of the closingof the halki seminar and the succession rules.--Severino (talk) 08:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkish state/succession 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Phanar Greek Orthodox College Istanbul.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: This page apparently has been the subject of political flame wars, and of course truth is the casualty. I added a page cite to the U.N. report in the last footnote. However, I didn't expand it as warranted because (1) I don't have the time, and (2) I don't want to get caught in the flame wars. Furthermore, I didn't add the information that I knew was missing and had found elsewhere years ago, about the closed gate of the complex, where the corpse of a patriarch had been hung after his removal during a service and execution in police custody, I believe in the 1930s (which is why I came to this page today, the anniversary of the death of a patriarch in that era). Very sad, and IMHO likely to be repeated if the lessons of history are suppressed by tactics inconsistent with wikipedia's rules.Jweaver28 (talk) 13:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political wars 

message: Could someone add the education of His All-Holiness to this article? I know that the Ecumenical Patriarch is very educated. Thank you. JustTryintobeJust (talk) 20:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Education of His All-Holiness 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090902081314/http://goarch.org/news/patriarcal_ency-08-31-2009 to http://www.goarch.org/news/patriarcal_ency-08-31-2009
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930014750/http://www.cyprus-mail.com/news/main.php?id=27056&cat_id=1 to http://www.cyprus-mail.com/news/main.php?id=27056&cat_id=1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060816085431/http://www.eutcc.org/articles/8/15/document229.ehtml to http://www.eutcc.org/articles/8/15/document229.ehtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091016121740/http://www.patriarchate.org/multimedia/video/al-gore to http://www.patriarchate.org/multimedia/video/al-gore
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: What is the rationale for replacing the SVG coats of arms with inferior-format PNG files? I oppose this move. SVG can easily be resized large or small with no loss in resolution. PNG is fixed-resolution. Elizium23 (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arms: replacement with png 

message: Given the information present in the article and the statements made on this talk page, it seems a foregone conclusion that after the final split between the East and the West, the Orthodox did not think things through when it came to authority and jurisdiction. It reminds me of "The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union" (Created: November 15, 1777, Ratified:	February 2, 1781, Date effective: March 1, 1781,) and superseded on March 4, 1789 by the "United States Constitution" (Created: September 17, 1787, Presented: September 28, 1787, Ratified: June 21, 1788, Date effective: March 4, 1789). This is exactly why there are treaties and such between the Vatican and the Italian Republic.  
Nosehair2200 (talk) 15:21, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: East Vs. West