Talk:Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem

message: It would probably be useful to note here what the hierarchy looks like in the modern age. -- Penta 00:00, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The bulk of the length of this article is dedicated to an explanation of the Patriarch of Jerusalem's church structure under the Crusaders.  Since this is a somewhat specialized historical topic about an institution that has a current incarnation almost wholly unrelated to this information, I propose to move all this material to a separate page, unless someone objects.  --Jfruh 19:24, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, sorry :) Presumably some of those still exist, right? I think there is still a bishop of Acre, an archbishop of Tyre, etc...they can have their own pages (and be listed on List of Bishops and Archbishops, and anything that existed for the crusaders but no longer exists can be mentioned wherever appropriate. Adam Bishop 06:22, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ecclesiastical history to its own page? 

message: The mere fact that you are discussing whether to remove highly important ecclesiastical historical data to rather arcane pages makes me question your scholarly ethics.  The importance of the Jerusalem churches structure cannot be underlined more.  Lists of Bishops, Archbisophs, abbots, etc all point to demographic, economic, political, and cultural levels during the period and will help future scholars derive further knowledge about the period.
Lastly, I find several of you who edit pages on this subject continually seek to whitewash important date regarding religion, ethnicity, battles, massacres, and known political objectives of the Islamic actors involved.  This smacks of nothing less than grotesque politicization of what should be history.  
Point in fact: Why was there a Latin Patriarch and why is there no longer a Latin Patriarch?  If we followed the parameters of several of those administrators and others who have edited this page we wouldn't know about how religion played a factor in there being two Patriarchs.  Not knowing the demographic situation we wouldn't understand that there simply wasn't a sizable Catholic community in the area previous to the Crusade.  Nor after removing the list of Bishops, abbots etc., would we understand that after the Crusades there was a substantial number of Catholic settlers.  And of course, since we've removed any discussion of Sultan Baibars campaign to eradicate the entire Christian community from the Levant and Holy Land, we wouldn't understand why there was no Latin Patriarch actually sitting in Jerusalem after the Mamluk Jihad exterminated the last Christians in the region.  
Indeed, CJP and Adam Bishop like to eradicate any reference to genocide in the Islamic jihads but are more than happy to include so called "Christian" atrocities.  In reality, as wikipedia itself publishes genocide is: Genocide is defined by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) article 2 as any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: "Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."  Baibars proclaimed he wanted to leave the Holy Land a desert, he proclaimed he wanted to eradicate all of Christianity from the region, and then carried out a campaign to implement his campaign.  However, saying the Holy See of Jerusalem was genocided is removed from the history of the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem.  
If you want wikipedia to be a scholarly journal then you have to be ready to accept some unpleasant realities about history.
:Wikipedia is not a scholarly journal. If you think there is info which portrays the crusades as "Christian atrocities", and I do not doubt that there is (and I do not doubt that I have written some of it), then the solution is to make that information more neutral, not to add balancing polemic for the opposite side. Like it not, neutrality is the basic rule here. You are, of course, welcome to write factual, sober historical articles. Adam Bishop 04:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are you historians or op-ed writers?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem. 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://archive.is/20120911062817/http://www.oecumene.radiovaticana.org/en1/Articolo.asp?c=213631 to http://www.oecumene.radiovaticana.org/en1/Articolo.asp?c=213631
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) 23:25, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified