Talk:Isidore of Kiev

message: In Latin Patriarch of Constantinople there is a sequence as follows:
# Gregory Mamme (1451-1459)
# Johannes Bessarion (1459-1472)
# Peter Riario (1472-1474)
where there appears to be a problem:
Here, in Isidore the Apostate is mentioned:
"In 1458, he was ordained as a nominal Patriarch of Constantinople."
Which one is wrong?
(this discussion is replicated in Talk:Latin Patriarch of Constantinople).
--FocalPoint 10:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: It is offensive to Catholics both of the Roman and of the Byzantine Rite to have Isidore listed as "the Apostate."  This may be his title among the Eastern schismatics, but it is not how he is known among Catholics.  This is like having Martin Luther and John Calvin called "Heresiarch" in the titles of their respective articles (which I actually would enjoy).  At least you could say that he is an "apostate" only from the point of view of the so-called "Eastern Orthodox."
:Agreed. Among English-speaking scholarly circles (who else would be talking about him anyway?) he is referred to generally as Isidore of Kiev, or more rarely Isidore of Thessalonica. I'm moving the article to Isidore of Kiev. InfernoXV 18:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I admit it is possible that you are right as I did not read much of the literature on the topic in English. However, next time before moving the article on your own, please elaborate on the talk putting forth the arguments for the move and give the conserned parties some time to respond. The earlier argument that the term is "offensive" was not convinsing if this was the main name known in literature. You say the different name is in fact used more. If so, the move is justified but as a coutesy, please propose the moves at talk pages first and give some time to respond. No one demands formal WP:RM for each move but the courtesy proposal seeking the feedback is almost always a good idea. Thanks, --Irpen 04:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Irpen, thank you for your comments. You're certainly right, and it was untactful and rude of me to move it without warning or discussing it first. I should explain myself. He is usually known as Isidore of Kiev or Isidore of Thessalonica in English-language scholarship, as a look at Byzantine and Mediæval Slavic studies written in English should show. I am aware that his usual title in Russian-language writing is 'the Apostate', but as far as I know, rarely used outside of Russian-language sources. I've been doing Byzantine studies for some years now and have never encountered 'the Apostate' in English, outside of polemical writing. Even academic writing in Greek refers to him usually as 'tês Thessalonikês'. In English-language scholarship, 'the Apostate' is usually only used in reference to Emperor Julian. I hope this suffices as an explanation - please let me know if you would like additional sources and references. Thank you again! InfernoXV 08:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Apostate"? 

message: Clearly, Isidore of Thessalonica and Isidore of Kiev are two articles covering the same topic. They should be merged. Gentgeen (talk) 09:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: Metropolitan of Moscow and Metropolitan in Moscow are two different things. Metropolitan of Moscow was created in 1589, while Isidore was sent to Moscow in 1437. Where is consistency?? Maybe he was sent to Moscow to preserve his Metropolitan of Kiev title, was he? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 19:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the Russian Orthodox Church article, Isidore was the Muscovite Metropolitan of Kiev, not Metropolitan of Moscow. He was striving for unification of Orthodox and Catholic churches, for which he was imprisoned by the Muscovites authorities. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metropolitan of Moscow???