Talk:Pan-Orthodox Council

"Criticism" Section

If there is warrant for this section, it needs to be neutral and objective, without such clearly partisan words like "we." Personal experience and opinion has no place in this encyclopedia. Citations are important, but even more so is tone. Also important: brevity. If the article outside of criticism is, say, 5 units long, then the criticism section doesn't need all by itself to be 15 units long. That's unbalanced. Finally, there is already a de-facto "criticism" section in the list of churches that did not attend; if further criticism needs to be leveled, why not place it there? --Akhenaten0 (talk) 13:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, because this proposed "criticism" section revolves almost completely around the word "council" versus "synod" (perhaps implying that everything is a secret Roman Catholic imposition), the section seems to completely ignore that in the Greek version of this article, the term used is "Σύνοδος": Synod. It's fighting a World War over a distinction without a difference. --Akhenaten0 (talk) 13:20, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure I would use the word "criticism" for a section. But I would use the word "controversy." The Great Synod was very controversial and there is no point in trying to pretend otherwise. This needs to be addressed in a measured and balanced manner in the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Really, that would make a lot more sense than these long attendance rolls of people without Wikipedia pages. --Akhenaten0 (talk) 18:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Question

Hey all,

An editor appeared on my talk page, with fair complaints about the article. His post is below. Pinging Elorthodox so they know to look here. The most recent IP(s) editing the article was confirmed by him to be him.

Post on my talk page. Yoshi24517Chat Very Busy 20:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Yoshi24517. I am messaging you because I have been editing the article "Pan Orthodox Synod." The original creator/editor has been structuring the article in an overyly biased manner that does not reflect the format of encyclopedia, but is instead very idiosyncratic and designed to propagate personal views on the subject, some of which are objectively and factually incorrect. Until recently I was reluctant to communicate with the person doing that because I have dealt with such people in the past and have found them to be very stubborn and unwilling to develop a true consensus. They seem interested only in advansing their agenda while bashing the people they disagree with. Such behaviour and articles are unworthy of the encyclopedia format Wikipedia uses. For a long time, I was editing the article accordingly without an account. But recently the original/editor has gotten very agressive with his turning the article into propaganda for his idiosyncratic views and so that resulted in my getting equally aggressive in attempting to revert the article to its previous balance. Regretably, though, the last few edits were done sloppily and I ended up with a warning about being blocked. This prompted me to create the account and contact you. I hope you can get back at me and understand my position. Here is a list of examples: 1) The previous editors put the Orthodox Church in America in an ambivalent light towards the Council. As a member of that Church, I can tell you that is not true at all. See for example, this article: https://oca.org/news/headline-news/holy-synod-issues-statement-petitions-on-the-holy-and-great-council Our scholars were also among the drafters of a letter sent to every Church urging them to attend and not give in to the pressure of extremists voices subjecting certain Churches to pressure not to attend. Here is the letter http://myocn.net/over-1000-orthodox-scholars-urge-the-council-to-be-held-in-june-2016/ (notice all the scholars from the OCA). I edited the section to reflect this reality, but the editors keep reverting it to their biased way. Therefore, I consider them to be vandalizing the article, since they are doing it repeatedly. 2) They provided the coat of arms of the pullout Churches, but not the attendee. This was a very deliberate move designed to create an impression in the minds of the reader. Again, this is not encyclopedic, but propagandic in nature. 3) The letter of Patriarch Bartholomew was then referenced to in manner that is misrepresented. The proper translation of the letter can be seen here: https://panorthodoxcemes.blogspot.gr/2016/12/the-trute-traslation-in-english-of.html From the actual letter we can gather a few facts the Patriarch is not demanding deposition of the clerics in question. He is asking for admonishment. The true translation also reveals that the Patriarch is also not against the group's opposition to the Council per se, but to the way the group has been conducting their crusade. This is evident in the letter's description of the group. The Patriarch knows there are critics and knows two of the pulout Churches have taken a hard stand against the Council and the other two a reserved one. There is no criticism there. The difference between the pullout Churches and the group is that the pullout Churches have disagreed in a respectful manner while the group in question has been acting in extreme ways to the point of calling the Council "heretical" and implying its participants, especially the Patriarch himself such and pretending to be expressing the concience of the Church of Greece (which similar conduct has been denounced by the Holy Synods of other autoecphalous Churches, including the very Church of Greece herself). Here is the real attitude of the Church of Greece's, which is obviously very different from what is being promoted in the wikipedia article. The wikipedia article also claims, using a very selective Catholic source, that it is unprecedented for the Holy Synod of a Local Church to cease communion with particular hierarchs of another Local Orthodox Church. This is obviously not true at all. Anyone who has read Church history knows that in the ancient Church anyone could and did break communion with whoever they felt necesarry. The most prominent example is the excommunications between Patriarch Michael Kerularios and Cardinal Humbert (a representative of Pope Leo, but not Leo himself) when the latter excommunicated the former. That is still practiced in the Church today. If those clergy from Greece have judged the Council in Crete to be "heretical" and the Ecumenical Patriarch a "heretic" then that pretty much says everything about "communion." They should either attend to the consequences of their actions or ceize their accusations. Also, they are involving themselves in a Pan Orthodox issue, so it is well within the perogatives of the EP to respond to them. In summary, there is nothing wrong in the letter. It is just that the group in question does not want to be hindered and so sought to criticize it through misrepresentation. Yoshi, I hope you consider this and agree that the article as it is is unworthy of wikipedia, which I am sure most readers would appreciate it if the article reflected an encyclopedic format, intead of using the page for mere propaganda of certain people own idiosyncratic views. I will try to clean it up and reason with the editor(s). But I have experience with such people and know they are often unwilling to reason and come to a consensus with those they disagree with. Please, don't block me for my attempts at cleaning up the article (though sometimes I am not so successful). Elorthodox (talk) 19:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm assuming WP:AGF mostly because I'm required to, but I don't know what to do. Can somebody help me out here? Thanks! Yoshi24517^Chat _{Very Busy} 20:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

If the dispute is between two editors, I would take it to dispute resolution and/or even mediation. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, I guess I'm one of those Elorthodox mentions, because I hid the coats of arms (without removing them) inside collapsible lists, and in the same edit (my main flaw), in an effort to be equitable, I added coats of arms to the other churches as well. I can see, though, how it would look to have some churches shrunk while other churches suddenly had clear coats of arms. As for me, I am not Orthodox, and so unbiased either way—I am merely interested in Christian ecumenism. I would echo Elorthodox's position, however, that the page is desperately in need of cleanup, as many editors have changed a lot with very little reason or citation—or have added "me too" citations cluttering up the whole. See, for instance, the long bibliography at the end that is not referenced in the article. As for Elorthodox, I would argue that calling for "reality" against "misrepresentation" is difficult when you claim as bona fides your allegiance to one particular group within Orthodoxy. Such assertions seem to be biased themselves, outside of Wikipedia's general NPOV policy. Now, I know we all bring our own biases, and admitting them is important, but I no more think that a pro-Council opinion is inherently worthy than I think a pro-Russian opinion is inherently worthy. What I cling to, though, is assertions made logically, reasonably, and with citation. --Akhenaten0 (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, my guess is that Elorthodox, who claims to have been editing for some time without an account, may be responsible for all of the edits coming from IP addresses beginning with 2602:306:ce0a:ec10. This, of course, is merely speculation. --Akhenaten0 (talk) 18:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@Akhenaten0:I said in my statement before the collapsed post that the "IPs recently editing the article were confirmed by him to be him." Yoshi24517^Chat _{Very Busy} 21:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Title of article needs to be changed.

This council is not unique in claiming itself pan orthodox. There have been many such councils, and so to avoid confusion the title should be changed to follow naming conventions of other councils. Call it Council of Crete (2016) or something like that, like every other council on Wikipedia is named.

Even "pan orthodox " is in disputed, because the Bulgarian Church already denounced the claim of it being pan orthodox, Antioch has claimed the council does not apply to them, and other Churches who didn't attend voiced similar complaints. The title implies it would be about all pan orthodox councils, yet it is only about one.75.73.150.255 (talk) 04:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

See this as examples of how it should be named:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Church_councils_in_Constantinople 75.73.150.255 (talk) 05:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

In the secondary material (news sites and the like), the council held at Crete in 2016 is referred to as "a pan-Orthodox council" or "the Pan-Orthodox Council" many times as a shorthand for the more official "Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church" (which itself uses terms not specific to time or place or intent). Moreover, the council (whatever its name) is the result of decades of preparation for a meeting across and between all Orthodox churches, using the term "pan-Orthodox" to refer to it. Because of common secondary usage, preparation and intent, and a sense that we should use common terms to refer to things, I vote no. If there is an alternative, though, "Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church" is the name the council calls itself, so that should be the fallback. --Akhenaten0 (talk) 17:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

So what is the next councils article going to be called? They are going to always call themselves "pan-orthodox council". It is like having an article "ecumenical council" to be the title of Chalcedon council just because people call it an ecumenical council. The title of this article does not work long term. If anything "pan-orthodox council" should be an article about pan orthodox councils, not the council in 2016 in Crete that some churches do not even recognize as pan orthodox. It was really hard for me to even find this article because the title is not specific enough! I doubt the first thing people search is "pan orthodox council" when they want to learn about this specific event ! I will try to find a way to get more input in this, because there is little traffic. Also my ip might change but I am sane person as OP since I'm on mobile75.73.150.255 (talk) 09:17, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Russian delegation

Why is Russian delegation listed? Especially with no other delegation listed ? What's the point75.73.150.255 (talk) 09:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)