Talk:List of Ecumenical Patriarchs of Constantinople

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Comments[edit]

Fix[edit]

This is a mess i'm not about to fix, partly out of fear that the anachronistic "of Constantinople" really is an accepted name for these Bishops of Byz. Felix is now piped directly to Felix of Byzantium, who is also now the target of several other redirects, but only bcz that's what it took to make sense of his entries on LoPbN, Felix, and maybe a few others. Someone with more commitment to this topic has a project waiting for them, to research the proper names for the red lks & create all the redirects that are implicit in the other versions already on WP. (For instance, even in the cases of 136 and 141, i didn't venture to reword the anachronism that may make some sense on this talk page's article, but is horribly misleading in contexts that are restricted to the 1st thru 3rd centuries.
--Jerzy·t 05:21, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Done. I'm still not sure if the article on Alexander (dead 337) has a wrong name. He's listed as Patriarch Alexander of Constantinople. Isn't his correct title Bishop, Archbishop or perhaps Metropolitan? As far as I know, the First Council of Constantinople elevated Constantinople to a patriarchate, but this was rejected by two popes, so the title wasn't established until the Council of Calchedon in 451. Thoughts anyone? --Valentinian 09:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
I've removed references to "Patriarch" this-or-that before 381 and re-named articles accordingly. The title was not used before that year. --Valentinian 21:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
I've fixed some of references PARTIALLY according to "Ecumencial Patriarchate of Constantinople", Encyclopedia Britannica 2005 Deluxe Edition CD-ROM., i.e. this-or-that of byzantium before 330, this-or-that of Constantinople between 330 and 381, patriarch this-or-that of Constantinople 381 onwards. I.H.S.V. [[User_talk:Ktsquare|(talk)]] 02:02, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Patriarchate since 381?[edit]

Surely Patriarchate only since Chalcedon in 451? --InfernoXV 18:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Super information, but much of it doesn't belong here[edit]

needs some fixing up, sadly im too lazy and uninformed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.68.176.147 (talk) 23:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Oecumenical?[edit]

Good folk, just to get a consensus of sorts - do you all think that every single Patriarch of Constantinople needs to have 'Oecumenical' (or 'Ecumenical' even) before 'Patriarch'? Surely nobody's going to mistake any other Patriarchate as the Oecumenical Patriarchate? Does anyone out there support renaming those individual patriarchs' articles back to plain old 'Patriarch so-and-so of Constantinople"? Hectorian's argument here, on reflection, I no longer find convincing. InfernoXV 21:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

"biased" sources[edit]

Which sources would be "unbiased", and therefore acceptable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.30.193.116 (talk) 09:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)