Talk:Mount Athos

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Christianity / Eastern (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy (marked as Mid-importance).
WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy, an attempt to organize information in articles related to the Eastern Orthodox Church. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You may also want to look at the current collaboration of the month or the project's notice board. WikiProject icon
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Greece (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Bulgaria (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bulgaria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bulgaria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Romania (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Romania-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Russia (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject World Heritage Sites (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject World Heritage Sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of World Heritage Sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Name pronounciation[edit]

On map showing position of MountAthos it's virtually impossible to see the intended position. Maybe a circle or arrow to site would help our poor old eyes.

I want to clarify the pronounciation of greek vowels and consonants. I am from Greece but I live in UK now and I can understand why is this so difficult for not Greecs to pronounce Greek words. Hagion Oros will be the most accurate tranfer from greek to English even though "H" is not needed for the greeks. The letter "n" at the end of Hagion is basically coming from ancient greek. Due to the fact that Hagion Oros kept all the traditional characteristics of the past Greek History, it would have been discrepancy of not using ancient greek in their everyday time. I dont mean that they talk to each other in ancient greek but all the Hymnoi and songs that are being performed during ceremonies are all in ancient greek. I hope to make it more simple to everyone to assimilate greek pronounciation history as well as traditional and cultural principles. --nakos2208

"Ayion Oros" seems to be a case of using the letter "y" to transliterate the Greek letter gamma. Usually in English the most famous building in Istanbul is called the "Hagia Sophia", not the "Ayia Sophia". What criteria govern the choice of letters in transliterating from Greek? Surely transliterated etyma in dictionaries would have said "Hagion Oros", wouldn't they? -- Mike Hardy

I have no idea. I don't speak or read Greek and just used the spelling that existed in other articles here. I did note that other external pages also use either your suggestion (Hagion), or Agion (see the external link). I'm not aware of any established prefered Greek > Latin transliteration on Wikipedia, so if there is one clearly official transliteration, then feel free to change the Greek words in Wikipedia. -Scipius 22:44 Dec 15, 2002 (UTC)

I think "Hagion" is classical and "Ayion" is more modern, although in actual Greek letters the spelling is probably the same. The "Greece" article says "Elliniki" rather than "Helleniki", and I suspect that's deliberate modernity. (I'm no expert though. If someone with actual expertise in this area decided to change "Hagion" to "Ayion" or something else, could they explain the relevant facts about the Greek language here on this talk page?) -- Mike Hardy

And now I've Googled it, and I find both spellings and some others. I think in Greek it's alpha-gamma-iota-omicron-nu, with a "breath-mark" before the alpha if you follow conventions taught in classical Greek courses. I definitely prefer "Hagion", not only because gamma is conventionally thought of as corresponding to our "g", but also because it's in accord with "Hagia Sophia", so that keeps things simple by not having several spellings. -- Mike Hardy

Another problem: If it is "Hagion Oros" or "Ayion Oros" in Greek, then whence the name "Athos"? Isn't it from Greek? If so, is it part of a Greek phrase consisting of more than one word, that would be translated by saying "Mount Athos"? I'm guessing the spelling would be ΑΘΟΣ. -- Mike Hardy

In both modern and ancient Greek there is no 'h'. In ancient Greek there is a breath-mark before the 'a', but this was likely not pronounced as an English 'h' would be. Most Greeks consider the transliterations "Hagia" or "Hagion" (along with "Hellenic" and other similar forms) to be mistaken renditions and are attempting to correct the error (much as the transliteration of the Indian city of Bombay is being corrected to Mumbai and the Chinese city of Peking was corrected to Beijing decades ago).

As for Athos, Greeks typically (at least in modern Greek) simply refer to mountains using the name, as typically only well-known mountains are referred to by name. Hence, the mountain is simply "Athos" (similarly, what would be called "Mount Olympus" in English is simply "Olymbos" in Greek). I suppose something like "to vouno Athos" ("the mountain 'Athos'") would be acceptable as well when context was unclear, but it is certainly not common. Delirium 07:43 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Well, the Greek name is Αθως (or ΑΘΩΣ in capital letters). I've changed the second name (Άγιον Όρος) since the punctuation did not show. My question is: now that I can see it properly is it because I have Greek fonts installed in my computer or not? Do other users see it properly? Please comment, since I don't want to ruin wikipedia pages by changing the Greek fonts. Thanks! --User: 15:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

EU VAT area[edit]

Would anybody happen to know why Mount Athos - alone of all Greek mountains - is not part of the EU VAT area? (Special member state territories and their relations with the EU#Greece) -- Itai 22:08, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

  • If that is true, then it would reflect the Greek desire that EU law should not automatically apply on Mount Athos (reflected in its accession treaty), and thus preserving its autonomy. --Henrygb 00:25, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
    • It would be nice to see a mention of this in the article; does anybody know details? --The Minister of War 09:38, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I believe it was a condition of joining the EU by the Greeks.

Peninsula of Mount[edit]

"Mount Athos is a mountain and a peninsula" - I'm sorry, but I find it a little hard to believe that the peninsula is called "Mount Athos", not just "Athos". Maybe this sentence could be rephrased? Or, according to the discussion above (as Greeks do not stress the 'Mount' part anyway), could the article be renamed something like 'Athos (mountain and peninsula)'? --Oop 14:29, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

I belive Mount Athos is the name of the peninsula and not a direct scientific description of the area in geologycal terms --JvlivsCaesar 01:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Peninsula, mountain and autonomous monastic republic[edit]

Athos as a name is used for all of these. I propose we keep this article for the monastic republic and create separate articles for the other two: Athos (mountain) and Athos (peninsula). Thoughts? --Michalis Famelis (talk) 02:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The photo[edit]

The photo should say which monastery this is, by name.

Additional, commented out information[edit]

I resectioned and rearranged the whole article, but I don't have time to do any actual editing. The following (huge) chunk was commented out ( with these: <-- ''text here'' --!> in the article and seems to contain information (I didn't read it, it just looks like it).

By the way, to the editor who added this commented out: don't be ashamed to make your additions visible. Wikipedia is not created by some "enlightened" elite, but by common people like you and me. Be bold in editing! --Michalis Famelis (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

the info[edit]

When Pres. Putin visited Rossikon this year, no Ukrainian connection was mentioned. The above monasteries are not property of a specific country, but "belong" to some nationalities by tradition, based on old documents. Any Orthodox monk, from any nationality, can be accepted in any of the monasteries, but most monks feel better if they are together with people speaking the same language. The "Serbian" monastery was donated by emperor Alexios III Komninos (1195-1203) "to the Serbs as eternal gift..." The "Romanian" skiti of St. John the Forerunner (skiti Timiou Prodromou) has a document from the monastery of Great Lavra dated 1820 according to which it was donated "to the devout tribe of Moldovans for creating a coenobitic skiti". I do not know any official document about the "Romanian" Lakkoskiti, although inscriptions of 1606 AD show that the monks were Slavs (possibly Moldovans) while in 1754 are documented as Moldovans. Part of Moldova of that time belongs now to Romania, while another part is today independent bearing the name Moldova. The "Bulgarian" Zografou monastery has no such documents - possibly there were, but destroyed. Up to 1192 it is proven that its monks are Greeks. The Bulgarian Chzar John II Asan (1218-1241) renovated the monastery. In the 14th century the monastery was burned together with 26 monks by raiders, possibly Catalans (although some tradition says that was destroyed by the "Pope"), and all the documents were lost. Between 15th and 19th century it had monks from different countries, like Bulgaria, Greece, Serbia, Vlachia (Romania) and received also great donnations from different countries. Between 1862-1896 it was renovated with expences of the Bulgarian government. Now about the "Russian" monastery. The presence of Russian speaking monks is detected since 1020 in a small monastery named "of Xylourgos", that is today "the Bulgarian skiti Vogoroditsa". In 1169 the abbot asked from the "Holy Assembly" of the monks of Mount Athos for a bigger monastery, because the brotherhood was very big and the "Thessalonikeos Monastery" was offered. In this monastery (today is known as Palaiomonastiro) the services in the church were held both in Greek and Russian language. In the beginning of the 14th century it was also burned down by the Catalans and all archives were destroyed. Very difficult years follow. The Russian traveller Barski in 1725-26 records 4 monks only (2 Russians and 2 Bulgarians) while in 1744 the monks are a few Greeks - no Russians. A little later the monks are transferred to the harbor of the monastery to make their life easier, and this is the place of the monastery of St. Panteleimon of today. In 1806 it was recognized by a Patriarchal edict as "coenobitic monastery of Kallimachis family". This family (of Greek origin) had given many local governors at the countries around the lower part of Danube river (Today we can say Romania and Moldova). In 1874 in this monastery there were 400 Russians and 190 Greek monks, and in 1875 the new elected abbot was Russian. In 1895 the Russian monks reached 1000 and in 1902 about 1500. This "growth" was part of the Russian target to create a naval base in the Aegean Sea for the Russian fleet. During the WWI and after the Communist revolution of 1917) the Russian "soldger-monks" returned to their country and only the real monks remained. It is still called "Russian", but according to the Patriarchical edict it belongs to the "Kallimachis family". This can be interpreted as if it belongs to the "people governed by Kallimachis family" (a monastery can not be property of a family), and on that time those people were living around Danube river and not in Russia. It is documented that most of the monks of the "Russian monastery" today are from Ukraine and according to my personal experience, some years ago there were 17 monks. Anyway, I do not want to fight about all this, and I don't know if all this info has to be placed in this encyclopedia. - Thank you for your comment, this means that there is really scientific check-up of all the info in this great site. Stefanos Sakellaridis - Greek - but living now in Philippines. You can erase this info or you can use it in any way you like !!!


The article states that, because the peninsula was given to Mary, Mother of God as her private garden, it was therefore out of bounds to all other women. It then goes on to say that women are prohibited due to sexual temptation of the monks. Which is right? (and if the answer is "both", the Mary explanation should be briefly re-stated at the area mentioning the sexual temptation angle.) --Canuckguy 05:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The Holy Mountain is prohibited actually to all females, including mammals, not just human women. This is indeed because it was dedicated to Mary, and has nothing to do with monks being tempted by sexuality. Eugene-elgato (talk) 23:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The above would need a source. See bottom of discussion. Shadowmorph ^"^ 09:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Conflict between groups of monks on Mount Athos[edit]

As this appears to be an occasional/intermittent occurrence - an incident was reported in the news today - there should be a couple of sentences on the subject. Jackiespeel 14:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

For a more thorough description of the conflict see Esphigmenou Monastery#Controversy. --Michalis Famelis (talk)

Greek -> English[edit]

The English needs touching up - I'll do it if no one objects. InfernoXV 08:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you mean (the article is not a translation from the Greek wikipedia) but the article does need cleanup, especially the "Administration and organization" and "Culture and life in the Hagion Oros" sections. You are more than welcome to help!! :-) --Michalis Famelis (talk) 14:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Tour Guide Format[edit]

Parts of this entry seem to depart from being encyclopaedic and take on the format of a "tour guide", including advisories as to what the intending visitor should see and do. In this regards, the POV loses neutrality.

-- AnonymousDonor

Just thought i'd mention that a useful english expression for 'diamonitirion' is 'hermit permit'.

-- Tom Anderson 2007-06-26 17:22 +0100

I agree the previous "hospitality" section was too tour-guide-ish, but something on the subject should be added, I think. The fact that the number of "pilgrims" (in reality mostly tourists) is going up while the number of monks is going down has had significant impact on the economics and social life of the monasteries. I'll see if I can dig up an article about it. --Delirium 02:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikitravel has the beginnings of a travel guide at [1], relevant content here should (where GFDL/CC licensing allows) be moved over. Jpatokal (talk) 06:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Mount Athos in EU[edit]

Mount Athos is a full part of Greece, European Union and its custom territory, only it's outside EU VAT territory. I removed the wrong news, which included a comparison with Channel Islands which had nothing to do with reality, because Channel Islands are stranger at all to EU. More, I don't understand what you mean in writing that Dora Bakoyannis is the "head of State" of Mount Athos, which seems, also, a provocation for an only-males state. Being part of Greece, the Head of State is the President of Greece; for local purposes, there is not a Head of State, but a democratic Council represented all monasteries. The Ecumenical Patriarch of Costantinople, whose name is Vartholomaios I (not Bartholomew: he is not and Englishman!) is only the religious leader,being the Republic in his territory, together Turkey, Crete, Dodekanessos, Wester Europe, one of the two Orthodox churches of Estonia, America, Oceania and the Metropolitan See of Hong Kong. VAl FROM EU —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah the "head of state" is weird. Mount Athos is an autonomous region of Greece, much like the Åland Islands are an autonomous region of Finland, and as so it doesn't itself really have a head of state, but is ultimately under its parent country's head of state. As far as the position towards the EU, yes, all of Greece is part of the EU... Mount Athos is just: 1) outside the VAT regime; and 2) specially exempted from some parts of EU legislation as part of Greece's accession treaty. --Delirium (talk) 07:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The English, Spanish, and Italian Wiki-articles describe Mt. Athos as an ecclesiastic elective monarchy. I dont believe the 1927 constitution of Mt. Athos described it as a monarchy nor republic. I think that it is better described as an 'autonomous monastic state' within Greece, with an elected Superior (Abbot) called a Protos, who is head of the secular government in Karyes; The Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople is the spiritual head. Why was this listed as an elective monarchy.? This term should be edited out. Kaelin von Gross —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Prohibition of entry for women[edit]

The article states that women are prohibited from entering "not in order to reduce sexual temptation", but because "monks feel that the presence of women alters the social dynamics of the community and therefore slows the path towards spiritual enlightenment". Right afterwards, it goes on to clarify that female animals are also forbidden entry.

How, exactly, would female domesticated animals "alter the social dynamics of the community?"

Seems like fancy dressing for medieval views of the female (of all species, no less!) as "unworthy" or "unclean". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The talk page is about discussion of edits, not about one's views of the subject. InfernoXV (talk) 04:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
The claim should probably be referenced, though (the citation at the end of the paragraph doesn't say anything about social dynamics). --Delirium (talk) 05:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah the mountain traditionally was dedicated by Mary to herself, and it became custom that no female animal should step foot there; this was crystallized by a Byzantine imperial edict on the matter. Eugene-elgato (talk) 23:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no indication that this is true. I removed the unreferenced material about animals. The source that was previously there was a joke, not reliable. It was a reply about potentially one single monastery and the author stated explicitly that the matter was outside his expertise. The first sentence about the reasons of why the monks protect the prohibition also needs a citation. Shadowmorph ^"^ 09:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The monks prohibit female domestic animals because they require extra maintenance. It's not a "medieval superstition", it's for practicality. All monks are required to attend every service which cannot be done when there are cows to be milked. Here is a video where a monk explains the matter:

You have to go to about 4:35. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


The infobox has some flaws. The first flag shown is not the official nor used by all the monasteries who use their own flags. Since mount Athos is inside the sovereignty of Greece the proper flag to display would be the flag of Greece. Since Agion Oros is also a subordinate to the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople then the seal (not "coat of arms") of that can be used. I believe that in the seal of the Patriarchate the eagle does not hold a sword in its "hand" but rather a cross. All that would need some footnote descriptions and maybe the standard country infobox poses a problem. Shadowmorph ^"^ 09:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is a photo of an official occasion in Karyes, Mount Athos

The Ecumenical Patriarch, the head of the Orthodox Church, is seen together with Greek officials. The two flags chosen by the autonomous community itself to be displayed there are the traditional Greek flag and the Byzantine flag with the double headed eagle in the yellow background. Unfortunately there is not enough resolution to portray if the "eagle bearing the cross" or the one bearing the sword is shown in the flag. Shadowmorph ^"^ 10:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

HMS Ark Royal[edit]

What is the connection of this vessel to Mount Athos? I've read all this article and also the whole of the relevant article on HMS Ark Royal and I cannot find a stated connection. Agent0060 13:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

This question is now answered in the article: Stamps for Mount Athos were printed there. Btw, if someone wants to follow this up, the section, as it stands appears, to be a cut-and-paste copyright violation of "Travel Greece" [1] (talk) 07:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Minor corrections and a formatting problem[edit]

I made some small factual corrections regarding the helicopter crash on 11 September 2004 that killed Patriarch Petros of Alexandria and his entourage, and added citations.

Perhaps more importantly, while doing this, and switching from one computer to another, I noticed that although the formatting of the article is fine in IE8, in IE9 the formatting is incorrect. There is a large white space after the Contents box, with the section entitled Geography appearing below the last info box on the right, rather than alongside the info boxes.

Sorry, I've no idea how to correct this myself. StefanosPavlos (talk) 21:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Flags, "official" languages, etc.[edit]

For what feels like the millionth time, I've had to remove the flag entry and some other stuff from the infobox. In all these years during which people have been stubbornly reinserting these things, nobody has ever brought forward any evidence at all that Mount Athos has any such thing as an official flag. The Byzantine eagle flag is simply the flag of the Orthodox Church of Constantinople, and of course I assume it will be used on Mount Athos, just as it is used by orthodox churches all over the world, but that doesn't make it a flag of Mount Athos as such. Unless there is a statutory text defining this flag explicitly and officially as the flag of this specific jurisdiction, it doesn't belong in the infobox.

Same goes for the list of "official" or "recognized" languages. I haven't seen any evidence that the monastic community has any such thing as an explicit language policy defining what its "official" or "recognized" languages are, beyond the simple fact of practical tradition. As long as there's no official designation of such languages, they don't belong in the box either.

And, of course, the "religion" entry in the box should say "Eastern Orthodox", and not a list of separate Greek, Serbian etc. "orthodoxies". These are, after all, supposed to be all the same religious denomination. Fut.Perf. 18:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Emphasising non-Greek languages for Mount Athos - especially in language articles rather than this one - is only going to mislead readers. No doubt the use of a particular language among a handful of monks is of great importance to a small number of ethnically- or religiously-motivated editors, but it's not a meaningful part of the language's coverage. As much Latin is spoken at my alma mater - and at most universities - as Bulgarian is spoken on Mount Athos; but we don't make the infobox of Latin say that it's spoken in a thousand academic institutions. Countless businesses around the world speak English in the boardroom, but we don't add countless boardrooms to the infobox of English language. Or, if editors would rather focus on the official aspect, I would query which Greek MFA document declared that its subject territory officially uses non-Greek languages... Got a source? bobrayner (talk) 20:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
(copying the following over from my talkpage – Fut.Perf. 20:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC))
Hi, I see you have removed the languages from the infobox about Mount Athos. These languages are used in e liturgy (and is spoken) in the following Monasteries:
Russian language is the liturgical language in the Agiou Panteleimonos monastery
Serbian language is the liturgical language in the Hilandar monastery.
I confirm these 2 languages are indeed used officially in these 2 monasteries! Been there myself. I don't have proof to present you as documented fact as people don't get anything when visiting the monasteries.
But I can't confirm that the Bulgarian language is used in the Zograf Monastery because I haven't been there myself. However, somebody listed Mount Athos under the list of entities that officially are using the Bulgarian language, alongside Bulgaria and European Union... You can find Mount Athos listed here: Bulgarian language.
Also, aside from Bulgarian language's page, I noticed that the Mound Mount Athos is listed in these pages too: Serbian language, Romanian language, Russian language. That is why I updated the M.A. page, to be in accordance with the other pages.
Note that Mount Athos does not have its own constitution, nor the Greek constitution binds it. Also, the EU laws and norms do not apply here. Women are prohibited and only monks and male workers, including Fire Department are permitted to visit it. Monks of all ethnicities can live here for infinite days, even withjout EU passports. Liturgy is done by tradition in Greek at Greek monasteries, and in other languages in monasteries of other countries.
I couldn't remove languages from into box if they are really recognised (as the corresponding pages about these languages claim), but what I for sure know is, it is a fact that the monasteries have their own traditions, as they are independent from each other, free to conduct liturgy in their native languages. -AuditoreEzio (talk) 19:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
There is no question those languages are used in those monasteries. The question is whether their use (or that of Greek, for that matter) has a formally recognized, explicit official basis, such as being enshrined in a governing statute of the community in some way. In the absence of such an explicit status, I don't see what these pieces of information have to do in the infobox. The same goes for the flag, which you have now edit-warred back in the infobox again, without engaging in talk first [2]. Again, the fact that the flag is flown on the peninsula is, in and of itself, of no significance whatsoever, because it doesn't mean it is the flag "of Mount Athos", as such. It is the flag of a larger entity to which the Athos monasteries happen to belong – the orthodox church –, not a flag specific to the Athos community. (Just as the fact that, say, the French flag is flown in Paris doesn't make it the "flag of Paris"). Again, if you think that this flag has been officially designated the flag "of Mount Athos", cite a reliable source to that effect (and not some random Wikipedia page, as you did.) I shall remove this again, and I am warning you against continuing to edit-war, as you have done so often in the past. Fut.Perf. 20:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Most customers speak Portuguese in the bar near my house. It doesn't mean that bar is officially part of the Lusosphere; it's just a place where a few expats meet. So what? Either we get a reliable source that specifies these official languages, or we remove claims that they're official languages. bobrayner (talk) 20:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
First of all let me note that prior to reverting your edits, I did check the talk page first, but you had no comments left here. Apparently the talk page i visited was the cached version of it (your complaints to Wikimedia, not me), and the only way to see that you posted a comment was via your User Contribs page. Second, the yellow flag with the double eagle, is the one and same flag the monks raise anywhere in Mount Athos, it be on the central squares of their monasteries or in the offices in the main building. The monastic state uses this flag to represent it in the meetings at Ouranoupolis and is used anywhere. I have no documents how this flag came to use by the monastic state, but if you remove it from its infopage, you better do the same on Greek Orthodox Church's page because no proof exists how this flag is the OFFICIAL flag of the entire church, except that it is used, like Athos does. Am I wrong? There are no proofs that the GOC declares in its charter that the double headed eagle on its white background is actually official. You too, won't find proof of its official status, but you will find fact that it is used as official in all churches of the GOC and its diaspora. If we shall remove the flag from Mount Athos page, then, I suggest the same to be done for the Greek Orthodox Church's page as well, as no official document proves it is official in GOC aside from its use and mention.-AuditoreEzio (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
If anything is disputed, I would support a fundamentalist approach to WP:BURDEN. bobrayner (talk) 21:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Bobrayner, All I did is to see Mount Athos listed as State recognizing officially some languages, in these pages: here, here, here and here, all I did from my part is just to update Mount Athos page accordingly. It wasn't me who added Athos in the list of countes/states officially recognizing these languages, in each of their pages... And same for the flag: first saw the Greek Orthodox Church page claiming its flag is used as Athonite Banner, and all I did is just to update Athos page! I fail to understand why you raise disputes here at Athos page when the disputed info is borrowed from other pages...-AuditoreEzio (talk) 21:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Here we go! You wanted facts that the double headed eagle is of the Mount Athos and not just "Orthodox Church of Constantinople's" as Future Perfect argued...
Fact 1: The official documents of the Monastic State of Mount Athos have the Double Headed Eagle as their insignia [2]
Fact 2: the entrance signpost to the Monastic State of Mount Athos has the double Headed Eagle encarved on its top. When people enter the territory of the Monastic State, are welcomed with Emblem of the State, not a symbol belonging exclusively to another church as some here may have the false impression: [3][4]
Fact 3: Agiorite Monks waving Agiorite flag... [5]
Fact 4: The flag is raised as official on every Athonite Chapel, Church and Monastery in Mount Athos,alongside Greek national flag: [6] [7]
Fact 5: The official stamp used in Mount Athos to verify Athonite documents, is Double Headed Eagle in blue ink. The stamp writes: "[monastery's name] of the Holy Mountain". [8]
Fact 6 - The official website of the Monastic State of Holy Mountain, "In", which anyone can visit and learn more about Mount Athos, features the map of the state, and on top of it, the Athonite emblem, a Double Headed Eagle, proudly stands on top of the page: [9]
Double Eagle flag anywhere, Double Eagle in the Monastic State's official documents, Double Eagle on signs and monuments.
The Double Headed Eagle is the official emblem of the Athonite state, and which the Athonite state use in its flag too... None can deny this fact. I have no access to the legislation of the Athonite state, however I proved that the organization considers the double headed eagle to be its official emblem, if not legally, at least by tradition, and I proved that the Athonite state also uses the very same symbol it in its flag. The Athonite state uses no other flags, only one flag for all of its monasteries - the Double Headed Eagle on a yellow background for all occasions, including the diplomatic protocols such as in the visits to Mount Athos and the representations at Ouranoupolis. AuditoreEzio (talk) 00:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
The user came with a good idea - have the flag as thumbnail next to text, this way none can dispute it. FutPerf, you should not remove this! It is good now. Thanks,! -AuditoreEzio (talk) 04:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
You still don't see the analogy, do you? Yes, of course, all sorts of institutions on Mount Athos use the eagle symbol. Just like all sorts of official institutions in Paris use the French flag. That doesn't mean the French flag is the flag "of Paris". It's the flag of France, of which Paris is only a part. You have still not provided evidence that the eagle symbol is the emblem "of Mount Athos", rather than that of the larger entity of which the Athos institutions are merely a part. Fut.Perf. 09:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Fut.perf., your analogy fails. The unnamed official institutions in Paris you refer to are not related to France in the same way as Mt. Athos is related to Greece. Mt. Athos has a unique political recognition going back centuries, for which there is no reasonable analogy. Let it go. Evensteven (talk) 16:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Fut.Perf. makes two assumptions: (a) that the flag we show in the infobox must be the official flag of the state, and (b) that for the flag to be official it needs to be adopted in law or some such. Instead of brushing him off for apparently having posited a "failed" analogy, you might wanna argue the essence. (talk) 17:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
You are quite right,; that came off sounding rather combative. I think you make two excellent points about "official" and "lawful", and agree backing for neither are required for inclusion of the flag here unless we say "official" or "lawful". Fut.Perf., it is the west that is obsessed with officialdom and lawyering, and it is the west that invented the separation of church and state. Mount Athos is all about the Church, and, as the article says in section 3.5, "Modern times", it operates "following ancient privilege". That is a privilege granted by the state, in a region where church and state have never been considered separate, but are in a mutual relationship that is as harmonious as they both can maintain. That is more harmonious when Greeks rule their own land, and was probably less (but not absent) when the Ottoman Empire ruled, and even extended so far as a request and acceptance of Hitler's brief protection during three years of World War II. (Who knows what Hitler might have thought about the ancient privilege; his protection was even less temporary than his regime, and the question apparently did not arise.) But the ancient privilege is really that the Church governs Mt. Athos, being under the Ecumenical Patriarch, but under daily control of the Epistassia, who govern it as a church rather than as a state. So lines blur a little here, and world norms do not apply, and the officialdom of the state is absent, and the officialdom of the Church is concerned with spiritual matters much more than with establishing a state law. If the flag flies on Mount Athos, alone without the flag of Greece or the European Union, then that is because that practise has the blessing of the Epistassia, and that is all the "official" you get. What you see is what you get. No other law is necessary. Not like France, right? Evensteven (talk) 20:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Future Perfect, what you said makes sense but your methods and logic are wrong. Yesterday you made the point that the Infbox is where only "official by law" stuff goes, while any "official by use" or "official by tradition" stuff has no place in it, right? In this case, couldn't be more productive of your part, dear FutPerf, to just move, yesterday, the flag from the infobox to other parts of the article (since you were, as you stated in one of your comments, aware, for a long before me that while the flag's status was unproven, its use by the authorities was not disputed) instead of removing it completely all together from the page? You rushed, 2 days ago, to revert my edits instead of putting them into a more appropriate place, by moving the flag to lower parts of the article...
FutPerf, removing the flag entirely from the article at the beginning of our bispute, was like claiming that there was no evidence of a such flag in Athos, (while clearly the opposite was true), and turned out to be a dispute of its unproven official/unofficial status which is a completely different case. I mean, the whole edit revert war could have been avoided if you just moved the flag somewhere else due to being unprovenly unofficial. After all, you complained that, "In all these years during which people have been stubbornly reinserting these things", because you failed to distinguish the difference between the status (official or unofficial) of a flag, and the right of the people to this information (the people reading about Mount Athos should have the right to be informed that there is indeed a flag used in that place, be it official or not). Because the presence of information, official or not, is what makes Wikipedia. After all, Wikipedia is about facts.
So I did clear out this dispute, and eliminated the possibility that the presence of flag in Athos is not coincidal, that the use of Double Headed Eagle in all official aspects of Athonitre institutions and its flag, prove the right for the flag to be in article, regardless of how official this is. For as long as its use, official or traditional, is proved.
Second, about languages, I shall note that Im just trying to include as much detail as possible in every page, with info borrowed from other pages (aka synchronize different pages in the same Wikipedia) so if the Russian language page lists "Mount Athos" in the list of entities using OFFICIALLY the language, shouldn't you, dear FutPerf, instead of simply reverting my edits in Mount Athos' page (which I did so info is in accordance with the Russian lang page), you also take measures for that other page where the disputed info originated from? You rightfully reverted my Recognized Language edits which are based on info borrowed from other pages, but I feel that you are ignoring these pages. Should I take action instead? What could be best, edit Russian language page directly and remove Athos from its infobox, or ask in the talkpage and put citations? Note: Same issue for infoboxes in Bulgarian, Serbian and Romanian pages too, Mount Athos is listed in them...
EDIT: nevermind, it has been addressed already! No more false info in the pages of the languages, thats nice. Thanks!.-AuditoreEzio (talk) 17:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Also I agree with Evensteven that Mount Athos is very unique and cannot be treated in a sense like how most institutions are treated, Mount Athos is one of the longest-surviving recognized entities in the world, existing more centuries than most other institutions ever did. Its very old, outmatched perhaps only by few, such as Vatican in terms of continuous political recognition, and autonomy too.-AuditoreEzio (talk) 17:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
tl;dr. Fut.Perf. 21:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Very well, your choice. Not a way to make progress, though. There are things you don't understand. Evensteven (talk) 00:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


Greek Constitution, Article 105 is pretty vague with respect to the issue at hand. On the other hand here is the Καταστατικὸς Χάρτης Ἁγίου Ὄρους; article β'.26 (cited in the relevant Greek wikipedia article) is about the language, it's Greek; I guess this is as official as it could get. Article γ'.31 describes the only official thing/symbol I've found described therein, the seal but it's not the Eagle (there are also official seals for each monastery, but well, by definition they're not about all of Mount Athos). Now out of the refs used at the Greek Orthodox Church article, this seems to me to be the most serious looking, the most promising, the one one could cite here; I would prefer something much more authoritative, but the sources-via-google seem sparse or silent on the issue so this source could perhaps suffice... Thanatos|talk|contributions 20:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The barring of women and human rights[edit]

The sexist curfew is like interim measures that became permanent by state law, for people of specific sex that didn't commit any crime. Please more data needed on the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:410E:A400:A114:24C8:8D5C:CD5D (talk) 14:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Lead sentence bloat[edit]

Some editors have been filling up the lead sentence with multiple foreign-language translations and insist on their reinsertion [3]. This is a typical example of lead bloat and lead-fixation pedantry. There is a very good reason MOS:FORLANG recommends including not more than one foreign translation in this position. Currently, this article has seven alternative strings: one for English pronunciation, three versions of Greek, two of Bulgarian, one of Serbian. Moreover, the whole thing is inconsistent and unprincipled: the Serbian and the Bulgarian versions are exactly identical and thus redundant; the argument that "those are the languages of the monasteries" falls flat because on that account the list is not even complete (if we list Bulgarian and Serbian, why not Russian and Romanian also?) On the whole, the list is useless to the reader. It can't be repeated often enough: we do not include foreign equivalents in the lead as a symbolic badge of recognition of the relevance of this or that national group for a given place. The lead sentence needs to be reserved exclusively to those terms that are actually relevant for English-speaking readers. The single local official name (in this case Greek) is usually relevant in this way because English readers will come across it in some maps and atlasses that print names in their local forms. All other names are relevant only for somewhere further down in a "names" section, or the second paragraph of the lead that deals with naming. Fut.Perf. 08:53, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your edit. It is better structured now and the information is still there. --Petar Petrov (talk) 12:21, 29 May 2016 (UTC)