Jump to content

Talk:Persecution of Eastern Orthodox Christians/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Requested move 8 March 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. After nearly a month and a relisting over 2 weeks ago, it would appear that we still haven't found consensus for a new title, defaulting to the status quo. Cúchullain t/c 17:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


Persecution of Eastern Orthodox Christians → Anti-Eastern Orthodox sentiment – To broaden the scope of this article to match Anti-Catholicism and Anti-Protestantism. Both Persecution of Catholics and Persecution of Protestants are redirects to their respective "Anti-" articles, in order that the articles' scope be broad enough to encompass both hostile sentiment and actual persecution. I respectfully submit that this is what should be done here, as well. Aervanath (talk) 10:47, 8 March 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Cúchullain t/c 15:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Support. That would be an appropriate solution, since this is general denominational article on negative sentiments and animosities towards Eastern Orthodox Christians. Proposed title would fairly reflect the full scope of this article. Since we already have full-scope articles on Anti-Catholicism and Anti-Protestantism, it would be fair to ensure and acknowledge the same full scope of this article. Similar subjects on all denominations should be treated equally. Regarding the proposed style, it should be noted, as in various previous discussions, that the proposed term "anti-Eastern Orthodox" is also used by the FBI as official designation for negative sentiments and animosities towards Eastern Orthodox Christians (see more than 800 hits for such use of the term on Google Search). Therefore, same terminology should be applied here. Sorabino (talk) 13:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Paine Ellsworth, are you serious? :) Why would you use the term "Catholicism" in title of this article? :) This article is about Eastern Orthodox Christianity, not about Catholic Church (see: Catholicism is redirecting to the Catholic Church). And also, the term "sentiment" is commonly used for this type of articles. For example, article on animosity towards Hinduism is titled Anti-Hindu sentiment and there are many similar examples, just look a the list here: List of anti-cultural, anti-national, and anti-ethnic terms. The title style "Anti-(X) sentiment" is commonly used for this type of articles, so why shouldn't it be used here? Sorabino (talk) 19:24, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
The term "Catholicism" is used because the article, to which you link, tells us that the Eastern Orthodox Church is "officially" known as the Orthodox Catholic Church.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  01:40, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Officially, but not commonly. Though they're both pretty much the same to me, I think I read somewhere that right after the Schism both considered themselves Orthodox AND Catholic (depending on the context). Not in the modern common usage, though. The official name is probably an archaic leftover. byteflush Talk 02:05, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Just a second, you are mixing two terms here. The user Paine Ellsworth has proposed the term "Catholicism" and that term is not related to the Eastern Orthodox Christianity, because there is huge terminological difference between Catholicism as designation for the Catholic Church, and Catholicity as theological and ecclesiological concept of all traditional churches, including the Eastern Orthodox Church. Therefore, term "Catholicism" can not be applied here in any form. Sorabino (talk) 02:11, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Okay, then in order to maintain the larger scope of the article, why not rename it to just Anti-Eastern Orthodoxy? (not entirely certain if there should or should not be a hyphen between "Eastern" and "Orthodoxy" – probably not.)  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  02:20, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I actually agree that "Catholicism" can not be applied here. Also, as far as I know, the common name of the EOC doesn't mention Catholicism or Catholicity. I only mentioned the adjective Catholic, which could refer to both of those nouns; however, since the common name doesn't refer to any of these, it's a moot point. To make myself clear: I oppose to Paine Ellsworth's rename suggestion. byteflush Talk 02:26, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, such title would also solve the main problem here, in regard to the scope of this article, but since that term can also be used as common designation for theological opposition to particular doctrines of the Eastern Orthodoxy, it seems to me that for the sake of clarity it would still be best to use the proposed title: Anti-Eastern Orthodox sentiment. Comparative analysis of complex titles of articles on animosities towards various communities shows that term "sentiment" is being added in such cases precisely for the sake of clarity (see the list of of anti-cultural terms). Sorabino (talk) 02:59, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
@Sorabino:, as i said in the previous renaming discussion, unless your proposal has the word Christian in it (so it is: Anti-Eastern Orthodox Christian sentiment) i wont support it because its still vague. Just having Anti Eastern Orthodox on its own in the pagename does not tell a reader (who is not familiar with the internal divisions of Christianity) what they are looking for when searching and wanting to further their knowledge on the topic. If your willing to add the word Christian to it, i'll support it, absent that i wont. Best.Resnjari (talk) 13:06, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
@Resnjari:, there is no ambiguity regarding denominational terms like Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy. Term Eastern Orthodoxy has only one meaning and redirects to Eastern Orthodox Church. Term Oriental Orthodoxy also has only one meaning and it is actually used as a title for the article on Oriental Orthodox Christianity. Do you have any proof for the claim that term Eastern Orthodox is ambiguous? It has only one meaning and redirects to Eastern Orthodox Church. So, there are no basis for your claims. Sorabino (talk) 19:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
@Sorabino:, agree to disagree. The current pagename has the word Christian/s + Eastern Orthodox in addition to the word Persecution in it making a reader able to find the page in the searchbox or if one was to google for it on the web based on name of group and topic. So in the end mine is a vote of oppose to your current proposal as it does not satisfy those parameters contained in the current name.Resnjari (talk) 20:07, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
@Resnjari:, it seems that you have no real evidence for your claims. There are no other meanings for the terms Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Orthodoxy since they point directly to the Eastern Orthodox Church and the community has acknowledged that in practice. Literally all uses of terms "Eastern Orthodox" and "Eastern Orthodoxy" on English Wikipedia are referring to the Eastern Orthodox Church. So, you are in odds with reality. Sorabino (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
@Sorabino:, my views are known on the issue (as with the previous pagename move discussion) and as such i am going with the reality of the current pagename, as it meets requirements of topic and group notability.Resnjari (talk) 20:48, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: It's literally a week since we closed a CFP with a strong consensus for the current title, in which two editors proposed this name as an alternative and it was opposed by strong consensus, so this feels like a bit of a vexatious CFP. I just think that "persecution" is something concrete that happens in history that we can easily find sources for and create a decent encyclopedic article, whereas "sentiment" is very nebulous and hard to pin down and leaves the page open to edit wars and to original research as we try to establish motivation. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
"Persecution" narrows the scope, and detaches it from related articles Anti-Catholicism and Anti-Protestantism. I suggest Anti-Eastern Orthodoxy, as a mirror of those.--Zoupan 15:45, 9 March 2018 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.
@Bobfrombrockley:, your claims are factually not true. There was no "strong consensus" for the current title, as was explained by the closer in subsequent discussions, and certainly there was not any kind of consensus for the scope reduction of the content to persecution only. Precisely because of the lack of such consensus the reviewers decided to reopen this process, since they realized what was happening here and acknowledged that all denominations should be treated equally. In February, you wanted to delete this entire article, and now you are making claims that are totally unsubstantiated. So, why are you doing this? Sorabino (talk) 20:15, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure @Sorabino: why you would want to make this personal, but this is not an accurate representation. On the talk page above, I questioned whether there was such as think as "anti-orthodoxy", suggesting the article might be deleted if that's the case. Other editors agreed. I waited a week. Nobody put an opposing view, so I nominated for deletion. There was a strong consensus for keeping the article, but almost everyone who argued for keep suggested a name change. You, Sorabino, opened that discussion with this: "There is not a single reason for DELETING this article. The subject of this article (persecution of Orthodox Christians) is quite valid... Since we have general article Persecution of Christians, the title of that article could be also used as a model for possible solutions in this case. For example, present title of the article in question here (Anti-Orthodoxy) could be changed to "Persecution of Orthodox Christians" or something like that." You persuaded us (I said "I think that renaming would probably address my concerns equally well.", and the article remained. So, following your suggestion, another editor proposed a name change to the one you suggested. Eight editors supported a move to a formulation with "persecution"; one opposed. The discussion centred mainly on whether it should specific "Eastern", and so a variant of the proposed renaming was used, with the full support of the proposing editor (and me). That was closed 2 March, and then on 8 March you propose another name change. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:58, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
@Bobfrombrockley:, that is not true, I was referring to the previous title of the article, in relation to the title that was used in the time of the proposed deletion, you should look at the history of moves! In other words, you should inform yourself before making assumptions, but who knows - maybe it is better that everyone should see here how far are you still ready to go after your failed attempt to kill this entire article. It is quite clear that you are trying now to wash it off. You did not have any arguments for the deletion then, as you do not have any arguments now for your opposing vote to the proposed title. And also, you are imagining things: I did not initiate any change of title, not the first time, and not the second time! Both proposals were made by other users, look it up, on this same talk page! And both times I clearly stated my preference for the wide-scope title Anti-Eastern Orthodox sentiment. You voted against it, both times. During the previous discussion, there was no consensus for the reduction of scope to the "persecution" only. Sorabino (talk) 14:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
@Sorabino: I checked and OK you were the second not the first contributor to the AFD discussion, when the article was called "Anti-Orthodoxy" and I proposed deletion. You said The subject of this article (persecution of Orthodox Christians) is quite valid... Since we have general article Persecution of Christians, the title of that article could be also used as a model for possible solutions in this case. For example, present title of the article in question here (Anti-Orthodoxy) could be changed to "Persecution of Orthodox Christians" or something like that. As the proposer of the deletion, I didn't vote at first, only voting after reading your and other arguments for renaming to "Persecution of...", which I evidently found convincing as I voted Delete or rename:... I think that renaming would probably address my concerns equally well. It was a good, consensual solution, which prompted the move request on 22 Feb. There, you had no objection to the new title, apart from the addition of "Eastern", which again found consensual support (something like 7 to 2). This is why a new move request a week after that one closed seems unnecessary. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
@Bobfrombrockley:, as I said above, pointing to "persecution of Orthodox Christians" was in reference to the previous title or the article, you should look again at the history of moves! That is why I was comparing that former title with titles like "Persecution of Christians", while opposing to your proposal to delete the entire article. And also, you are misinterpreting the vote again - there was no consensus for the reduction of scope of this article. You are still avoiding to explain why did you want to kill this entire article in the first place, and why are you naw opposing to the preservation of the full-scope of this article? Sorabino (talk) 04:17, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
@Sorabino: I think you need to step down from all these personal accusations. I never wanted to "kill" the article. I explained in the "What is anti-Orthodoxy?" section of the talk above why I thought the page was flawed (because there is no such thing as "anti-Orthodoxy"). When editors appeared to agree, I proposed the AfD, but was happy to go with the consensus that it needed renaming not deleting. I am not "opposing to the preservation of the full-scope of this article" (if I understand what you mean by that); I am arguing that it needs a coherent title, such as "Persecution of Eastern Orthodox Christians", which relates to something that exists in the world, that people might search for, rather than an incoherent or hard to grasp title, such as the alternatives proposed. You're welcome to argue against this, but it's poor etiquette to ascribe dubious motives and desires to fellow editors. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
@Bobfrombrockley:, you are digging yourself deeper and deeper here. If you had some problems with the general term "Anti-Orthodoxy" you should have proposed the change of title, not the deletion of the entire article on negative sentiments and animosities towards an entire denomination. So, why did you propose the deletion? Because you wanted to kill the entire article, that is obvious. And again, you are avoiding to answer the question, why are you opposing terms that are officially used by the FBI as designation for anti-Eastern Orthodox sentiment? Sorabino (talk) 14:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
On the FBI using "anti-Eastern Orthodox": they use that as an adjective, as they also use anti-Hindu, anti-Jehovah's Witness, anti-Mormon, anti-other Christian, and anti-Sikh, to designate different types of hate crimes. "Anti-Eastern Orthodox hate crimes" would be a reasonable article title I think, or to make it less limited "Anti-Eastern Orthodox persecution", but that suffers from the problem of "Anti-Eastern" being confusing, as identified by other editors below. Note there is no article called "anti-other Christian" anything, so the fact the FBI use an adjective is not in itself a reason to have an article on it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support move to "Anti-Eastern Orthodoxy" rather than "Anti-Eastern Orthodox sentiment", as it includes the spectrum of criticism and opposition to doctrine, to persecution of its adherents (a very interesting topic). I also suggest to have "Persecution of Eastern Orthodox Christians" bolded as secondary later in an expanded lede. I don't see Resnjari's point, as the article has a lede, is categorized, and redirected. If a similar title or concept exists, a hatnote suffices. "Eastern Orthodoxy" is the common name.--Zoupan 15:45, 9 March 2018 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.
Pagename ought to have easy to find terms reflected in its title that allow a reader to search/find the topic/page easily as well. Anti-Eastern Orthodox sentiment on its own does not do it. Needs the word Christian. Without that addition its an oppose on my part, especially as @Bobfrombrockley points out there was a very recent CFP about the pagename with a strong consensus over the now new title of the article.Resnjari (talk) 16:00, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
@Resnjari:, that is not true. There was no "strong consensus" on the reduction of scope to the persecution only and precisely because of that it was decided by reviewers to reopen this process, since it was clear what was happening here. And also, there is nothing ambiguous with the proposed title containing terms "Anti Eastern-Orthodox" since it is officially used, as stated above, by the FBI (see 800 hits for such use of the term on Google Search). But, since you have some problem in acknowledging those facts, maybe you should complain to the FBI directly and make them interested in your case. Sorabino (talk) 22:05, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
@Sorabino:, it was mainly myself that was ok with a new pagename move (after some time -didn't expect it to be this quick -its ok though) and was also ok with either name provided they have certain qualifiers -like the word Eastern was incorporated with the previous pagename move and for this one -if it has the word Christian in it- i'll support it. Yeah sure Anti Eastern-Orthodox is used by the FBI, gets the hits on google from sites based in Europe and the Americas to an extent, so the topic is notable with those terms within parts of the West that is English speaking. Say one does not come from that area but is one of the new English speakers from other parts of the globe, what does Anti Eastern-Orthodox sentiment mean ? Its got the word Eastern + Orthodox but that does not signify that its about Eastern Orthodox Christians when a person who might be for the first time doing a search on the topic they are not acquainted with before. That's my angle on it. For now my vote is oppose unless there is an addition.Resnjari (talk) 22:30, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Ditto Support for "Anti-Eastern Orthodoxy"; would accept "Anti-Eastern Orthodox Christianity" or something that points the word "orthodoxy" to the religion specifically. This does change the scope of this article, but I support that as a parallel subject to Anti-Catholicism and Anti-Protestantism, which do not need "Christianity" in their titles to fully disambiguate the topic. "Sentiment", in my view is inappropriate; persecution is not a sentiment. "Anti", however, is capable of expressing all levels of opposition and action. Evensteven (talk) 17:45, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
@Evensteven:, the actual scope of this article was same as in Anti-Catholicism and Anti-Protestantism, but recently an attempt was made to delete the entire article and when that failed, the same users who wanted to delete the article initiated its reduction to "persecution" only. Just take a look at the recent history of this article and you will see what was really going on here. Precisely because of that, reviewers decided to reopen this process, since they realized what was happening here and acknowledged that all denominations should be treated equally. And regarding the terms Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Orthodoxy, they have only one meaning and point directly to the Eastern Orthodox Church. That is also acknowledged by the community in practice. All uses of terms "Eastern Orthodox" and "Eastern Orthodoxy" on English Wikipedia are referring to the Eastern Orthodox Church. So, there is no real ambiguity here. Sorabino (talk) 20:41, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Sorabino, I am no stranger to the prejudices on WP against Orthodoxy, nor to the gangs who insist on promoting various biases and resist neutrality. They have the numbers to constitute what has come to be called "consensus" here, though in fact it is nothing but domination of the majority. I'm actually pleasantly surprised to see this discussion be as even-handed as it is. But rest assured, I fully support a name change here. There is material enough for a full-fledged article on persecution of Christians in the world. But there is also more than enough for an "Anti-" article. I think both should exist. My only point is that this article, for whatever reasons, now says "persecution". Failure to have an "Anti-" article because of disagreements over article names is unacceptable, because "persecution" then becomes a limiting definition that censors material that is less "anti". "Anti" needs to be included first in WP in order to fill a gap that is permitted for the other Christian groupings. Then, when enough material has been collected to support the splitting off of persecutions, the persecution article can be created to handle the volume. That is the way to grow the encyclopedia, and preventing it for Orthodoxy is nothing more than another attempt to silence Orthodox contributors here. So you can see that I am quite in favor of the direction this proposal is pointed in. I just don't like the word "sentiment" in the title; that's too limiting also. And I don't really care if "Christianity" is in the title or not. I agree it's unnecessary. But it's not an impediment either, and if including it will salve others, I'm willing to go that way. Real redundancy changes nothing. Or am I beginning to repeat myself? ;) Evensteven (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
@Evensteven:, yes, you are right, and I agree with you on all three accounts. In time, this article will certainly continue to develope, in spite of disruptive editing by some users. It was rightly recognized by the closer of previous discussion, and also by reviewers, that there are some serious problems here and that is why this new discussion was initiated, in order to resolve all issues on scope and terminology. Sorabino (talk) 23:12, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I certainly hope that this naming proposal can end up in a resolution of the article name. And I tend to think there is a solution waiting that will prove acceptable. My greater concern, however, is for resolution of the principle of neutrality towards Orthodoxy. Fixing an article title will not be enough if it doesn't accord Orthodoxy parallel space. The west has been too long ignorant and biased by its own history and traditions. The Christian religion itself has been sadly divided for centuries, and it is way past time for the branches to engage with each other constructively. WP is not itself immune to the ravages of history, and their continuance into the present. But if good faith prevails, some ground can be gained on all sides. Evensteven (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The current name does not narrow the scope of the article. Every case of persecution due to victims being Eastern Orthodox Christians is rooted in anti-Eastern Orthodox Christian sentiments. Thus, "Persecution of Eastern Orthodox Christians" and "anti-Eastern Orthodoxy" are one and the same. In this case, the first is a better name for the article due to many meanings of "anti-Orthodoxy" and similar terms. That those terms are problematic and give wrong impressions to readers is showed by the comments above. The current name is very good, it shows what the article is about without misguiding readers. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:04, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
@Ktrimi991:, everything you wrote there actually counters your claims. Since you are one of few users who previously supported the possible deletion of this entire article it is clear that something else is at play here. Not to mention your constant disruptive editing by removing referenced content from this article. Sorabino (talk) 23:28, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
How does that counter my claim? Tell me. On the deletion process and removal of material whose references did not back it, my actions were in line with both my own opinion and Wikipedia's policies. A discussion was held and all participating editors, except of you, supported the removal of that material. You were warned by several editors due to your battleground mentality and large scale canvassing while you were trying to force your personal opinion on other editors in that time. I do not have much interest in this article, and religion in general, as my editing history shows. Hence, "something else is" not "at play here". Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:42, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
And my vote at the AfD discussion was "Delete or rename", not "Delete". Do not say the opposite. Anyway, there is no reason to redirect the topic of the current discussion. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:00, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, something is at play if you're replaying old hurts, even if it is simply continuing a fight. Such behavior is not discussion, and has no place here, no matter whose opinion is what, or who agrees. Stick to the subject. Evensteven (talk) 23:56, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, about your vote. The subject here is the claim that the current article name does not narrow the scope of the article. There are many ways to be "anti", or opposed to someone or something. Persecution is a particular, and extreme, method of expressing that opposition, in action, and in many cases to the point of injury, maiming, and death. The current article title restricts the scope to those particulars, while "anti" leaves open the inclusion of the variety of oppositions. You're entitled to your vote, but your claim about scope does not hold water. Evensteven (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
@Ktrimi991:, exactly as I said previously: you supported the possible deletion, and that can be seen here. That was your preferred option and you can try to wash it of here, but to quote Yoda: "Revealed your opinion is". Sorabino (talk) 00:42, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
^This looks like a personal attack... --Calthinus (talk) 04:32, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Are you accusing me of "personal attack" for stating facts about public voting of a user? :) Please, report me on this! Sorabino (talk) 06:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Sorabino "Stating facts"? No that is not my criticism, as your behavior has also included non-AGF speculation on the motives of other users (including, now predictably myself, as you have done with literally everyone who has taken an opposing stance to yourself), on top of general bludgeoning of the process and demonstrating a battleground attitude. This, on top of edit warring, SYNTH edits, inappropriate campaigning on specifically chosen Wikiprojects, among many other unacceptable behaviors.... yes a report on you would be easy to make. You're quite lucky that I'm busy and also I don't really enjoy reporting people (in fact I've never done it in my life). Don't push it. --Calthinus (talk) 19:02, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Calthinus, as I said, please report me on all those accounts, so that more people can see what have you been doing here. It is you who are having obvious problems with constructive criticism of your actions, and now you are trying to divert the discussion. You wanted to delete this entire article, and when failed to achieve that you continued with your disruptive editing. Those are facts, so please - report me for stating them. Sorabino (talk) 20:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the simple reason that it's clunky ("wow bro that's some crazy Anti-Eastern...Orthodox.. senti...ment" is not so easy to say as if you substitute in "Anti-Catholicism") as I said on the AfD, and that "Anti-Eastern-Orthodox...sentiment" does not seem to have as much of a body of research scholarly dedicated to it, yet (unlike, say, Anti-Catholicism or Anti-Protestantism; more like, Persecution of Ahmadis, Persecution of Zoroastrians, Persecution_of_Bahá'ís etc). But its not a strong oppose, I am really fine either way. Weird theorizing of conspiracies by a certain user is widely out of line -- and anyways, frankly, the material that is getting removed is not because there is some unholy alliance aiming to change the scope, its because it was based on SYNTH and OR, as was said a gazillion times. That being said, changing it to anti-Eastern Orthodox sentiment isn't really something I mind -- it simply doesn't role of the tongue given, seven syllable adjective clauses for a three syllable noun are not typical of English. As for "consistency" really this doesn't fall one way or the other, we have Persecution of Zoroastrians but Anti-Catholicism, most of the content would be the same anyways.--Calthinus (talk) 04:32, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
@Calthinus:, you initially supported the deletion of this entire article, and now you are stating that subjects on negative sentiments and animosities towards Eastern Orthodoxy are not sufficiently researched in comparison with Anti-Catholicism and Anti-Protestantism. Simply speaking, that is not true. There is a multitude of scholarly studies on various negative sentiments and animosities towards Eastern Orthodoxy, and any search on Google Books or Google Scholar can show that. Do you have any idea how many studies there are, for example, just on the anti-Eastern Orthodox policies and practices of Nazi Germany and other fascist states during the occupation of Eastern Europe in Second World War? If you are not familiar with the subject, please inform yourself. But, I am not really surprised by your attitudes here, since it is you who deleted the whole section of this article on the destruction of the entire Czech Orthodox Church by the Nazis! And regarding the terminology, as I said several times, the FBI officially uses term "anti-Eastern Orthodox" as designation for negative sentiments and animosities towards Eastern Orthodox Christians (see 800 hits for such FBI use of the term. So, it is clear that you have no real arguments for the opposition towards the proposed full-scope title. And regarding the previous attempt to kill this article, the very history of this talk page under the section "What is anti-Orthodoxy?" shows that deletion proposal was agreed by three users: @Bobfrombrockley:, @Ktrimi991: and you! And now, all of you are opposing the full-scope of this article, not to mention constant disruptive editing by removing entire referenced sections of this article. It is clear that that you have attempted to cripple and destroy this article. The question is, why? Sorabino (talk) 06:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Sorabino Your personal attacks (insinuations about "motivations") and misrepresentations are odious, but even more so they are astonishingly poorly carried out. Literally anyone can see that despite your accusations, the reason I deleted the Czech Orthodox was because the alleged source (translation here : [[1]]) said nothing about what it was sourced for -- source falsification. Yet for you my basic cleanup activities are proof that I am a member in some nefarious plot to "cripple and destroy" this article. Actually I do not want to "cripple and destroy" this article I may add some info about Ottoman persecutions in Greece nad Albania later, but a lot of cleanup was and is necessary as much material did not meet Wikipedia standards. Your defamation of not only myself but also Bobfrombrockley, Ktrimi991 and even Resnjari who expressed sympathy to your views does not reflect badly on us, it is you who should be worried about how you come off-- you have harassed literally every user who has taken a stance opposing yours in this discussion. As I said, you're lucky I don't like spending time making reports and that I'm busy. If you continue your present course of behavior, don't be surprised with the result. --Calthinus (talk) 19:39, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Calthinus, are you seriously accusing me of making "personal attacks" on you and other users? Please, explain yourself and state any example of me attacking you personally or making such attacks on any other user. Since you have publicly accused me for making "personal attacks" here, I am giving you chance now to explain yourself and retract those claims, before reporting you for making such unfounded accusations. Sorabino (talk) 20:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Sorabino, your comments at certain points were not the best. In the end what a admin will decide he will decide. Just keep the discussion on the current topic about this pagemove.Resnjari (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Resnjari, which comments? State yourself clearly. User Calthinus has publicly accused me here of making personal attacks, including the "defamation" of four users (you are stated as one of them), so what do you expect of me, not to respond to all that? Sorabino (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
If some people had a previous position of wanting to delete the article, they did and that discussion was for then and resolved with a keep.People that dad a delete position their side did not carry the day, no need to revive it. Its done and dusted. Sheesh everyone, take five. Stick to the issues around this page move. Seriously take 5 before positing a comment.Resnjari (talk) 21:34, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Resnjari, so then, was I defamating you or not? And regarding your call for silence, it should be noted that previous discussions on proposed deletion of this article, that occurred only a few weeks ago, are relevant for this discussion, because all those discussions are part of the same process - relating directly to the questions on scope and content of this article. But, since opposing votes to wide-scope title of this article are coming only from those three users who previously wanted to delete the article, it is quite clear that final resolution of this process will be quite positive. Sorabino (talk) 22:34, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Sorabino, with me its not defaming. Remember i gave a keep vote. However if you keep bringing up the issue of everyone who wanted to delete the article over and over again, a issue that was concluded as a win for those wanting it to exist, its not in keeping in the area of good faith. Just let it go, you and i and others who placed a keep vote got the outcome we wanted. That issue is not going to be rehashed by admins. We are dealing with pagemove issues now and that's it. All discussion should be around that and that goes also for those who wanted to delete the article -your side did not carry the day and that now is wiki history. Sheesh everyone, headaches are unnecessarily created sometimes.Resnjari (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Byteflush, you have no real arguments there for opposing vote. Titles proposed and supported here, like anti-Eastern Orthodox sentiment or alternative anti-Eastern Orthodoxy are four-word of three-word titles, quite common on Wikipedia and therefore "clunky" is no real argument. Same goes for "uncommon" as said before, go to Google Search for anti-Eastern Orthodox hits or anti-Eastern Orthodoxy hits. And also, those terms are not "ambiguous" as you imply here. Can you produce any reference for some other use of those terms? There is non. Comparative practice on Wikipedia is quite clear: Anti-Catholic redirects to denominational article Anti-Catholicism (animosity towards the Catholic Church), and Anti-Protestant also redirects to denominational article Anti-Protestantism. Obviously, terms "anti-Catholic" and "anti-Protestant" are not treated here as ambiguous, in spite of the fact that in principle first term can designate opposition to any denomination that uses the term "Catholic" in its name, and second term can be used as designation for opposition to any group of people who are protesting. In compare to that, term "anti-Eastern Orthodox" has only one meaning, and why should it be labeled as "ambiguous", please explain that. Since we are discussing here a very important subject - full-scope title for article on negative sentiments and animosities towards an entire denomination, could you make some additional contribution and backup your vote with some arguments? Sorabino (talk) 03:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
To answer your question, those orthodox people are more specifically "Eastern Orthodox" people and they can be referred to as the "Eastern Orthodoxy" in the same manner as "Protestantism", "Catholicism" and "Islam". (That link, btw, sheds light on why the present title is so narrow in scope.) So "Eastern" is actually an adjective and an excellent disambiguator/qualifier.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  16:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Byteflush and think the replies here are missing the point. Obviously someone that read the article would get the answers, but the point is that (a) nobody is going to google "anti-eastern orthodoxy" and anyone who sees a "see also" link to "anti-eastern orthodoxy" whereas the opposite is true for "Persecution of Eastern Orthodox Christians" which is a term people are likely to search for an will immediately understand. The addition of the "eastern" adjective creates a problem of clunkiness as the negative has to be "anti-eastern", which makes no sense. This is a very strong argument against such a change (or possibly for pursuing the "sentiment" alternative). BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Actually in a way you both make good points. It's a quasi- or just an apparent disambiguity, though, and no more confusing than, say, anti-Middle Eastern. "Middle" is an adjective that in this case describes "Eastern", and it's no more correct to say "Who are those Eastern people and why are they anti-Middle?" Unless the reader is disadvantaged in their education or ability to learn, I find it an enormous stretch to expect confusion here.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  22:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Paine Ellsworth, that is actually a very good point: since we have article titled Anti-Middle Eastern sentiment, there can be no real argument against the title Anti-Eastern Orthodox sentiment on the grounds of the supposed "clunkiness". The "clunky" argument is not a serious one for this type of discussion. The opposing side has no real arguments, they were opposing the very existence of this article, then continued to make disruptive and reductive edits, and because of all that they are opposing now the full-scope of this article. Non of them has dared, during all discussions, to write a single word against the official FBI terminology, based precisely on the term anti-Eastern Orthodox. They are avoiding that because there is no real argument against titles like Anti-Eastern Orthodox sentiment or Anti-Eastern Orthodoxy. It is quite sad to see how some people are trying to prevent the existence of a full-cope article on the negative sentiments and animosities towards an entire denomination. Sorabino (talk) 04:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support the general principle of expanding the scope to include criticism of Orthodoxy as dogma or practice, but unsure yet on the proper name. "Sentiment" feels a tad harmless to describe events that include outright ethnic cleansing; "Anti-Eastern Orthodoxy" is clunky, and implies a coherent antithesis of Eastern Orthodoxy, whereas this refers to a collection of various oppositions to Eastern Orthodoxy as a dogma, and to Orthodox Christian communities as social/ethnic/economic/etc. entities. The most usual term I know for such stances is simply "anti-Orthodox", but "anti-Orthodoxy" means something else entirely. Constantine ✍ 17:07, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, full scope of this article includes not only physical persecution, but also entire spectrum of negative sentiments and animosities towards Eastern Orthodox Christians. That is why it is so important to have the full-scope title, that would be on the equal level with Anti-Catholicism and Anti-Protestantism. And regarding the optional term "sentiment" that is just a standard term for this type of articles on English Wikipedia, here is the list of such titles. Sorabino (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Note to closer: Although I don't care much about the outcome, it is worth noting that I am concerned that Dilic was canvassed by Sorabino on Serbian wiki to this discussion. Here is the diff: [[2]]. This is after Sorabino has already been warned about campaigning. --Calthinus (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Actually, the community was never given any real explanation for attempted removal of this entire article. Proposal for deletion was rightfully rejected and the article was saved, but subsequently there was some disruptive editing, and several referenced sections were removed. All of that will have to be fixed. Sorabino (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
@User:Sorabino - Another bizarre personal allegation against me and others. I gave my reasons above and on the AFD page for proposing deletion. If you are suggesting that my "real" reason was different from the one I gave, I'd be curious to know what you think that might be and why you think it, or else withdraw your allegation please. Thank you.
Yes, this article covers a very important subject with lots of material to be restored and added, based on scholarly references. That is why it is so important to preserve the full scope of this article, and for the same reason it is very important to have a proper full-scope title for this article. Sorabino (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Note to closer: I am concerned that PetarM was canvassed on Serbian wiki by Sorabino. Here is the diff [[3]]. --Calthinus (talk) 16:24, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
@Calthinus Thanx for comment. Wont be so. I am covering Albanian terrorism long before you came to Wikipedia. Hence, i uploaded 1 more new shot on Commons. and added one more. --PetarM (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Good to know and thank you for your contributions, but this is irrelevant to the fact that you were canvassed here -- which you should have mentioned.--Calthinus (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
@User:PetarM - this is not a proposal that the article should "to into erasing", but that it's name should change to "sentiment" from "persecution". Can you explain why that would enable us to "get more serious article" than is possible with the current name? BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Additional note to closer: Sorabino has been blocked for a week by an administrator [4] for canvassing votes relating to this pagemove discussion.Resnjari (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Please give me link to your rules about for how user will be blocked for what. This is and for laughing and for crying. Zoranzoki21 (talk) 21:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
To editor Zoranzoki21: I responded on your talk page.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  16:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: There are many references above to previous discussion, some with wikilinks or permalinks, many without and some with puzzling acronyms such as CFP, which doesn't appear in the glossary and seems just plain wrong (possibly a mistranslation). There's obviously previous discussion above at #Requested move 22 February 2018 and the subsequent move review, but the links we have to other pages all seem to point to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Orthodoxy, closed on 17 February as The result was keep. As people seem to be pretty unified on renaming this page, feel free to start a move discussion on the article's talk page. Is that all correct? Is there other relevant discussion I've missed? Andrewa (talk) 06:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • It's close to a perfect storm. I'm guessing that CFP means AfD on another language Wikipedia, that's what I meant by mistranslation. In Serbian for example the shortcut is ČZB, and as they don't use Roman script that might even be it... it's phonologically quite close. And the problem is, whether it means RM (as you supposed) or AfD (as I supposed) makes a big difference to whether the argument and the replies to it make sense, or whether they might be discarded as illogical. Andrewa (talk) 23:44, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • While it would be good for Bobfrombrockley to clarify his intention, the horse has bolted. We'd also need everyone who has based their replies on their understanding of what CFP meant to clarify what they thought it meant. I'm tempted to suggest a procedural close as an unintelligible mess and start again. Andrewa (talk) 23:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Don't know how crucial it is to know exactly what the initialism means; however, I do think it's crucial to get this title debate settled, so I would plead for you to resist such a temptation. It's time to choose the highest and best title for this article.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  00:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I am very sorry. CFP was my stupidity. I was referring, as I think was obvious from the context, to the request for move which had just closed. I have no idea why I kept calling it CFP. (I'm a bit dyslexic.) I think most editors read it as RM or AFD, and I linked to what I was talking about when asked to explain above, so I'm not sure it is that big a deal. Nothing fishy relating to other languages or scripts; I have never edited WP in another language, although I appear to have been discussed on Serbian WP as a result of editing this article! BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
This thread had been closed as no consensus [5] until Sorabino asked the closing administrator to reopen it [6]. Unknown to the administrator at the time Sorabino had been involved in canvassing votes for support and later as a consequence got a one week block [7] by another administrator.Resnjari (talk) 01:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
This whole (long) thread on their talk page is worth a read. Now quite unsure on the way forward. Andrewa (talk) 01:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
@Andrewa:, probably ask the two administrators who were involved in closing this thread and blocking an editor for comment here about moving forward if its allowed in wiki rules -as much of this discussion has turned into farce.Resnjari (talk) 03:01, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
@Andrewa and Resnjari: I honestly have no idea what the procedurally correct course from here is -- however, let me just say that it's incredibly hard for me to see how it would be even remotely useful to the project to have a third endless discussion on a topic we have argued about ad nauseam for months, probably producing a talk page longer than the main space, all over a really not very significant issue in the name. Very much the opposite. What matters is the content. Arguments like this are a waste of time and sap the time of editors adding content. --Calthinus (talk) 03:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
This thread has been closed as no consensus once before. As i am not sure about the correct procedure in this case, I just thought maybe the other two administrators might give a comment before some kind of resolution happens -as many editors have more then exhausted the discussion here.Resnjari (talk) 03:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

The way forward

The way forward is of course in the first instance indicated by the closer. This RM was elligible for closing when I first came here, and is now in the backlog. And it's been relisted once already, and was already a discussion arising from an earlier discussion

I looked and wrangled over whether I could close it, followed what threads I could, and decided I wasn't going to be able to do so. But I thought what I had found out would be of help to another closer, so I posted this comment (yesterday my time).

I note that there are a number of comments above specifically addressed to the closer. I don't think that's helpful. All comments should be considered by the closer.

And that includes this section. As has been said above (and not by me), it's time to close this.

This won't be an easy one. Please don't get too upset if it doesn't go your way. I note that several contributors have Serbian or Albanian connections, and that has turned out to be an explosive mixture in the past, and not just in Wikipedia, see Category:Serbian–Albanian conflict. Please ask yourself, what's the best thing for Wikipedia?

And if you're not completely sure of being able to answer that honestly, take a step back. It doesn't matter all that much to Wikipedia. If it matters a lot to you, probably best to pull back. Andrewa (talk) 09:06, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@Andrewa:, the comments to the administrator were in relation to canvassing. The process here was tampered with and need to be noted. When engaging in these discussions whether ones agrees or disagrees good faith needs to be maintained and canvassing for votes in no way suggests that. It does not matter whether editors have interests that focus on Serbian or Albanian related articles only that they follow wiki policy and not tilt the process artificially one way or another, as was attempted here. This thread was closed once with a no consensus, and that was prior to all the issues with canvassing came out in the open.Resnjari (talk) 00:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Good faith is assumed, and that is policy. But as you point out, we don't ignore evidence that suggests there may be other factors at work. The question here is whether those who have cultural ties to one side or the other have a significant conflict of interest. It's a sensitive issue, and I'm not suggesting disqualifying these editors from contributing in these areas, in which they have both an interest and knowledge.
But I will suggest that, for the good of Wikipedia, they should avoid becoming heavily involved in any controversial issue. Andrewa (talk) 08:04, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
@Andrewa:, i agree. In the end everyone that places a vote whether here or other move discussions, does so from a personal point of view. So in that sense one can say that no one is without a bias. However Wikipedia does not have rules about conflicts of interests regarding being from a certain ethno-cultural or religious background and it precluding voting or editing articles for that matter. Its policy only relates to editors having good, strong and credible sources for article content and abiding by rules of engagement and rapport with other editors so even if there is disagreement (and passions can at times get a hot), that the process is respected and viewed as fair in the end. In this instance there was a proven attempt to distort the process through vote canvassing. In the end, a administrator closed this thread as no consensus (prior to the proven revelations of canvasing) before it being reopened. Its a complex situation and editors will tilt one way or the other, its kind of why i suggested maybe having the other two administrators involved add a comment or two on what to do -if its allowed and not considered canvassing. Either way your going to have to decide one way or the other. Best.Resnjari (talk) 08:44, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Andrewa honestly this discussion might belong in a place other than this talk page as it touches on an issue that has long plagued Wikipedia (differences in personal POV among editors), but let me say this because I think my viewpoint here could be relevant-- I am neither Albanian nor Serbian, with virtually zero personal background connections to either group except that I made a choice to learn about both (yes, more the Albanian side, but to be fair I also know a fair amount about modern Greek history -- actually if you knew me irl you would probably agree I am more "connected" to Greece than Albania) for academic purposes some years ago. Where there are disputes touching my true background -- these are American politics and Israel-Palestine -- I do actually make my best effort to stay out of these (and believe me, it's a struggle sometimes), aside from a few talk page comments and votes in deletion discussions and whatnot. I have to say though, both sides in American politics, and (to a lesser extent) both sides in Israel-Palestine, are treated with much more respect than Balkan disputes are treated with, by those non-involved. I have never, once, seen anyone suggest to American editors that it would be best that they "stay out of issues regarding American politics" regardless of whether their behavior was in line with policy or not but just because it is "emotional", even though warring on American politics (with plenty of "emotions" on both sides) is quite probably a bigger problem right now on Wikipedia than there is for Balkan politics. I know you only have good intent here, but ask yourself-- if this was a Western politics dispute rather than a Balkan politics dispute, would you be saying the same things? Would you look at it the same way? --Calthinus (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
I think I would, yes, particularly if some of the comments seemed to reflect a political orientation. It's not just politics! In NYRM2016 we specifically chose one of the panel members because of their connection to the topic. I supported it at the time, but in hindsight that might have been a mistake. It would have been far better to go the other way, and insist that the closers were all disinterested. And as it turned out, that panel member gave what still seems to me to be a rather strange decision, and one which was subsequently overturned by consensus (in effect if not in theory). I cannot see how anyone could have failed to assess consensus to move except by simply counting heads, and this was never explained despite many requests. Andrewa (talk) 19:44, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Andrewa I addressed a couple notes as "note to closer" not because I wanted the others not to be considered by the closer, but because in previous cases of canvassing I had observed that using a small but bold "Note to closer:" was the protocol used by editors more experienced than myself. Tell me, as you are an admin, is this considered inappropriate? I'd like to know for the future. Thanks, --Calthinus (talk) 16:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

It's neither banned nor uncommon. My bottom line here is not to influence the decision one way or another, but to make the closer's job as easy as possible. I decided not to close myself because it was looking just too hard! And I didn't find the note to closer label helpful, obviously, but other admins might. It was good to call attention to the matter. Perhaps a discussion section should have been started a bit sooner. Andrewa (talk) 22:49, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Andrewa, i see where your coming from as in some discussions of the sort canvassing claims are made by some editors and are without foundation which are more often used as a smear tactic. In this instance, the issue of canvassing was mentioned in the discussion after the fact, when it was proven beyond doubt that attempts to distort the process came to light with sanctions applied to the editor engaged in that behavior.Resnjari (talk) 04:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Agree. And I am not seeking to disparage you or any other editor. Andrewa (talk) 11:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Status quo

To editor Cúchullain: since the present title was created just this past February, I merely wonder what you meant by "status quo", above?  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  00:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

We shouldn't count votes, so I guess that won't help in the move discussion above. However, at least, I wonder the same thing about status quo. Chicbyaccident (talk) 05:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Paine Ellsworth: In this case I went with the status quo as of the last RM discussion. Neither a move review, nor this discussion, found consensus to change the outcome of that discussion. Additionally, the former title Anti-Orthodoxy didn't receive support in its own right in this discussion, so I don't think it would be wise to move back there. Perhaps a fresh RM at a later date, free of the canvassing and general toxicity that plagued this discussion, will find a workable consensus.--Cúchullain t/c 13:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
All makes sense, thank you!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  14:33, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Persecution_of_Eastern_Orthodox_Christians/Archive_2&oldid=1263988154"