Talk:Patriarch of the Church of the East

Issues - split needed

For anyone who studies the Church of the East, the Chaldean Catholic Church, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Ancient Church of the East, it should be clear that this article has some significant problems in terms of defintion and scope. Therefore, a split is advised as seen in the hatnote. PPEMES (talk) 14:26, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

It isn't obvious to me at all. This article was written by User:Djwilms, who is a published expert on the topic. Srnec (talk) 14:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

OK. Sorry. Strictly speaking, the article as currently named is confined only to things prior to the schism of 1552. After forking things subsequent to that date, what remains is essentially a duplicate content of what is found in List of Patriarchs of the Church of the East, to which the remaining content may then be merged. Ergo, a split as proposed.

While all contributions are certainly welcome, I should add that I have worked significantly on trying to make more than a few contents around this topic adhere better to WP:NPOV, which priorly left much to ask for. PPEMES (talk) 14:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@Srnec: Without participating in this discussion, you erased the WP:NPOV remark in the top of this article. It was introduced there to make clear how this article favours the patriarchate of the Chaldean Catholic Church, despite being called that and not the Church of the East. PPEMES (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

You have yet to explain how it favours one of the post-1552 churches over the others. Srnec (talk) 19:15, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 7 August 2019

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved to Patriarch of the Church of the East. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 02:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

---

Patriarchs of the Church of the East → Patriarchate of the Church of the East – Per WP:CONSISTENCY with equivalent artiles on the office; "Patriarchate of X" etc. In order to distinguish from List of Patriarchs of the Church of the East. PPEMES (talk) 15:12, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• I'd prefer a move to Patriarch of the Church of the East if anything, like President of the United States. Srnec (talk) 23:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd support that as secondary best. PPEMES (talk) 11:51, 9 August 2019 (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.

Requested move 19 August 2019

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move. There was a lack of consensus prior to the relist, and no additional comments were made after the relist. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 15:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

---

Patriarch of the Church of the East → Patriarch of Seleucia-Ctesiphon – WP:PRECISE. Cf. Patriarchal Province of Seleucia-Ctesiphon. Although theoretically we could, we don't do Patriarch of the Catholic Church, Patriarch of the Eastern Orthodox Church, Patriarch of Oriental Orthodoxy etc. for the same reasons. It's easy to forget the reasons for this in historical hindsight, but I believe we could afford this accuracy here. It could be called Patriarch of the East, its recurrent self-designation, but that's clearly too ambiguous, has its own complicated article which has its own problems best left out of this discussion. PPEMES (talk) 18:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 17:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. Since not all the patriarchs sat at Seleucia-Ctesiphon, the current title is easier for readers to understand. Srnec (talk) 03:13, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Who weren't? Weren't arguably more of its patriarchs seated at SC than many a Patriarch of Antioch, for instance, despite us retaining that article name? PPEMES (talk) 05:58, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support I suspect this is probably a good idea, as the current name can be confusing given the number of different topics covered by the Eastern Christianity banner, as well as the logic argued in the nom - we don't usually refer to the supreme patriarchs by the name of their church, e.g. Patriarch of Constantinople.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:39, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

• I don't see how it could be confusing. We have an article at Church of the East, and most of these patriarchs did not sit at Seleucia-Ctesiphon. Also, the patriarch of the Church of the East is like the pope: not just primus inter pares among the leaders of autocephalous churches but the supreme authority in his (one) church. "Patriarch of Seleucia-Ctesiphon" is not the title of the patriarchs most of the time (to my knowledge). Srnec (talk) 23:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose, for now at least. I think a more general term is better, since "Patriarch of Seleucia-Ctesiphon" is not always the term that's in use, especially after the schisms.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:23, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Isn't that precisely the point, that the Church of the East ceased to exist with the schism, while the patriarchate and its pretenders continued (but not as the Church of the East)? PPEMES (talk) 18:31, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't say the Church of the East ceased to exist with the schisms (which long predated the formation of the current churches). None of the churches see their lines as starting anew at the point their church split off, they see it as direct continuity. But by that time, and long before, they were using other titles that didn't reference the historic seat at Seleucia-Ctesiphon, which had been abandoned in 775. I really think a descriptive title is better here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:44, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

The schism had to do with Rome, which make me question your assumptions. That aside, I sympathise with part of your reasoning. Why then, though, should Patriarchate of Antioch be treated different? I just want to control here that I am not making the wrong conclusions with your reasoning. PPEMES (talk) 22:39, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Because "Patriarch of Antioch" is always the correct title (so far as I know), but that is not true of "Patriarch of Seleucia-Ctesiphon". Srnec (talk) 00:12, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what assumptions you think I have. The schism back in the 16th century predated the formation of the Assyrian Church of the East and Chaldean Church as they exist today. Notably the now-independent Assyrian Church of the East emerged from the line of Shimun VIII Yohannan Sulaqa that caused the schism by joining the Catholic Church. At any rate, it's clear that by that time, and probably for a long time before, the patriarchs weren't using the styling of "Patriarch of Seleucia-Ctesiphon".--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:14, 29 August 2019 (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.

Requested move 16 March 2022

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: There are ONE, TWO previous RM discussions immediately above this section. How the hell did this get to Catholicos-Patriarch of the East without a prior discussion? Is someone blind? Or can't they read instructions? Anyone wanting to move this to Catholicos-Patriarch of the East should start a new discussion, stating their rationale for moving to that title. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:51, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

---

Catholicos-Patriarch of the East → Patriarch of the Church of the East – The page was moved without consensus and to a name contrary to what the source says. Veverve (talk) 08:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Jude Didimus (talk) 09:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Disagree. There are ample references. In fact, the more notable and correct terminology is the current oneJude Didimus (talk) 09:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:QUO + The very first source says: "this church had as its head a 'catholicos' who came to be styled 'Patriarch of the East' and had his seat originally at Seleucia-Ctesiphon (after 775 it was shifted to Baghdad)". Veverve (talk) 09:17, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

There are many titles. Catholicos-patriarch of Seleucia-Ctesiphon (Baum; Winkler, 2003 page 10) Jude Didimus (talk) 09:22, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

The second source (Coakley, 1999 page 65) says: Catholikos-Patriarchs of the East who served on the throne of the church of koke in Seleucia-Ktesiphon Jude Didimus (talk) 09:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@Veverve: ?? Jude Didimus (talk) 13:32, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@Jude Didimus: what about the fact the official style of this function is 'Patriarch of the East' according to the source I quoted? Veverve (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support. We don't do dual article titles like "Papa-Pope" or "Deutscher Kaiser-German Emperor" - pick one (unless the sources include such a dual title directly, but that doesn't appear to really be true). Also note that procedurally that the person objecting to the WP:RMTM request was the original undiscussed page mover, which seems a little off procedurally - article title should have been reverted and it should be Jude Didimus proposing the move. SnowFire (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@SnowFire: Catholicos-Patriarch is the official title per . We also have similar usage in Catholicos-Patriarch of All Georgia. My opinion is that we must retire from dictating what title must be used.Jude Didimus (talk) 23:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@Jude Didimus: you must ping and sign in the same edit publication, otherwise the ping does not work. Veverve (talk) 23:41, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@Veverve: per [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] the official title of the Assyrian church of the East leader is also Catholicos Patriarch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jude Didimus (talk • contribs)

@Jude Didimus: the article is about the leader of the Church of the East, not the leader of the modern Assyrian Church of the East. Veverve (talk) 00:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@SnowFire: see this source, [6] clearly says: the Head of the hierarchy of the Church of the East was the Catholicos-Patriarch of the East.Jude Didimus (talk) 00:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, certainly. The question is about Church of the East. But sources provided clearly show that the title is Catholicos-Patriarch. Also similar need is also there in Patriarch of the Assyrian church of the East. Jude Didimus (talk) 00:06, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I do not deny the fact the head of the Church of the East had the title of Catholicos-Patriarch; but we have a source stating the official style for the position was "Patriarch of the East". Veverve (talk) 10:02, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@Veverve: Then we have two sources as of now that supports Catholicos-Patriarch of the East.Jude Didimus (talk) 11:48, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

References

• Support. It isn't important what the "official" title is/was. Not for determining the Wikipedia article title, anyway. Srnec (talk) 17:12, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
• Procedural comment. @Mugsalot: You've moved the article title back. Was that a closure of this RM? If so, you should follow the closing instructions and formally close the discussion. If it was not a close of this RM, then page moves while the matter is still under discussion aren't great (even if it seems very likely that the "Patriarch of the Church of the East" title will stick). SnowFire (talk) 03:31, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.