Talk:2018 Moscow–Constantinople schism

Archives (Index)

1

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Requested move 3 January 2020

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 (not moved) (non-admin closure) ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 06:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

---

2018 Moscow–Constantinople schism → 2018–20 Moscow–Constantinople schism – In the sidebar of the Current Events portal, many events have included the current year in their title despite the event starting in a previous year. There is no official naming convention on this type of title, however, I believe we should look to be more consistent. The schism is not isolated to 2018. Vypr (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. BD2412 T 02:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@Vypr: As I stated above, I disagree. I believe clarity is more important than being consistent with what I believe is a mistake: I blieve ongoing event should be either named with the name they started, e.g. the current title of this page, or the name they started+"present", e.g. Central African Republic Civil War (2012–present). Veverve (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support move to 2018–present Moscow–Constantinople schism. Have been considering nominating this one myself Ribbet32 (talk) 00:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ribbet32:I would prefer "Moscow–Constantinople schism (2018–present)" Veverve (talk) 01:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support: The name of the article should indicate perpetuity since the schism is ongoing. The current title suggests the schism was limited to that year alone, so the proposal to add "(2008-present)" to the title seems the most satisfactory until the issue is resolved. Parabellus (talk) 09:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ribbet32: and @Vypr: do you support the move to "Moscow–Constantinople schism (2018–present)"? Veverve (talk) 12:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Fine with that Ribbet32 (talk) 14:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Veverve: That's better. Vypr (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think, schism is different from an active war. Schism is just a one-time split, until the sides decide to reunite. For example, we write East–West Schism, not 1054–2020 East–West Schism or 1054–present East–West Schism. (talk) 17:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose courteously. This proposal seems to be addressing a problem that doesn't exist. The current title differentiates the article from the earlier schism quite adequately by including the start date. Nothing further is needed. Adding a "to" date would be misleading in that such almost always denotes an end date in article titles. If it aint broke, don't fix it. Let it be. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per the above. It is possible that we need a broader article title on the whole conflict, or two separate articles, or redirects (using date ranges) for the post-schism conflict/war stuff, leading to an appropriate section at the article on the schism and its aftermath. Also, I oppose using "2019–20" anyway, which is not as easy to parse with certainty as a date range. While it is sometimes permissible under MOS:DATERANGE to use YYYY–YY abbreviated year ranges in some two-contiguous-years contexts, it is never required (except in the title of a published work or other proper name exclusively using that format in reliable sources giving the name). The short form generally is not used except in tight-space circumstances like a crowded table (and it shouldn't be done at all for 01 through 12 cases, because the year-month date 2002-03 and the year–year range 2002–03 are indistinguishable in many fonts, though tables could be an exception when it's very clear from the context that all the entries in the column are YYYY-YY year ranges; but such contextual clarity cannot possibly apply to stand-alone page titles). As another aside, short-style ranges are especially problematic in article titles, because we're expected to redirect one to the other. That is, if we're obligated to redirect Snooker world rankings 1979-80 and Snooker world rankings 1979–80 to Snooker world rankings 1979–1980, etc. that is actually an error for cases of -01 to -12, redirecting a YYYY-MM (which may be nonsensical in the context or may not be) to a YYYY–YY. By contrast, YYYY-YYYY with hyphen has no ambiguous meaning, so redirecting to YYYY–YYYY with the proper en dash is no form of problem. This principle matters even in a context like this where we might have -20, because of WP:CONSISTENT; that is, if other event articles (including for Moscow specifically) are going to have full YYYY–YYYY dating when they have any 01 to 12 second-year values, then they should all use YYYY–YYYY for consistency.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:44, 21 January 2020 (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 13 February 2020

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. (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

---

2018 Moscow–Constantinople schism → 2018–2020 Moscow–Constantinople schism – After successful move from Arab protests (2018-present) to 2018–2020 Arab protests, this request moves seems is more reasonable. Per MOS:DATERANGE, A simple year–year range is written using an en dash not an em dash, hyphen, or slash; this dash is unspaced (that is, with no space on either side); and the range's end year is usually given in full if any events occurs more than 1 year (for example 2018-2020, 1981-1992). In order to be consistent to these format, this article should be rename to reflect the ongoing events in the sidebar. I know that first request move is unsuccessful because request year range like 2018-20 which seems incorrect if happen more than one year. 36.76.229.147 (talk) 14:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. It is a schism and not a war or something else ongoing. A schism is a break, from together to apart, a distinct event. There is no ongoing parting.--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 14:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. For another famous example, nobody calls the Great Schism or the Schism of 1054 the Schism of 1054–2020. It's unknown when this will end, or if it ever will, and even if the Schism ends, it won't change the date it started. SnowFire (talk) 17:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nomination, the event is still ongoing.36.69.53.66 (talk) 05:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Since I presume this is the nominator based on the highly similar edit histories: you don't need to support your own nomination, it's already implied. If you do, please mark it as "Support as nominator" lest it look like vote-stuffing. SnowFire (talk) 15:15, 17 February 2020 (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.

Name of this schism

There is no widely accepted name for this schism. Wikipedia should not list three out of countless descriptions of this schism and present them as established terms. Surtsicna (talk) 18:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 24 November 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: No consensus.(non-admin closure) Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 18:36, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

---

2018 Moscow–Constantinople schism → Orthodox schism (2018-) – I think it would be a good idea to move this article because the title is still too restricted ; indeed, the schism is no longer confined to a quarrel between Moscow and Constantinople but has developed. Moscow broke communion with other autocephalous Churches (Alexandria, Cyprus, Greece) and some of them broke communion in return. In this case, it is Alexandria ; it's inacurrate to leave Moscow-Constantinople when the extent of the schism is greater and Alexandria broke communion in return, which Constantinople did not. AgisdeSparte (talk) 13:03, 24 November 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:40, 2 December 2022 (UTC) — Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:56, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Christianity has been notified of this discussion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:40, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: Using "(2018 onwards)" or "(since 2018)" or "(began 2018)" might be better than "(2018-)". See also MOS:DATERANGE for advice. I dislike the hyphen (as contrasted with a dash) and dislike having a hyphen or dash followed immediately by a closing parenthesis. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:18, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

  Or at least use an en dash instead of a hyphen (2018–). Dicklyon (talk) 03:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Dicklyon I agree with this comment, my main point was about the restrictive use of "Moscow-Constantinople" whereas the schism took bigger proportions than being only restricted to those two patriarcates, so "Orthodox Schism (2018 onwards)" is perfectly understandable from my point of view and maybe more clear. AgisdeSparte (talk) 04:13, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

  I understand. But I have no position on that larger question. Dicklyon (talk) 04:26, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose (Wait [for next year, until change my mind]): The main reason of this schism happened, was over the Moscow Patriarchate/Orthodox Church of Russia immaturely handled the news of the Ecumenical Patirachate's creation of a Unified Ukrainian Orthodox Church, four years ago, and this continues on with the other autocephalous orthodox churches were prior to November. Where only the ROC (immaturely) cutting ties with these three churches as you mentioned. But, despite that, none three them did that return (reciprocated), until Alexanderia did a limited kinda (or a mild) cut ties of ROC in a form of anti-acknowedgment, a week ago. Not a full-on cutting ties with them yet, per se.

Also, nevermind this year, where it's own automous churches has dramaitically cutting ties (either willingly or enforcly) with the ROC due of that war (that Russia itself made), take told with their religion. Chad The Goatman (talk) 04:56, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

• Relisting comment- this is heading towards no consensus at the moment, but maybe another week will focus minds on a consensus one way or the other.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:56, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
• I'd go for 2018 Orthodox schism: it's clear (a random reader could understand the Orthodox reference but not the Moscow-Constantinople reference), from a neutral point of view (no sides) and open-ended (just the beginning). Incidentally, that's what we/they are using in the Italian Wikipedia. Mickey (talk) 09:42, 10 December 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.

Requested move 24 December 2022

2018 Moscow–Constantinople schism → 2018 Moscow–Constantinople Orthodox schism – It was suggested above to rename as Orthodox Schism (2018-). This request instead simply adds Orthodox to the current name. It makes the topic clearer, while avoiding imprecision. The initial break was the ROC and Greek Orthodox, making the original title appropriate. Adding Orthodox clarifies that it is a church schism, rather than a political one or otherwise. –Zfish118^⋉talk 03:44, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

• Questions: Aren't "schism"s generally a religious phenomenon? Is there some non-religious or non-Orthodox 2018 schism this is ambiguous with? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 06:06, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Christianity has been notified of this discussion. –Zfish118^⋉talk 18:51, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

• Weak oppose: "Orthodox" does little to help distinguish, but if we wanted something, I'd lean towards "Eastern Orthodox". If those less plugged-in to this matter defer to the proposed new name, I'll gladly support. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:08, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose: Doesn't really seem necessary, given that using the word schism as opposed to a simpler term like "division" or "split" already makes it clear that this is religious, not secular. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 01:05, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose not necessary, the year should make it clear to readers and so should the fact that "Constantinople" and not "Istanbul" is being used. Super Ψ Dro 08:59, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support  That really does help make the context clearer, supporting the WP:CRITERION of recognizability. I’d also support “Eastern Orthodox” as suggested above. —Michael Z. 04:00, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
• Comment/Weak Oppose: Same reason, from my previous reply in a very similar request above. Which is at the same day, but from last month. Chad The Goatman (talk) 04:10, 27 December 2022 (UTC)