Talk:Eastern Orthodox Church
This article was built from a stub here, at "Eastern Orthodox", then moved here on Oct 8 2008. ħuman
16:37, 11 October 2008 (EDT)
[edit] BoN
Reverted, but I'll find some way to work it in. Nobodydon't bother 03:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- The Orthodox Church has many patriarchies, the patriarchate of Russia being only one among many. While the Patriarch of Constantinople is considered the Ecumenical Patriarch as well as First Among Equals, there is undefined freedom for all synods concerning doctrine and theology. So attributing some of Russia's past with the whole of the religion isn't fair--"Shut up, Brx." 19:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- The ROC is easily half of the Eastern Orthodox faith. Nobodydon't bother 18:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Mass slaughter of Jews not credible
The article claims; "the Orthodox have been argued to have a unique flavor of mass-slaughter in their history. Yearly pogroms following Easter Mass are the stuff of legend," referencing a brief press cutting from The New York Times in 1903. The piece doesn't name its sources and consists of a fast sequence of appeals to vividness such as "Babes were literally torn to pieces", "frenzied and bloodthirsty mob", "slaughtered like sheep", "the general cry, 'Kill the Jews' al over the city", "worse than the censor will permit to publish"... and so on and so forth. This piece of unverifiable and cheap US propaganda gets the credibility of the article's author for no rational reason. The cutting is available here: Jewish Massacre Denounced --
Brasov 21:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not liking a lot of this article either. I cited what I could and deleted what seemed BS. But this one needs some work. Most of it is shite, like you said. --P3A58NT86 21:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- I've found this source Current Literature: A Magazine of Contemporary Record (New York). Vol. XXXV., No.1. July, 1903. that admits, on page 16, left-hand column, that "It may be that the stories given to the world are exaggerations...". Who would have guessed it, huh? It also admits: "indignation has been aroused in especially England and the United States"... another coincidence, or didn't the rest of the civilized world get "the news"? This anti-Russian propaganda came on the eve of the Russian-Japanese wars when England had signed an alliance with Japan (1902) seeking to restrict naval competition by keeping the Russian seaports of Vladivostok and Port Arthur from their full use (see Pre-war negotiations. --
Brasov 22:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Figures. That's just great. I don't know if I have the time to factcheck this beast...--P3A58NT86 22:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- I've found this source Current Literature: A Magazine of Contemporary Record (New York). Vol. XXXV., No.1. July, 1903. that admits, on page 16, left-hand column, that "It may be that the stories given to the world are exaggerations...". Who would have guessed it, huh? It also admits: "indignation has been aroused in especially England and the United States"... another coincidence, or didn't the rest of the civilized world get "the news"? This anti-Russian propaganda came on the eve of the Russian-Japanese wars when England had signed an alliance with Japan (1902) seeking to restrict naval competition by keeping the Russian seaports of Vladivostok and Port Arthur from their full use (see Pre-war negotiations. --