User talk:Csernica/Archive 1

OCA

In the discussion page for Eastern Orthodoxy, you wrote: "The OCA should be 'asterisked' in the list of Autocephalous Churches in any event, since its autocephaly is not universally recognized." What's the story behind that? Why is it not universally recognized? Who recognizes it and who doesn't? Is it recognized by the Constantinopolitan Orthodox Church? Would one of its members attending a liturgy at a Greek Orthodox church in the USA that reports ultimately to the Patriarch of Constantinople be excluded from the Eucharist? Michael Hardy 21:13, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for your reply. A couple of other people have replied on the Eastern Orthodoxy talk page, and although their answers overlap with yours, you do include some interesting points not mentioned there. I wonder if this would all be different if Istanbul were still a part of Greece. Michael Hardy 18:16, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I saw the answers on the EO page after I replied. I perhaps could have deleted it, but then you'd have seen a couple of edits with no result on the page and it'd have looked funny.

I'm not sure Istanbul was ever part of Greece except for briefly following WWI. In premodern times there never was a unitary Greek state, unless you count Alexander's conquests as such. The modern Greek state has never included Istanbul. The so-called Byzantine Empire, although it included Greece, was thought of by its inhabitants as Roman.

But to the extent that, had Istanbul not remained under Turkish dominion, the ethnic cleansings it's suffered would not have happened and the EP would still have a substantial native flock -- and it would still be Constantinople on world maps just as it still is to the remaining residents of the Phanar. I can't say how this would have affected the American situation, which is as much a product of the Russian Revolution as anything else. --Csernica 22:51, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello, perhaps you might be interested in looking at or contributing on this site: OrthodoxWiki

New Jersey circles

Hey, thanks for working on these. It's nice to see someone continuing what I start. Cheers. I may add historical info at some point; I can get the dates many of these were built. --SPUI (talk) 09:54, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My pleasure. I grew up in the Somerville/Flemington area (Branchburg, New Jersey actually, which is smack between them) so these are just two I know about. Visitors from out of state would always have horror stories about getting stuck on the inside lane of the Somerville Circle for many laps before they could break loose, which is why I called it "notorious". Flemington was always a "kinder, gentler" circle.

I went to college in Hoboken but my dad lived in Bayonne, so I drove the Tonnelle Circle many times without even realizing what it was, bisected as it is. Running across that surprise led me to read more.

Historical information would be good. I wanted to include it, but I relocated to California many years ago, so resources available to me for this kind of thing are nil and I had to settle for a stub. I can't even remember exactly when the metering lights went in at the Somerville Circle in a vain attempt to make some kind of order out of it except for "around 1980". This was, of course, long before the flyover went in. The Flemington Circle was still intact last time I was in the area, as were the two smaller nearby circles.

These are all very obvious from aerial photos, even the Somerville Circle, and it would be nice to use them lacking any other illustrations on the pages. I wonder if Terraserver pictures would be "fair use"? Csernica 06:41, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

NM: I see they're public domain. Cool. Csernica 06:57, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

TOCA

Did His Grace mention why it is that OCA/TOCA is making this name change? --A.S. Damick 01:32, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

It has something to do with wishing to more strongly assert our autocephaly and associated territorial claims -- at least that's the impression I got. He approached the subject with (for him) a certain obliquity in his email, but he did specifically call out certain public pronouncements from the representative of the Greek Archdiocese in his canonical territory.

I do hope that this just isn't some idiosyncratic bug in His Grace's bonnet and all that rewriting was for nothing. I tend to think not, although it gives me some pause that there's support for on the official website as of yet. But everthing else in the email was correct, including some things that were mentioned on the official site. Csernica 05:06, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Strike the indicated above. On reflection I can't recall if that's something Vladyka said or if it was part of the commentary on it. I'll try to get a copy of the email and post the relevant section so you can see for yourself.

Doesn't he have an account on OrthodoxWiki though? You might be able to ask him there yourself. Csernica 05:56, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't believe that Bp. Tikhon has an account on OrthodoxWiki—unless he's using some userid that's not recognizable. I'd definitely be interested in seeing the email. --A.S. Damick 23:02, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Holy Sepulchre

Hiya - Thanks for the compliment. Was in Jerusalem, March 2005. Fascinating place - In the back of my head I taking a lot of photos thinking of putting them on Wikipedia. There's some more photos here that I've put under a Creative Commons license if you ever want to use them in an article.

Jgritz 21:59, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

St Peter as Pope

Hi, On the John Paul II talk page, I started a thread as to whether it was appropriate to call St. Peter "pope" without any qualification. I suggested that Orthodox Christians would not accept this claim. Another poster suggested that Orthodox Christians might accept that Peter was pope. I noticed on the Papacy talk page that you commented knowledgeably about this matter, if you had the time, I would appreciate it if you could share your views in this discussion. Thanks- Sumergocognito 21:56, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comments on St Peter. I did not follow your comment that "(I concede that it may well have been used from the beginning) but becuase he simply did not occupy that office" if Peter did not occupy the office then who would have claimed to be Pope, St Linus or his immediate successors? As you can see from my comments, I doubt that such a concession is called for. This doesn't relate to the JP II issue per se, just my curiosity. Post on my page or wherever is convineint (If you feel like it, of course).

Also, you mentioned a temptation to overhaul the part of the Pope article relating to Orthodox objections to the Papacy. I would encourage you to rewrite the section from a strictly Orthodox viewpoint, including the Orthodox view of Apostolic Succession. As for Anglican views, they should be be treated separately.

I haven't written any major article content yet, but I might try to set out the Protestant objections to the Papacy as I don't care for what's there now. Altogether, some discussion of Matthew 16:18 needs to be had, and besides that, the entire thing seems to be categorized in Catholic theological terms. But, I'm rambling, thanks again. Sumergocognito 04:47, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Panagia

This article has been listed on vfd. Your thoughts on this and/or your help expanding the article to more than a dictionary definition would be appreciated. In XC, JHCC 13:12, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dorothy Parker

Thanks for editing the birthplace - I hadn't been able to find it in a map search but everyone listed it as 'West End' anyway! Onlyemarie 15:04, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Feng Shui as Pseudoscience

Hi! I don't understand why do you state that feng shui does not meet the definition of pseudoscience. If you look at the psudoscience article, feng shui falls in many of the criteria listed, such as the lack of support of experimental evidence, the irreproducible results, the prediction of something that it does not, the claims which contradict experimentally established results, the violation of Occam's Razor, etc. But before reverting your modification I'd like to know your reasons. :) Nova77 15:55, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ark (church)

Yeah, I was trying to be thorough. I actually don't care too much either way, but I imagine the difference between Ark (church) and Ark (synagogue) is an important one. You might want to link to Ark (disambiguation) instead, or, as you suggest, forgedaboudit. Josh Parris ✉ 04:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good News!

There is now a stub template for Eastern Orthodox Christianity-related articles in need of expansion. Please add {{orthodoxy-stub}} to articles. You can also go to the Category page for Eastern Orthodox Christianity-related stubs and click the "watch this page" link in the sidebar, so that you can see new stub articles as they appear. Spread the word! JHCC (talk) 6 July 2005 15:02 (UTC)

Semicolon use

Using a semicolon to link two independant clauses does not make a run-on sentence; see [1]. JHCC (talk) 14:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Point taken. I would say that, since the second sentence elucidates the first, joining the two sentences with a semicolon is not out of place in this instance. Not that I'm about to start a revert war over it or anything. In XC, JHCC (talk) 00:06, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation link repairs

I know it seems odd, but there's a good rationale behind it. If you go to Greek and click "What links here", you'll see that even though most or all article links have been cleaned up, there are still dozens of user pages, talk pages, and wikipedia pages pointing to the disambig. Every day, perhaps ten or twelve new article links are made to the page from well-meaning editors who don't realize that they are pointing to a disambig. Therefore, this page (and others that I work on such as Hebrew and British must be checked frequently to ferret out these new links. If someone is trying to point to disambig page X, then it does no harm to link them to a [[X (disambiguation)|X]] page, which sets the link away from the margin and makes it clear that it is pointing to what it intends to. This makes it easier to scan for new links from articles. -- BD2412 ^talk 01:50, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

• No problem. I should have figured I'd raise eyebrows sooner or later, as I've been doing this fairly aggressively. -- BD2412 ^talk 01:56, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about the "revert war" on Holy Saturday. I didn't realize your intent, and will leave the article alone. However, as User:BD2412 points out above, it might make more sense to link to Greek (disambiguation) instead of Greek so that other editors will realize it was intentional. Russ Blau (talk) 10:53, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Economia

For what it's worth, I have created an article, Economia on a subject about which I know nothing. (Well, what else is new?) I also put some senseless comments at Talk:Economia... --Sophroniscus 23:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Greek spelling and typing

It was kind of you to invite me to check the Greek spelling in Vestments. The spelling there seems correct for the form in which the words are given, namely the modern Greek (νεοελληνική) form. (Thank you for teaching me that I can type all these Greek letters directly, and that I don't have to type, for instance, & # 9 4 5 ; to get α.)

Some (many?) would prefer to have those words in the older form of Greek found in liturgical books. Then, for instance, the neuter nouns to which you give the -ο ending would end in -ον.

I can type directly into this page only the characters used in modern Greek, since only these appear in the Greek keyboard that comes with Windows XP. (I don't, of course, mean a physical keyboard. I mean what I think you mean by "the Greek keyboard mapping".) For years I have typed Greek for my own purposes, with breathings, acute, grave or circumflex accent, iota subscript, old colon mark etc., using WordPerfect, in which it is easy to make your own additional keyboards. Though I doubt that Microsoft Word lets you construct complete keyboards, it does allow you to add some letters laboriously, picking them out one by one from the Symbol box. But Wikipedia, as far as I can see, limits me to the Windows XP Greek keyboard, and so to the plain letters of the Greek alphabet plus the seven vowels accompanied by either an acute accent, a diaeresis or a diaeresis plus acute accent. That covers modern Greek, but not ancient Greek.

I tried using Ἐ (& # 7 9 6 0 ;) to make your word Επίσκοπος begin with a large-Epsilon-with-smooth-breathing, as it would begin in ancient, though not in modern Greek. (Unless I am mistaken, 7960 is, in decimal notation, the number for the corresponding Unicode Greek Extended character.) It didn't work. Perhaps you can kindly let me know what would work.

Lima 18:15, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the information you have thoughtfully given me. I had not noticed, before you told me, that "Greek Polytonic" is among the keyboards provided for the Greek language. I have set this keyboard working now, but it will take me some time to learn to use properly the combinations of keys. I intend to καθαρεύουσα-ize your Vestments terms later, checking more carefully also in case some ο should be ω. In fact, I intended to ask the help of a couple of Greek (in the narrow sense) Orthodox ecclesiastics with whom I was to have lunch tomorrow, but that lunch has been postponed.

Lima 12:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I find that, on its own, the Polytonic Greek keyboard does not work in Wikipedia. When it is used, what appears in Wikipedia is a square like the square that appears above where I speak of "using Ἐ (& # 7 9 6 0 ;)".

I have examined the point in Catholicism where one more knowledgeable than I am inserted polytonic Greek characters. I see that there the &#...; Unicode indications are preceded by "{{lang|grc|" (and followed by "}}"). Presumably, I could do the laborious task of adding this to the Unicode Extended character codes, as I will attempt now with & # 7 9 6 0 ; - Ἐ. But it would be much easier and less open to mistypings if the Greek Polytonic keyboard worked directly in Wikipedia. Do you know how it can be done?

I will now try a further experiment: I will first type "{{lang|grc|", then continue with the Greek Polytonic keyboard, and conclude with "}}". That should be simple enough. But will it work? Let's see: Ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ...

Yes, it does. The preview has shown that this system does work.

Lima 08:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I have at last, after consulting a Greek ecclesiastic, ecclesiasticized the Greek names of Orthodox liturgical vestments, leaving untouched the three that are unchanged in modern Greek. Lima 12:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your message

Thanks for your recent comment regarding the ACIM article. A followup comment/ reply to your comment has been posted at the ACIM talk page.;
Why is Wiki so wonderful? Because survey results show it's the encyclopedia recommended most by three out of four Wicked pediatricians. :-)
-Scott P. 01:28:29, 2005-09-12 (UTC)

Re: Pope

Oops! Sorry about that. Sometimes my vandalism trigger finger, gets a little twitchy. I will try to be more careful. Paul August ☎ 05:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Easter

Regarding your edit to the Easter intro, I agree completely. My motive was to find a compromise wording to settle the dispute on the talk page. Pmadrid 01:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

List of Popes

I've launched my long-dreamt-of revolution on List_of_10_longest-reigning_popes. I'm sure someone will rv it back to it's former bias, but enjoy the NPOV well it lasts! Sumergocognito 07:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Ecumenical council

Have you ever taken a look at Ecumenical_council ? It could really use a table (or maybe 3 or 4). Perhaps I'll teach myself how to make one. Also I think some of the content is rather iffy. (Though the reference to Mormon attitudes to the Ecumenical councils was amusing albeit rather strongly worded.) Sumergocognito 18:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

That anon over in Talk:Coffee

... Well of course I think he was behaving as a vandal. Just trying to follow Wikipedia:Do not insult the vandals and adhere to the letter of the law in Wikipedia:Vandalism, which says "Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia." But I'm sorry it meant I had to imply that you did anything wrong. I wish I knew what that Anon's agenda was. Is he just trolling for attention, or what? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Eucharist

Csernica, I saw your change to the eucharist page - I don't actually mind that for I don't think it was great - but I don't see how it was NPOV? Can you enlighten me? Chooserr

RC:POV

On the subject of propaganda, I notice that John Paul II is now pope of the Catholic Church rather than the Roman Catholic Church. The same problem seems to exist at the Roman Catholic Church article. (The talk page there has a huge argument about this.) Sooner or later, this should be arbitrated or something. Roman Catholic may have a wiff of derision about it, but it's still more accurate and more neutral than plain Catholic Church Sumergocognito 17:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Three Ravens

Thanks for referring to my edits as "excellent"; I really don't think they deserve such praise. But yes, I have been watching the page, and I think either you're over-estimating my knowledge of the subject or under-estimating yours, as you seemed to be addressing the situation better than I would have. I listen to and enjoy many of the old ballads, and study some as something of a dilletante, but have no real scholarly training in the area. I do have a copy of Francis James Child's The English and Scottish Popular Ballads, which is one of my prized possessions (I sort of stole it from my father; he recently told me that though they are labeled as costing $2.75 each, the set of five is worth something in the neighborhood of $500). So I use that substantially when writing on any of the Child Ballds (I think the whole thing is probably available online, being in the public domain by now, so owning a copy isn't quite the asset it might otherwise have been). I basically agree with your edits, as the recent additions do smack of original research. Though Child says little about the song, he makes no mention of Ireland, nor do John Jacob Niles, MacEdward Leach (whose Ballad Book was a reference for some of my edits), nor does The Viking Book of Folk Ballads of the English Speaking World (another source I used). Though having both Derry and Down mentined in the same line is interesting, I can't see it as being anything other than a coincidence. I'll take the words of 4 published scholars over a website you can't access any day of the week. -R. fiend 07:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Based on your comments on the talk page, as well as what I know about the song, I did a total reversion of the latest edits to the page. There may be some room for some mention of some of the ideas brought forward, but I didn't feel like doing major editing on ideas that we both seem to feel are rather harebrained. If you want to put anythign back, feel free; I'm still watching the page. -R. fiend 16:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi TCC,

Thanks for voting to support my RfA. I wasn't expecting an unopposed promotion (I thought I'd hit some die-hard edit-counters at least) and I'm touched by the trust shown in me. I'll try my best to continue to earn that trust. But first, I'll have to work on not sounding like a politician; that last sentence was awful. Oh well. Let me know when I screw something up with the shiny new buttons. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 06:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

I just reverted vandalism by 172.153.84.183 to you user page, evidently in retribution to your comment on Template talk:Middle Eastern deities. --Tydaj 03:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Art Bell

I noticed on Art Bell you removed my comment about his book, The Coming Global Superstorm, inspiring the movie The Day After Tomorrow citing that it was "not very informative". Excuse me? Just who do you think you are? I'm so glad I have someone like you to come down all the way from your throne and decide what is informative and what is not. Let's think about this. The Day After Tomorrow was a mainstream movie that in-part revitalized media frenzy over the (psuedo) science of global warming. It was in the news everywhere and people were talking about how things had to change so we could "save the environment". It had a very apparent and visual impact. So as important as the movie is, it would seem important and appropriate to list the fact that his book inspired the movie. Why don't you climb down off you high horse before you go around removing crap that you think isn't important. You're not the freaking WikiPope for crying out loud.

I am extremely sorry.

I am sorry for my scathing comment about the Art Bell article. I was quite mistaken. Your removal was of the brothel story...not my line about the book/movie.

I am deeply embarrassed by my mistake and the approach I took to you about my mispreceptions.

i knew that

I know that, im not stupid, i just did that cause i wanted to trick n00bs into not vandilizing my paged.--Jakewater 21:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Twelve days of Christmas

By my count, you've performed two "reverts" so far today (bearing in mind from WP:3RR "Reverting doesn't only mean taking a previous version from history and editing that. It means undoing the actions of another editor, and may include edits that mostly undo a previous edit and also add something new..."). [2] and of course [3]. So ya got two more before we block ya ;-) Of course that's not the idea - the idea is to find a way to avoid edit-warring in the first place. So, my suggestions, if they add their stuff again, try (a) moving it out of the lead of course, since it is most clearly a minority view, and (b) trimming it down ssomewhat — for instance, the fact that the night of the 24th is the most holy night seems irrelevant to their 12 days, if their 12 days begin on the 26th! (Which also means that the first of their references isn't useful, since it talks about the "holy night" but not the 12 days, as far as I can see.) In general, I guess I'd suggest leaving in the meat of their material and seeing if you couldn't find some additional definitions of which 12 are the 12 days (surely the last 12 days leading up to Christmas are believed to be them by somebody, as the old garbled lead seemed to indicate?) Then a little section could be made up of just such "alternative" calendars. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

12th night etc. -- really, I have no idea. It occurred to me that maybe some of the confusion (and a quick googling did seem to show some confusion) may have something to do with the fact that days used to be reckoned from noon to noon? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Nazareth

• Have you no regard for consistency, and organization so that people looking for info can find it?

On the Nazareth page, there is a section entitled Nazareth in the New Testament. Logically, there should be one for the Old Testament too, even if it a one-liner. It does NOT belong in the section Nazareth in history and archaeology, because that is not the relevent section.

You've replied with Yes, consistency is important, but not so important that it should be allowed to force us to absurd behavior. I pray that you never become a mathematician or lawyer! At least now I understand that you are inconsistent, and consider my objection closed, since we have both presented our arguments and can agree to disagree.

I've removed the complaint about Luke missing, since that is now fixed. This comment, technically, should be removed too, once read. Thank-you. Michael.Pohoreski 17:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Michael & JWs

Oops. Thanks for the correction. I had never heard that. I didn't research enough and ungraciously suspected it was vandalism. I'll be more careful. John 19:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

New Year's Greeting

Dear TCC, a happy, healthy New Year to you and yours. Yesselman 20:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Sciece and Religion

• Kenneth R. Miller: Finding Darwin's God, Miller's Grace. Yesselman 14:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

TfD

You're welcome! And thanks for the vote. Just hope they won't succeed at the Wikipedia:Proposed_policy_on_userboxes as it's not so simple to point people there... Larix 11:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Avoid Copyright Paranoia

TCC you clearly dont have a freaking clue what your talking about when it comes to Image:Kingcrown.jpg. The version of the image I uploaded came from [4] Which is the current version of the image. This page says and I quote: "St Edward's Crown. Refurbished for Charles II's coronation from an old crown; the gold may have come from Edward the Confessor's crown © Crown copyright" NOTE: THIS PAGE SAYS CROWN COPYRIGHT. You will NOTE: IT WAS LICENSED USING CROWN COPYRIGHT! Dude seriously... m:Avoid_copyright_paranoia.  ALKIVAR™ 10:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

From Crown copyright:

Websites are reproducible unless otherwise indicated, but HMSO has stated in correspondence that they do not consider material under Crown Copyright redistributable under such licenses as the GFDL.

and from the originating website:

Copyright of photographs on this site appears alongside each photograph. Copies of many of the photographs appearing on this site can be obtained from the sources listed below. Pictures must not be copied, used or reproduced by any means or in any format (including other web sites) without the prior permission of the copyright holder.

User:Noisy | Talk 18:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:Kingcrown.jpg

I've asked for an opinion from someone who's supposed to know about these things and asked Alkivar and Jtdirl to be civil on the image talk page. Do you have a history with those guys (or with similar copyright controversies elsewhere that they might have come across), or was their incivilty out of the blue? (And yes, telling you you have no goddamn clue is what I would call quite incivil). —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia would be better off if they had never introduced images to begin with, if you want my curmudgeonly opinion. I'm thinking those guys have gotten caught up in the userboxen wars, and are now nail-chewing angry at everybody with a conservative approach to copyrights. It might be best to back slowly away from the whole issue while everybody is still so hot. Sigh. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I know; I would never seriously propose we do away with images. But grr people are ugly. I have never been so proud of the one userbox I have always had on my page than the last week :-) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 06:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Holy Father

Hi. You've asked about how to review and AfD that closed as "redirect". That's actually a pretty tricky one.

Firstly, a redirect is a de facto keep. While for all practical purposes the article is deleted as far as 99.9% of people can see, the contents are still there and a redirect removal is a normal editing action. People may, in the case of a really bad article, recomend "delete and recreate as a redirect", but they didn't do that here.

So you're left with an ambigious result: not a case for deletion review as it has neither been deleted nor kept with a problem in the process, nor are you happy with the outcome. Well, I presume that you're happy enough with the outcome just that it won't stick.

The easiest thing is reporting a WP:3RR violation. It's not quite there yet, but it's close. (In fact, if you made a report right now you might still get some action.) You could nominate it for AfD again, or try to take it to WP:RfD, but both of those would almost certainly be doomed.

I'd just check it once every time I logged on. If it's not a signifigantly different article that has replaced the redirect, use an edit summary something like "per (link to afd) replacing redirect for the Xth time". This may get some RC patrollers to notice, and if (as I see happening already) a few more people start to re-create the redirect, it will eventually stick.

Of course iff a new, decent article were to pop up in that spot, you wouldn't blindly revert, right?

brenneman^(t)(c) 04:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Anglican Orders Considered Valid by Orthodox

Csernica removed the statement in the article that Anglican Orders are considered valid by the Orthodox. I am restoring it. The Statement by the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople to that effect can be found at this link. Nrgdocadams 08:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)Nrgdocadams