Jump to content

Talk:Christodoulos of Athens

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Consignment with the Pope

[edit]

The article needs info about his consignment with John Paul II and the reactions from both sides about it. 30/01/2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.132.102.84 (talk) 12:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mosque in Athens

[edit]

This article mentions Greece having been the only place in the EU without a mosque in its capital. There's no mosque in Ljubljana. 28/06/2007

Characterizations of the archbishop

[edit]

Characterizations of the archbishop should not be libelous. Please be more careful. talk to +MATIA 12:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so, what you're saying is that we should spin the image of the Archbishop in a possitive light? Project2501a | ΑΝΥΠΟΤΑΞΙΑ, ΑΠΑΛΛΑΓΗ, Ι-5 17:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I get the impression he's quite a controversial figure in Greece... -- ChrisO 19:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Very much so. Initially, he presented himself as a traditionalist who resonated with much of the public, regardless of political affiliation, but subsequently he retreated to gradually more (and more) nationalist-minded overtures. As far as I can tell, both left-leaning socialists as well as right-leaning liberals have come to consider him an irresponsible demagogue.

This article is obviously biased against the Archbishop. It is ridiculously biased, at some points. --Ferrara 12:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed biased phrases from anon editors' such as "Christodoulo's propaganda against any liberal or modern idea", and I'm letting the man's statements speak for themselves (including sources, at that). I've also added his latest statements wrt the 9/11 terrorist acts, which are considerably more critical towards the attacks than his earlier comments.. Maybe you could specifically point out the parts of the article that you consider to consist "ridiculous bias" against the Archbishop? Porfyrios 17:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would point them out since Ferrara never replied but unfortunately i can't, i would have to paste the entire article. Let me just note that the "Criticism and controversy" part is bigger than the rest of the article combined. But that doesn't matter since the other parts of the article advocate the same thing anyway. In the election section we learn about his nationalist views against minorities (stupid me thought that i would read about the elections in there). The "Involvement in issues" section is written in a way that would be better of in "Critisism and controversy" since that's all it does. Not to mention that any part that could make someone to sympathize with the Archbishop is missing (for example all the polls that've shown his popularity being extremely high for a head of Greek Church, the number of people taking part in the demonstrations he "organized", the number of collected signatures shortly after etc). The "Clash with Ecumenical Patriarchate" doesn't really have any info about the clash itself, rather that the fact that the Archbishop "was striken off the Diptych of the Church as a punishment". Following that is the "Implication in 2005 Church scandals" (maybe should also be in the "Critisism and controversy" but i won't insist on it, i assume it's a bigger issue than most so it needed it's own section) which is then followed by two chosen quotes, one about the Junta (which was already mentioned before but i guess the editor thought one time isn't enough) and another about the Ancient Greek temples, which leaves out part of what he said, completely altering the meaning. Finally let's not forget the pictures. One of Christodoulos, as always in this kind of articles, and one again of the Junta issue (yes, in case someone didn't notice the two comments about this issue and the link to the same picture in the "Notes & references"!).
Also if i may add something. Most people seem to reject the use of somewhat biased sources. I'm not one of them. In my opinion any information should be included, no matter if the source is considered biased. Still, the fact that so many information was taken from Eleftherotipia and especially from Ios shows why the article is so POV and what the creator(s) of this wanted to show. Constantinos7 22:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, "Eleftherotypia" is only used to source statements that the Archbishop made, and is furthermore only one among a variety of citations and sources, at that. Did you miss the copious references to BBC news, the Guardian, Skairadio, in.gr, and numerous other Greek media (newspapers, portals and electronic media alike)? His speech denouncing human rights as a ploy by Satan is there for all to see, even posted in the Church's official website! You do make some valid points (for example about the election section needing to refer to his election itself, rather than his stance -or alleged stance- on minorities) which I will attempt to address.
On the other hand, I feel I need to reiterate my opinion that, since the bulk of the article reproduces statements that the Archbishop has made verbatim, it can hardly be considered to serve some kind of nefarious agenda. Accusing the contributors of serving such an agenda, simply for reprinting the Archbishop's sourced statements, amounts to little more than ad hominem, in my humble opinion. Porfyrios 11:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just abvout every paragraph begins "The Archbishop has been criticised for...." or "The Archbishop has been accused of ..." or words of similar import.

This does not suggest a neutral point of view. SteveH 06:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dedicated to all the libelers: Dont you have anything to do in your life and you search the web, you cut and paste(thereby changing the meaning of the) things that the archbisop had said and defame? Get a life. Seriously.Poipoila (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christodoulos's Title: 'His Beatitude' or 'His Eminence'

[edit]

According to the wikipedia entry here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forms_of_address the correct title for a metropolitan or archbishop is His Eminence ...

"His Eminence (abbreviation "HE", oral address Your Eminence) — Cardinals of the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Metropolitans and Archbishops, certain high Tibetan Lamas."

however on the wikipedia entry for the archbishop here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christodoulos

begins like this: "His Beatitude the Archbishop of Athens and All Greece Christodoulos..."

as does the archbishop's web page on the church of greece's site: http://www.ecclesia.gr/English/archbishop/index.html

Which is correct? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Direction (talk • contribs) 11:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Since Archbishop Christodoulos is the primate of an Autocephalous Church then his title is styled as: "His Beatitude."

--Calak 16:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is amazingly biased against Christodoulos. While all the controversies and criticism should be included, it should be more balanced and also include all other activities by Christodoulos, outside the controversies. As it is, it can hardly be considered a neutrla, unbiased, encyclopaedic article. It's even more demagogic than Christodoulos has been in the past - I mean, it's like dozens of paragraphs accusing Christodoulos of something. Come on. Xanthi22 15:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a suggestion. If you think other activities of the Archbishop have been omitted, why not add them to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.203.67.215 (talk) 00:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The title Beatitude is correct: it is the appropriate title for an Orthodox Bishop. However, there is little to recommend the title Archbishop in Orthodoxy. This is a title borrowed from Catholicism and is deeply questionable in terms of canonicity and practice in Orthodoxy. Many of the problems Christodoulos has had with the Patriarch lie in his interpretation of that title Indeed, unless he is a pseudo-Patriach, I cannot see that he can claim to be styled a bishop with jurisdiction over ALL Greece at all. TIM WILSON

Here is an update and some comment from Necati: update: from Ekathimerini HOSPITAL REFUSED

Archbishop Christodoulos says he wants to be treated at home

Archbishop Christodoulos has declined hospital tests, telling aides he wants to be treated at his home in Palaio Psychico, it was revealed yesterday. The head of the Church of Greece is suffering from liver cancer and continues to be in a critical but stable condition. Meanwhile, speculation about a possible successor to Christodoulos is intensifying. “I would say it shows a lack of respect but at the same time it is also human,” said Bishop Chrysostomos of Zakynthos.

Clearly the archbishop should be replaced as soon as possible, even before he dies. The administrative chaos will be immense otherwise and also his successor must begin to undo the damage done by racist and over-zealous nationalist pronouncements and support to right-wing politicians made regularly by Christodoulos (whatever the explanations or spin given after the event). It will be necessary, in addition, to properly address the issues of corruption in the Church as well as the inevitable separation of Church and State. If His Grace the Archbishop leaves any legacy at all, therefore, it is the urgency for establishing a Church that is truly independent of the Government and that cannot further embarrass the Greek State's efforts to become more European and to establish stronger ties with its neighbour Turkey.

Despite that, I wish the Archbishop strength and goodwill in his final days. While in 2003 and 2004 when I personally approached him, he refused to offer support to victims like me, men women and children tortured by State troops in Greece in 2001, we remember him daily in our prayers and thoughts as he suffers in his final illness. My appeal to him coincided with his Statement that "ALL turks are Barbarians". Indeed, I took this as his response to my request. As it was, the men accused of torturing me were found guilty but neither the Archbishop nor the State have seen fit to issue any statement condemning their behaviour.

As he in in pain today, we believe the Archbishop is at last one with us in the hurts we suffered at the hands of the Greek Coastguard, the politicians who ignored us, and the lawyers and Greek-staffed NGOs who failed to provide proper support; we ask God to forgive his failings and his sins and to enlighten his successor who, like Christodoulos will be the heart and soul of His country.

Necati —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timewilson (talk • contribs) 14:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The title is correct, but it is not applicable to all Orthodox bishops -- only Primates of Churches, except that of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The new patriarchates (such as that of Moscow) also use "His Holiness" but it is not recognised by the Ecumenical See.Muscovite99 (talk) 19:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also there's nothing particularly Latin (Romish) about the title. The canonical status if the Church of Greece has long been regularised with the patriarch. I agree that the title "and All (country)" is not warranted by canons generally, but it is a long-standing tradition for primates' titles.Muscovite99 (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How accurate is this article?

[edit]

The whole article has a hostile attitude towards the Archbishop. I don't think it's very accurate since most of the edits have been done under anonymous users / IPs. Iaberis (talk) 17:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

71.106.93.90 (talk) 07:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)This article is obviously very biased against the Archbishop. It barely mentions his humanitarian record, his vision for the Church of Greece, his contributions. It focuses on clashes, criticism and political conflicts.71.106.93.90 (talk) 07:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)kostas[reply]
Anyone who has verifiable information is welcome to contribute. pinikas (talk) 22:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an extremely biased article, presenting only the point of view of people who are critical of the Archbishop due to his stands on various political, social and church matters. In a way it proves many of the points of the Archbishop, that many spokesmen for 'globalization' are constantly attacking him and the values he fought for.

I will give some examples

Christodoulos supported views on Greek politics and culture that were criticized by some as highly conservative and nationalist

These are opinions

and supported by others as "standing up" for Greece and Greek culture. He led protests in 2002 against Greece's version of the television programme Big Brother, urging followers to "pray for the young kids" on the shows and to "turn off our [television] sets".[14]

Big Brother has been criticised by lots of people. This does not make them highly conservative or nationalist, by the way, why are some nations allowed to be patriotic, and highly nationalistic e.g. US, UK (British traditions, etc) and others should be always de-nationalised in culture

The Archbishop was intensely critical of globalisation, to which he referred, on repeated occasions, in disparaging terms as a global, or alternatively, "foreigner" plot to deprive people of their national identities. In 2004 he criticized globalisation as a "bulldozer that is out to demolish everything, on account of those who want to rule the world without resistance or obstacles",[15] adding that Greeks live in a paradise compared to other Europeans, because "they have a strong faith, they build churches, follow traditions, and resist globalisation". In 2006, he castigated globalisation as a "crime against humanity" and "a vehicle to Americanise the life of all humankind".[16] He has also claimed that "globalisation wants to turn us into gruel, soup, sheep, or better yet, turkeys, so that we may be led with a cane".[17] In 2002, he asked students in a Greek school whether they wanted to be "mince meat or meat", explaining that "foreigners want to turn us into the meat-grinder, while meat is a solid thing".[18]

There have been strong criticisms of globalization from many intellectuals of all political tendencies. It is strange to criticise someone because he is a critic of the bad aspects of globalization. There may be good aspects, but should not people be aware of lurking dangers to?

On another occasion he stated that "the forces of Darkness cannot stand it [that Greece is a predominantly Orthodox country], and for this reason they want to decapitate it and flatten everything, by means of globalization, the novel deity that has appeared alongside another deity called human rights, and on account of which they expect us to curtail our own rights".[19] In 2006, he decried the establishment of the monotonic orthography, as a "globalization plot" to impose "cultural uniformity" and "support the sale of multi-national Olivetti's typewriters". He also sarcastically referred to the lawmakers' "kindness of relieving our race from the darkness of Aristophanes",[20] with regards to the same matter.

The Archbishop is a very strong spokesman in the support of human rights. The above is a misquotation, completely out of context.

Some comments by the archbishop on human rights also raised controversy. In 2006, Christodoulos stated that the Church is bound to "come into many conflicts with the movement for human rights", despite the fact "it not only does not oppose human rights, but supersedes them".[21]

The Archbishop is a very strong spokesman in the support of human rights. The above is a misquotation, completely out of context. This shows how biased is the author of this article.

Christodoulos was frequently criticized[citation needed] for criticizing the principles and values of what he characterized "the atheist Enlightenment", and which he contrasted to Christian values.[22] The Archbishop was also criticised for frequently judging the internal and foreign policies of the elected Greek governments, usually during sermons in the liturgy. In 1999, he complained during a sermon that the Education Ministries were "experimenting on students" with their continuous innovations on the educational system, causing the dissatisfaction of then Minister Gerasimos Arsenis, who was pushing substantial changes in secondary education at the time.

The latest high school history textbook has just been removed since it contaied a number of inaccuracies pointed at by the Archbishop among many other. He did lead the argument against the anti-religion lobby in Greece, which is very strong by the way.

Christodoulos created a major controversy in 2003 when he denounced proposals to let Turkey enter the European Union, calling the Turks "barbarians".[23] Despite the fact a number of Greeks are also opposed to Turkey's entrance (as, indeed, are many other Europeans), Christodoulos' statements were seen as an unwarranted intervention in foreign affairs, based on a discriminatory and racialist logic. It has to be noted, however, that statements to the same effect had been made—and retracted—in the past by former Foreign Affairs Minister Theodoros Pangalos.

The current position of the EU is similar to that of the Archbishop in 2003. The term 'barbarian' though must be taken in the context of his whole speech, and not mentioned out of context.

The archbishop was accused of fusing ethnic stereotypes and homophobic ideas when, on another occasion, he proclaimed that "Because we are not German, neither French, far more not English, but manful Greeks, we are Orthodox Christians".[24] The statement reflects a tendency in Greek low comedy to depict the British, French, and German men as having a tendency towards effeminacy, more frequently seen in burlesque comedy rather than serious works.

This is a ridiculous statement. The reference to low comedy is absurd and illogical. The Archbishop has always stated people should respect each others individuality and that young people can come to church wearing earings etc. Lots of immigrant workers and other minorities were in his funeral.

Christodoulos was also criticized for supporting what many Greeks feel[citation needed] to be an arbitrary, nationalist, and ultimately ahistorical division between the Greek and European culture at large. In 1998 he declared that "when our ancestors gave the lights of civilization, they [Europeans] were living up in trees".[25] In 2003 he claimed that "history teaches us Europeans were always out to harm us. Long before the sack of Constantinople, Hellenism had been subjected to the horrible experience of the Franks, who wanted to achieve, by any means possible, its extinction." The latter sentence seems to indicate that the Archbishop extrapolates attitudes of the excommunicated Western sackers of 1204 AD, to all Western Europeans, of all times.

However hard they may seem all above statements are actually historically true. The Pope has actually apologised to all Orthodox Christians to the sacking of Constantinople by the Crusaders. This sacking led eventually to the fall of eastern christianity.

After the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center, parts of the public were shocked to hear the archbishop attribute the attacks to "despondent men" who acted "out of despair caused by the injustices of the Great Powers". Critics attacked the archbishop[26] for what they considered to constitute an underhanded justification of the terrorist act. Christodoulos denied the allegation and responded that he condemned the attacks. In the fifth anniversary of the attacks, in 2006, and while speaking to an audience of High School students, Christodoulos characterized the September 11, 2001 attacks "a hideous crime that cost the lives of thousands of innocent people" and attributed them to "man failing to discern between good and evil, and being unable to posit himself responsibly towards the problems of the world".[27]

The Archbishop was completely against terrorism

On December 2007 and January 2008, an anarchist organization calling themselves "Προδότες Εθνικής Συνείδησης – Αυτόνομοι" (Traitors of National Consciousness – Autonomics) posted two posters in the streets of Athens, celebrating and thanking the disease that has been affecting the Archbishop. The act came under attention by Greek media, which described it as cruel, merciless and misantrhopic

Why mention an act of a handful, literally of young thugs ?

195.212.29.163 (talk) 31 January 2008

Excommunicated?

[edit]

According to this article (in German) of the Austrian Broadcasting Corporation Archbishop Christodoulos was excommunicated by the Holy Synod of Constantinople in 2004. Is this correct? Gugganij (talk) 10:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Of course not!!!!!!! As a matter of fact the Patriarch will come and head the whole ritual of the funeral. Eagle of Pontus (talk) 12:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually yes, there was a crisis in 2004 that resulted in a "decision of the Synod of the Patriarchate to suspend Eucharistic communion with Archbishop Christodoulos and place him out of the Diptychs of the Church of Constantinople" ([1]), whatever that means. Cf. Greek press report [2]. The website I cited does explain this as "a form of excommunication". I haven't yet dug up how that affair ended; I'm sure there was some form of reconciliation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find any information about reconciliation on the web, which I need to put that (referenced) information in the German Wikipedia (see: de:Christodoulos I. (Athen)) into perspective. If you find any I would appreciate if you could post it here. Thanxs in advance. Gugganij (talk) 05:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just realised that the article in the German Wikipedia was changed accordingly, though without reference. Thus, any information about reconciliation is still welcome. Gugganij (talk) 05:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually Fut.Perf. it says Patriarch stopped communication with him.Excommunication means αφορισμός i think which is sth a lot bigger and more serious and didn't happen.They have reconciled since.If i remember right Christodoulos traveled to Fanari but i am not sure.As i said Patriarch will come and head the funeral. Eagle of Pontus (talk) 13:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Temporary suspension of eucharistic communion is not exactly excommunication. The same happened between Moscow and the Ecumenical See in 1996 -- on the Moscow initiative, but surely that could not possibly mean the Patriarch of Moscow excommunicating the ecumenical Patriarch.Muscovite99 (talk) 20:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Election

[edit]

Christodoulos was born in Athens not xanthi

[edit]

Although his "official" biography mentions xanthi, he himself told in an interview on the public channel ERT ("Portrait" seen on 30/01/2008) that he was born in Athens!--XPHCTOC (talk) 23:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've read one biography on the web somewhere (can't remember the link unfortunately) that said he was born in Xanthi but the family moved to Athens only one or two years later (i.e. during WWII). So Athens seems to be where he grew up. As long as we don't have an exact transcript of his wording in that interview, I think it's safer to stick with what the official biography and the obituaries in the press have. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not mad I know what Christodoulos said. As I wrote on the french and greek wiki he was born in Athens (there were some complications with the pregnancy of his mother so she moved to Athens). It's incredible to believe some irresponsible journalists and not the Archibishop himself. Sorry for my poor english:p --84.101.187.111 (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All the articles I've read state that he was born in Norther Greece, so that would imply Xanthi, not Athens. El Greco(talk) 22:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"ultimately ahistorical division between the Greek and European culture at large"

[edit]

It is not "ahistorical". It is a historical fact, regardless of present circumstances and the existence of the EU. Facts are facts, even if the truth hurts for some. Is it possible, for instance, to equate the Visigoths, the Vandals, the Huns, and certain head-hunting Celtic tribes over the Alps with the Roman republic? Is it possible to equate the Golden Age of Greece with the Dark Ages of Northern Europe? And who was it that brought in the Renaissance after that episode? Please note, I am neither a Greek nor an advocator of the style of Christodoulos, just an observer. J.D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.171.177 (talk) 05:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? Anybody at home?

[edit]

To the anon user 62.74.8.214 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) aka Sakisbar (talk · contribs): when people ask you politely to discuss instead of reverting, then please come here and discuss. See my note on User talk:62.74.8.214 in case you didn't see it. Otherwise, your version will soon be reverted again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, you just can't go on and use phrases like he was greatly supported as more than three million democratic Greeks. Especially in an encyclopaedia. pinikas (talk) 10:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The stench of POV: Is Christodoulous the AntiChrist?

[edit]

This article reeks of anti-Greek/anti-Christian POV. One of the admins should STEP UP and either lock it so no hateful anon can mess with it or delete it altogether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.195.250.2 (talk) 02:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one is suggesting that the late archbishop was the "antichrist" or anything nearly as ridiculous (unlike similar characterizations hurled by his supporters against perceived opponents). Moreover, criticisms of the archbishop are not anti-greek in nature, nor are they anti-christian. You are setting up an obvious strawman here, I'm afraid. 62.1.250.70 (talk) 00:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable

[edit]

Two posters (literally!) by an unknown group of anarchist thugs "thanking cancer" for its toll on the archbishop do not constitute "encyclopedic material" any more than random graffiti in your home street does. I'm removing the entry in question because it is, quite frankly, ridiculous. Porfyrios (talk) 11:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Christodoulos of Athens. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Christodoulos of Athens. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:45, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Christodoulos of Athens. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Christodoulos of Athens. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christodoulos_of_Athens&oldid=1206683021"