Talk:Gibran (Ramlawey) of Australia and New Zealand

episcopal rank

i've seen no evidence that +Gibran was archbishop - all documents i've seen say that he was just bishop of a diocese, and that after his repose the diocese got upgraded to archdiocese and title of bishop to metropolitan. Pistevo 02:30, 11 Sep 2005 (EDT)

Googling for his name yields multiple sources referring to him as "archbishop" (including obituaries).[1] —Dcn. Andrew ^{talk random contribs} 20:20, 11 Sep 2005 (EDT)

this...is probably best described as 'frustrating' :). a bunch of external sources say 'archbishop', possibly because they are used to archbishops running the church. deanery of new zealand says 'bishop' in its obituary [2], and archdiocese of aust/nz says 'bishop' in its history of the archdiocese [3]. all that said, i'll change it only after this has been verified (either way) on an archdiocesan level. cheers, Pistevo 01:50, 12 Sep 2005 (EDT)

I gather that means you're going to ask them? That would seem to be the best idea. —Dcn. Andrew ^{talk random contribs} 07:14, 12 Sep 2005 (EDT)

Rank (again) and surname

With the most recent edits by Chrisg, he's now listed as both a bishop and archbishop. That seems less than ideal. Additionally, the Anglicization of the name was changed, yet the relatively more Frankified Ramlaoui (an extremely common thing for people from Lebanon) is used in multiple sources online. Which is it? Archbishop or bishop? Rimlawi or Ramlaoui? Sources? (All the sources in the external links list him as an archbishop and his surname as Ramlaoui.) —Fr. Andrew ^talk contribs (THINK!) 08:00, December 30, 2005 (CST)

Correct Rank, Function, and Surname

RANK There is a difference between rank and function.

In later life Bishop Gibran was given the personal rank of archbishop. Yet the diocese of Australia and New Zealand remained a diocese until the Holy Synod of Antioch considered appointing a successor.

So when he reposed, Archbishop Gibran was an archbishop, but was bishop of the diocese, since the see was not archiepiscopal.

The same applies to Archbishop Hilarion of ROCOR in Australia. The diocese is not an archdiocese, yet the incumbent has the personal dignity of archbishop.

SURNAME Archbishop Gibran used the spelling "Rimlawi" when he was in Australia and New Zealand. Since most of the online obituaries were written in his former homeland of the USA, the authors there may not have been aware of his anglicisation of his arabic surname in Australia and New Zealand.

His grave is located immediately behind the Greek Orthodox chapel in the major Sydney necropolis "Rookwood Cemetery". It correctly records his own preference for the english spelling of his surname "Rimlawi".

Documents produced in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Australia, the place of his domicile, show his surname as "Rimlawi". The Court accepted this as the correct english spelling of his surname, as at the time of his repose.

His death certificate shows his surname as "Rimlawi" and the cause of death as "Cardial Infarction".

-chrisg 2006 Jan 04:1205 (EAST)

Okay, that makes sense. But is it Ramlawi or Rimlawi? —Fr. Andrew ^talk contribs (THINK!) 20:18, January 3, 2006 (CST)

I am told the spelling Archbishop Gibran used since just before the time he was granted Australian citizenship and an Australian passport, was "Rimlawi".

-chrisg 2006 Jan 04:1357 (EAST)

More on Rank and Spelling

Last week I was shown an actual copy of the death certificate (NSW Registration Number 3223/1999). His surname is shown as Ramlawey. His father's surname is shown as Ramlawey.

A member of the Holy Synod informs me that the Holy Synod PROPOSED he be given the rank Archbishop, but the formal decision was not actually made before his demise.

The Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia, New Zealand and All Oceania, now has an official position on these matters and will now always refer to Sayidna Gibran as Bishop Gibran Ramlawey.

I think there is a separate posting from someone quite authoritative on this matter.

chrisg 2006-04-26 : 0947 EAST

Fixed. --— by Pιsτévο ^{talk complaints} at 03:16, April 26, 2006 (CDT)

Many thanks -- chrisg 2006-04-26 : 2115 EAST

Much as I find the ongoing debate about how to spell the Anglicization of this man's name rather bizarre, it is worth pointing out that spelling for this encyclopedia ought to be governed by whatever is the most common among English writers. Official documents can, of course, lend a clue as to what common usage is, but in the end, it's the whole community of Anglophones who decide what common usage is. (Sir Walter Raleigh, for instance, never spelled his own name as "Raleigh," yet that is the spelling immortalized in history and in the name of a US state capital.) —Fr. Andrew ^talk contribs (THINK!) 15:43, April 28, 2006 (CDT)

Succession box

The standard usage throughout OrthodoxWiki is to include only the name (without title) in the succession box. (The title is include in the central portion of the box and in the articles on the specific persons, so it does not need to be duplicated.) This usage keeps things trim and manageable. Chrisg, why was it changed on this article? —Dcn. Andrew ^{talk random contribs} 09:26, June 7, 2006 (CDT)

Dear Deacon Andrew,

Thank you for asking. The succession box describes +Gibran as a Bishop of a Diocese. His predecessor was neither a bishop, nor in charge of a diocese. His successor was not a bishop but a metropolitan archbishop, and in charged of an archdiocese, not a diocese. In cases where the status of an exarchate, or a diocese, or an archdiocese change, it could appear more appropriate, and cetainly more accurate, to show the variation in status. Hence the change in this article. chrisg 2006-06-08-0127 EAST

If the position of the successor is in fact a completely different position from the main subject of the article, then it would seem that listing that person as the successor at all makes no sense. If, however, the position of the successor is similar enough, then it would seem that the standard usage should apply. In any event, the article about the successor makes it clear what position he holds.

There are already numerous articles throughout the wiki which include succession boxes in which the successor holds a position whose title is different than the subject, but unless that position is radically different (e.g. a priestly exarch vs. a bishop), the title is not specified in the succession box, but simply in the article pertaining to the successor.

The idea of the succession box is simply to show the "before" and "after" for a given position, not the complete details of the holders of that position. I'm reverting the succession box to meet the usual usage. Please try to make your edits conform to the standards established on OrthodoxWiki. —Dcn. Andrew ^{talk random contribs} 10:33, June 7, 2006 (CDT)