Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3

	This page is part of WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the Eastern Orthodox Church. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You may also want to look at the current collaboration of the month or the project's notice board.Eastern OrthodoxyWikipedia:WikiProject Eastern OrthodoxyTemplate:WikiProject Eastern OrthodoxyEastern Orthodoxy articles
Project	This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Collaboration of the Month

A number of other WikiProjects have the feature of having a collaboration of the month, essentially a call to enlist many editors to work on improving an article together for a month, drawing attention to that article. (See, for instance, the Wikipedia:WikiProject Anglicanism/COTM.) Let's begin a process of nomination and voting to begin our own COTM for August at this subpage. —A.S. Damick ^talk ^contribs 16:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for assistance

I've put up a request for comment on this, but I'd also appreciate assistance from other editors. The Diocese of Sourozh article has been a small battleground for some time now, particularly with NPOV and verifiability issues. Your comments and assistance would be appreciated.

BTW, do you think we should have a separate notice board page linked to the WikiProject for future requests such as this? —A.S. Damick ^talk ^contribs 14:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the person with whom you have disagreed on the Diocese of Sourozh page, I am concerned that you are using this WikiProject as a means of mustering support to force through your own POV in what is currently a well-sourced article, but which does not reflect your personal opinion.

I have worked hard on the Diocese of Sourozh article to achieve a consensus with you - adding sources to sentences for which you demanded citations; revising sections that could be improved upon; and deleting other material to which you have objected.

As the history and discussion-page of the article show, this dispute between yourself and myself arose through your repeated unilateral deletions of portions of long-standing text within the article, without solid justification, and with no attempt to work for conensus. Throughout the dispute, I have repeatedly stated that I do not insist on the assertion of any particular piece of text, but desire to work together consensus. I have, however, sought that good reasons be provided for the deletion of portions of the article. Unfortunately, I have found your attitude to be overwhelmingly hostile and negative, and you do not seem to have been willing to seriously work together to achieve consensus.

Again, it concerns me that, rather than seeking to resolve the dispute by simply working through the issues to consensus in a matter between yourself and myself - something you have not yet allowed to be positively discussed between us - you are instead spending your time advertising the dispute on this WikiProject

I continue to have good will towards the resolution of the dispute.

Maxim662 18:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. It is not a demonstration of good will to keep removing notice tags without first checking for consensus.

2. My request for assistance is not to push my own POV, but rather to seek a broader base for consensus. What consensus may be achieved could well be the opposite of my own POV, but it more likely to represent something in concert with Wikipedia standards than the current situation. How can it hurt to bring more editors to the article?

3. I've tried achieving a consensus with you, but you repeatedly sabotage the standard process for it. As such, I leave it to others to judge. —A.S. Damick ^talk ^contribs 19:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have not 'sabotaged' any standard process for consensus, but worked hard to begin serious discussion with you. I resent your unjustifiable accusation. I requested explanations for deletion rather than unilateral and aggressive deletion; this conforms to Wikipedia policy. Several times, I attempted to begin positive and constructive discussion on the Sourozh discussion page; this also conforms to Wikipedia policy. Each time you refused to engage with the material content of what I said, but displayed a flat-footedly hostility which stands somewhere between deletionism and nihilism; that does not conform to Wikipedia policy. I also worked hard to provide the references you insisted were required, and where this was not possible, I even removed material which in my opinion is fine - specifically to assuage your insistence that even deductive inferences intended to summarise sourced material violates Wikipedia verifiability standards.

I value the Diocese of Sourozh article, and I value its positive development. Please be assured of my continued good will towards the resolution of the dispute.

I do not wish to engage in an edit war across several pages with you, Dn Damick. I am, as ever, happy to work to a consensus with you. Please do not try to escalate our disagreement - which is, after all, over one small edit to one page. Our time on Wikipedia would be far better spent on more productive matters.

As ever,Maxim662 20:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, it is not an "escalation" to ask that other folks get involved. It's rather termed "Wikipedia." Regarding my alleged "nihilism," I'm not really sure at this point whether to chuckle or weep.

To everyone else: I hope you'll take a look at Diocese of Sourozh and, if you can stomach it, the lengthy discussion over at the talk page. It's a worthy subject which deserves a worthy article. —A.S. Damick ^talk ^contribs 01:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By saying I did not want the matter to 'escalate', I meant that I didn't want it to spread across several pages, so that we were discussing it not only on the Diocese of Sourozh discussion page, but also on other pages, simultaneously. That, I think, is not unreasonable.

I resent your implication that the article is 'unworthy' at present. As I have said several times, I have worked hard on this article; it is certainly a lot better and a lot less POV than when I first began to edit it (when e.g. people were being accused, without qualification, of 'russification', etc.). I consider your insinuations of 'unworthiness' to be inappropriate on this WikiProject discussion page.

Lastly, regarding the language 'nihilism'. I use this language because, regardless of what I try to do, regardless of what I propose, all you do is throw sand in my face. Your contributions in this dispute have been overwhelmingly negative and destructive. That I why I describe your actions as nihilistic. The debate began when (on the 15th of July) you broke the Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule by thrice reverting in under 24 hours a long-standing piece of text, in the face of opposition from others, whilst refusing to enter into constructive discussion about how the text may be improved; indeed, ignoring my attempts to begin such a discussion. Cf. Wikipedia:Etiquette. Since then you have continued to avoid discussing the issues of our dispute positively in a manner which looks towards obtaining consnesus. Instead: You have flat-footedly rebuffed my attempts to explain my position with curt and bogus objections (e.g. asking me why Constantinople doesn't exercise jurisdiction in Africa - when everyone knows Africa is under the jurisdiction of Alexandria); You have claimed my position is wrong because your friends at seminary told you so; You have claimed that deductive inferences (e.g. Socrates is a man; all men are mortal; therefore Socrates is mortal) in summary statements violate Wikipedia's Wikipedia:No_original_research policy; You have even insisted that, in the Diocese of Sourozh article, citations to the Diocese of Soruozh's own web-page are inadmissible in that they violate Wikipedeia's Wikipedia:No_original_research and WP:V policies; And on the back of all this you then complain to others that you're having trouble on the Diocese of Sourozh article!

Hopefully from this it is clear why I have described your activities in this dispute as nihilistic, and why I find it impossible to assume your good faith.

I notice also that this is not the first time you've behaved in such an aggressive manner upsetting others on wikipedia: User_talk:ASDamick#Miaphysitism

I suppose it is clear from all of this that there is no way that you will now begin to work positively towards consensus on the Sourozh page. I therefore suggest that we just agree to disagree and end what for me has become an unproductive waste of time. I am not going to continue to engage you in this dispute.

I do, however, retain (insofar as this is possible) good will, Maxim662 15:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The policy against no original research applies to material being added to an article. I did not attempt to add any material based on knowledge I have. I simply objected to material you were adding based on knowledge I have and based on its not meeting Wikipedia standards. An examination of the article's history can show what I've added to it and whether it constitutes original research (if it does, it should be removed!).

By the way, you may not want to make a claim about me based on the comments on the Miaphysitism article. Nrgdocadams was a notoriously POV editor claiming to be a psychic medium who eventually left Wikipedia in a huff after multiple other editors reverted and objected to his work based on grounds that they mainly were composed of original research and that he refused to discuss anything civilly.

Anyone who is interested in what I've done can view all of my contributions should they so desire.

My comment that the topic deserves a worthy article was not meant to imply some sort of "unworthiness" for the current version, just that the topic is deserving of an article of good quality. One could make the same statement about articles which are clearly already quite worthy. You honestly seem set on taking what I say in the worst manner possible.

My sincere and humble apologies to all the here—my intention was simply to invite more participation in the article, not to bring the dispute here. I'm honestly saddened by this whole thing and have decided to remove Diocese of Sourozh from my watchlist. —A.S. Damick ^talk ^contribs 23:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ratings

What we definetely need to do is to go around and rate all of the articles in their style and appearance. Have a look at the Trains wikiproject which I am part of and consider application of the similar templates they devised. --Kuban Cossack 17:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a fine idea. I suppose it would be incorporated into Template:Orthodoxyproject. How are the ratings usually determined? —A.S. Damick ^talk ^contribs 01:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its actually remarkably straightforward -> Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Assessment. I would never think that it be too difficult to distinguish a stub from an FA.--Kuban Cossack

09:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Catholicism seems to have a similar, but less complicated system of ratings. I'm not sure that I'm up to the coding, though this could very well be useful. What do you think? —A.S. Damick ^talk ^contribs 17:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

template

I made this. I think its about ready to go live, but if anyone wants to edit it or make comments, feel free. All we need to do next is move the code from the subpage to the main template space, and move the inclusion tag on each individual article to the top of the page.--Andrew c 15:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we can add an image of some of the more famous churches. Say one from Greece, one from Middle East, one from Russia and one from Balkan area... or something like that.? --Kuban Cossack

15:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Browse through Category:Religion navigational boxes to get some ideas of the format generally used across wikipedia for these sort of boxes. I think one image is the norm. That said, if you'd rather have an image of a eastern Church, instead of a Byzantine depiction of Jesus, go right ahead and change the image, or suggest a few and perhaps we could vote? There are at least 5 images of buldings in the Eastern Orthodox Church article.--Andrew c 16:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why only Russian, Balkan, Greek churches? How about Georgian? Ethiopian? Ukrainian? lets avoid bias and use the Byzantine Christ instead. I think it feets every church. 14:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ldingley (talk • contribs) .

Well we do not need an image gallery, only the most famous and significant should be present. IMO Athos in Greece, Basil in Moscow, Nevsky in Sofia and maybe Nativity in Jerusalem or maybe Savva in Belgrade... I mean if you want a Georgian one be my guest. If it is a good image, however at present I have to agree that the fresco of Saviour is better. --Kuban Cossack

22:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "famous" and "significant"? Svetitskhoveli in Mtskheta is also very famous and significant church in entire Christendom. How about we avoid bias like yours and start creating workable images which suits all Orthodox Churches without mixing politics into it. It’s funny how you can only recognize the significance of churches only in Bulgaria, Serbia, Russia and Jerusalem (thank God, at least one non-Slavic state). Well I guess for you Orthodoxy is only s pan-Slavic, Russian church. Ldingley 22:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just trying to figure out what exactly it is y'all are talking about. What are you talking about using these images for? —A.S. Damick ^talk ^contribs 23:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Rev. Andrew, I just try to separate Orthodox faith from politics. You see, it has been suggested that only "significant" and "famous" Slavic churches should be used on the Eastern Orthodox template. Why is that? How can we tell which is famous and which is more significant? Greek churches, Georgian Churches, Bulgarian, Serbian, Ethiopian, etc, all are very significant and famous. Orthodox faith is not Russian or Slavic. It is universal for all nations which adopted this faith. Georgians were one of the first Christians (3-4 century officially adopted Christianity as state religion), they have constructed one of the most magnificent cathedrals and churches in Christendom (Jvari 5C, Svetitskhoveli Cathedral 4C, Sameba, Alaverdi10C, etc). How can we judge the significance of any church? All are equally significant. Let’s avoid politics and nationalism, especially when it comes to the Christian faith. With respects Dear Rev. Andrew. May Christ our Savior be with you.Ldingley 14:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. I think the image on the Eastern Christianity template should remain as it is, because Eastern Christianity comprises so much more than one church. Of course, I'm of the opinion that the template should be moved back to being a link to the Eastern Christianity Portal. There's just too much variation in Eastern Christianity to make a "series" template that can really do it justice. Perhaps one for just the Eastern Orthodox Church might be better. —A.S. Damick ^talk ^contribs 14:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I need help. I have moved the new template to the main article space. What needs to be done is someone needs to go into every article that includes the template and move it to the top. However, if there is already a template or image at the top, then a table needs to be used in order to avoid bad code that results from stacking multiple floated items. So this is what you do. Go here. Pick any page. Go and edit the code. Move the {{Eastern Christianity}} from the bottom to the top. If there is an image or template already at the top, please insert the following code:

{|style="float: right;"	 
|-	 
|(A)
|- 
|{{Eastern Christianity}}
|}

Where (A) is equal to the template or image already included at the top of the article. If you need an example, look at the code of Monophysitism or Coptic Christianity. So any editor that has any spare time to move this code would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for your time and consideration!--Andrew c 18:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I commented on the template's talk page. I'm concerned that this template's choices in links are really imbalanced. At this point, it mainly seems to be a link to a few overview articles in the midst of what seems almost like a random list of other things (e.g., one Ecumenical Patriarch, one Coptic Pope, one Syriac Patriarch of Antioch, and one sainted Serbian king?). I think it could use some significant trimming and focusing. —A.S. Damick ^talk ^contribs 23:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archbishops of Crete

Although I won't be joining this project, I couldn't help noticing that at recent deaths, the report of the death of the Archbishop of Crete has been noted as unreferenced, and the list of Archbishops of Crete is in rather bad condition. Michael Hardy 14:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on churches

General comment: I ported over the article on the Estonian Orthodox Church a few months back from OrthodoxWiki, and I was surprised to see that not all churches in the Eastern tradition had pages yet. It would seem to me like it is a priority to create articles on these autonomous churches. For that matter, some of the autocephalous churches are a little disappointing, too (i.e. Albania.) I don't exactly have a nomination from all this, but it's something to bear in mind. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 21:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The previous comment was moved from Wikipedia:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy/COTM by ASDamick. 02:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]