Talk:Ambrose of Belaya Krinitsa

Disclaimer of User:Vasilij
This article originally appeared on March 1st 2009 as a new section of Old Believers, written and added by a user identifying himself as User:Ak36962. IMHO the added section was far too long and far too detailed to fit into the Old Believers article. It also repeats facts that are already mentioned in the article. I took the liberty to cut it off and to make a new separate article of it. Therefore I am not responsable for any statements or POV allegations this article may contain.

Much more editing needs to be done! The English used is rather poor, sometimes even unintelligible. Then the article is extremely detailed, then it skips important events which would make the article more intelligible. The text lacks any sources, which make many mentioned events and facts look like mere allegations.

I invite all who are interested to improve this article and add some solid sources. Vasilij (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Merging the Introduction from this article into Old Believers
Four reasons why the section Introduction from the article Saint Ambrosii of Belaya Krinitsa should not be merged into the article about Old Believers.

1. The user who has suggested to merge the introduction of Saint Ambrosii of Belaya Krinitsa in the article about Old Believers seems to ignore that Saint Ambrosii is mentioned in that article, that some facts about him are being mentioned and that there is a link to the article about him, telling in detail who Saint Ambrosii was.

2. The introduction of Saint Ambrosii of Belaya Krinitsa contains many facts which are already mentioned in the article about Old Believers. These facts should not be repeated in another section of the very same article. This is absolutely superfluous and it makes the Old Believers article look as if it has been poorly edited.

3. The introduction of Saint Ambrosii of Belaya Krinitsa is extremely detailed, as the whole article is. The article Old Believers tries to tell something about Old Believers, a very complicated subject with many aspects. The aim of the article is to tell as much as possible in brief, giving the most relevant information enabling the reader to get an idea about who the Old Believers are. Therefore, any more detailed information should be avoided at all cost.

4. All OB denominations have got their own founder or leader. In this respect, Saint Ambrosii is just one of these leaders/founders. Why then elaborate on Saint Ambrosii? Then we should discuss all of them. But again, the article is complicated and big as it is. I strongly suggest to make the OB article not more complicated and detaild as it is. Vasilij (talk) 15:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all, I apologise for not making clear my intentions regarding the suggestion for merging the 'Introduction' section into the Old Believers article.


 * It was my belief that the introduction, reading more as an introduction to the Old Believers than to Saint Ambrosii, did not belong where it is at present. If it read more as an introduction to Saint Ambrosii and his importance to the Old Believers, then it would either belong in the first paragraph, and/or in detail later in the article. The first section of a biography article customarily describes the early life of the subject, and therefore should be more of an introduction to the life of Saint Ambrosii himself (where he was born and raised, parentage, etc).


 * Therefore, my suggestion to merge the Introduction section into Old Believers was not to reduplicate information in a 'Saint Ambrosii' section, but to add any information about the Old Believers in the introduction of this article that is not in the Old Believers article.


 * I can see now, though, that the section sets the scene for Saint Ambrosii by describing the diasporic Old Believers and the desire in many for a priesthood to lead them, especially since they considered the kingdom of the Antichrist to be upon them soon. So it now occurs to me the place of the section in the article, but this sort of prose places it in contradiction of accepted practice for writing biographical articles in Wikipedia. However the article format for biographies is defined, this article provides a beautiful structure for the article, and so I do believe it can work. Therefore I make the following revised suggestions:


 * Rename the 'introduction' section to something that makes it clear it is about the Old Believers prior to Saint Ambrosii and why he was needed
 * Expand the introductory paragraph to provide additional background to Saint Ambrosii before the section on the Old Believers prior to Saint Ambrosii
 * Find and add citations and references for the article


 * I apologise once again for any misunderstandings this has caused. As a gesture of goodwill, I have removed both tags (from both this article and the article Old Believers). – Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 15:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reaction. No need to apologize! I think your idea is quite good. Vasilij (talk) 18:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)