Talk:Macedonian Orthodox Church/Archive 1

To Igor Please do not publish information that is representing the material from national point of view. This article is about the Macedonian Orthodox Church and its history, and not about how somebody feels that history. There are other places for discussing issues. Or you might use the Serbian Orthodox Church article to add whatever you want and as you see it. No one will change it, I believe.


 * Just trying to be precise and neutral, you don't really pretend that the Macedonian Orthodox Church (est. 1967) is the same as the Ochrid Archbishopric? And what does the spread of Christianity in Hellenic Macedonia have to do with modern-day Slavic Macedonians and their movement for an autocephalous church? Regards -- Igor, 2:53, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Neutral is not a word you should use. Communists and the issue of Zoran Vraniskovski(as you call him Jovan) - also. But I said once, that the politics shouldn't be the shaper of the articles here. For this matter, it is more important what the people of Macedonia feel and think.

Menorat

If Wikipedia supports this....
...Then this is not a place for learning the truth.

Dear anonymous, while you obviously sincere in what you are writing, you are copying into Wikipedia the exact text from the website of the Macedonian Orthodox Church -- including the capitalization of the word AUTOCEPHALOUS. This is a violation of copyright. Please stop doing that. -- llywrch 03:44, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Copyright???
The text is taken from the Official web site of the Macedonian Orthodox Church, and represents a short version of the history of the MOChurch, given to the public BY Macedonian Orthodox Church. This text is not signed with my name, therefore I am not violating any copyright rule. Editing the text is ok (as a trademark of Wikipedia), but when you see that the text is turning into something which is purely a point of view of somebody which is the cause why MOC is not recognized..that seems like politics. Wikipedia suppose to be a source of pure information, but not a source of the daily politics. Protecting the page in such a manner is wrong.

Copying information from another site without the site owner's explicit release to the GFDL license is a copyright violation and is not acceptable on Wikipedia. RickK 04:08, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Protection
I can easily get permissions for the text, but what about the protection on the page. How sure you were that I wasn't the author of the original text in the first place (which I am not). Menorat


 * 1) If you were the original author of the text you are copying, I'd expect you would say as much. (Hopefully long before I asked about that inappropriateness.) While anyone is welcome to place text they have written in other locations in Wikipedia, I hope that in doing so, you would be aware of all of the ramifications of allowing your work to be put under the GFDL (GNU Free Documentation License). And because this license gives the end user a fair amount of freedom in how she/he reuses the text, you may not be happy with doing so.
 * 2) Why do you feel it is necessary to put section headers before each one of your comments? The Talk: pages are a less formal environment than the content pages, a space where people talk to each other & engage in a certain amount of give & take. Placing section headers before each one of your additions, in my opinion, is at odds with this environment. -- llywrch 00:39, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

No more headers. Some time ago, when I saw that MOC doesn't have an article, I put the text which is on the web site of the church, hoping that later, somebody else or myself will add something more to it. After few days I've noticed that somebody has changed the text which was ok. The only thing that was not ok, was that the text was changed in a way that wasn't reflecting the truth. The text was not accurate anymore. Again, I put the original text back. And it was changed again. After that Rick protected the page without exploring the truth of the text and the reasons of changing. Now we have a text full with copyrighted parts!!! (from the old text), bunch of lies and half truths and no way to fix that. That's why my first comment was to Igor, but shortly after that the page was protected. I don't know...maybe I am wrong. However you should know that I never had intention of promoting vandalism on the site.

Menorat


 * Okay, I see where you're coming from.


 * First off, I was the one who rewrote your original contribution, & it was entirely out of concern for copyright violation. (Hint: take a look at the "Page History" link, & there should be some kind of comment explaining what the change was. I know I stated the reasons I made cahnges to the article.) My intent was to lay out the basic facts, & hopefully attract more contributions from people who knew more about the subject. From reading the prior versions, it appeared to me that some more material was added that fleshed out the article. However, you've objected & I'll admit that I don't know the history well enough to offer a response either way based on the facts as they stand.


 * So when you reverted the article without a clear explanation, I became concerned that you might be more concerned about pushing your own agenda or Point of View (known around Wikipedia as POV) at the cost of the facts. (And I assume that RickK was concerned for the same reasons.) What wins arguments & influences people on Wikipedia is not emotional responses, but reasoned explanations, lots of detail, & patience with people who may not share your understandings. Wikipedia is not for promoting one POV, but for putting forth a non-POV. (Which you'll see mentioned frequently as NPOV.)


 * Menorat, I'd suggest that you do some more research, & try to find some sources & authorities who do not have an emotional attachment to this topic, & incorporate them into this article. If you must make judgemental comments (e.g., "Joe did not do a good job"), try to find a source you can quote who said that, & hopefully with detail that explains any possible bias (e.g., "Frank who was Joe's boss for six months said 'Joe did not do a good job'").


 * And as an aside, I guess all of us should be surprised that we haven't seen a dispute like this on Balkan topics sooner. The issues in this article evoke the same emotions as I've read in the articles concerning Israel & the Palestinians. -- llywrch 03:56, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * You haven't been looking well enough    , etc. Guess which user has been involved in most of those :) Dori 04:03, Oct 23, 2003 (UTC)


 * Which just emphasises my point even more: had Menorat been more eloquent, taken the time to cite sources to defend his position, understood the Wikipedia culture better, &c., I (for one) would not have seen him as a tendentious troll trying to shove a bias down Wikipedia's throat. (And the fact he responded intelligently to my suggestions argues that he is reasonable, & that he just made some newbie mistakes.) I trusted what Igor added to the article because, on the surface, it appeared to be consistent with the original material from the Macedonian Orthodox Church website. (Where they they are vague about much of the frictions & disagreements between them & the Serbian Church; I can't tell if they are being diplomatic towards the Serbian Church, or they are glossing over their own disreputable actions.)


 * And for the record, I've actually tried to avoid the topics surrounding Israel & the Palestinians -- but to no avail. None of the disagreements over Balkan topics have boiled over into either the Wikipedia mailing lists or onto the Recent Changes pages as from disagreements over the other topic. Nor has any single contributor to Balkan topics started crying about racism & prejudice if anyone was anything but utterly polite & deferential -- as did one person concerning the other topics. -- llywrch 00:38, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I am glad to see that the page is not protected anymore, and that is open for editing. But I won't edit it anymore. I'll leave it as it is. I realized that the History of the page is important also. You can see who changed it, how and why. I'll leave the contradictions that a centuries old church was re-established because of the "communist pressure", just to check on the "influence of the Serb Orthodox Church", how Samuil had "Bulgarian State" (the history recognizes that in that time the local rulers where in connection-more or less with them selves only, and that his capital was Ohrid (far away from Bulgarian border)), how somebody has "expulsed from Macedonia" some ex-bishop(who lives in Macedonia, well and healthy, but can not perform services in the Macedonian Churches because his bishop rank was taken from him from the same Holy Sinod who had given the rank to him), and how all of that tradition is about Serbians, Bulgarians, Greeks...but not about Macedonians. I don't know what happened to Israelis and the Palestinians here (my guess is that whatever it is not any much different that what is happening to them in the everyday life), but I know that what is happening to the Macedonians is attacks, ignoring, minimizing and stealing of their history, culture and heritage. Never those things had a long lifespan. Everyone can try. Who will succeed is another story. This is not about the church only. Wherever is there something about Macedonia, there always will be some "editors", or a "protectors". There always will be somebody that will claim that Mother Theresa is born in Albania or Serbia, that Macedonians don't have a right to have an own church, that their history includes everyone but them... It is an old story. One day, when the Macedonian Orthodox Church is recognized and given its honorable place among the other sister Churches, the same "Igors"(nothing personal) will come here, and change their writings. Until then, The Macedonian Orthodox Church will continue to pray for all our Church leaders, brothers and sisters, regardless if they were Serbians, Bulgarians, Greek or Israelis, in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. I know that this is "emotional", but what a heck, aren't we all sometimes...

Menorat