Talk:Russian Orthodox Diocese of Sourozh

Untitled

 * Talk:Russian_Orthodox_Diocese_of_Sourozh/Orthodox England Debate: June 2006


 * Talk:Russian_Orthodox_Diocese_of_Sourozh/Canon 28 Debate: July 2006
 * Further material pertaining to this debate may be found in the history of the Eastern Orthodoxy WikiProject's talk page

Expert Tag
No reasons were given for the addition of an expert tag to the article. I have therefore removed the tag. Maxim662 16:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Balance
This article is at present unbalanced. There is too much about the recent difficulties at the head of the article; this should be noted more briefly, and then covered in sufficient (not exhaustive) detail in a section of the main article. 193.63.239.165 14:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Reference
The reference provide for the paragraph 'The Beginnings of Tensions within the Diocese of Sourozh' is inaccesible to non subscribers and there appears no way anyone can subscribe to it. Politis (talk) 13:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Page much too long, and other problems
Dear editors,

At present the article Russian Orthodox Diocese of Sourozh is extremely long and contains information of questionable importance (“New Statutes for the Diocese” and “Problems with Accounts” come to mind); this renders the article rather inaccessible for the reader who isn’t willing to sort through the 15-odd section headings. Moreover, there are entire sections narrating minor conflicts between clergy, containing single-quoted (‘) phrases but offering no citation for them. Together, these different problems indicate a breach of WP:SIZE and WP:BLOATED.

Sections pertaining mostly to a single person and their conflict with other persons don’t belong in an article about the diocese itself, and it seems that a few are WP:OR too. The many links that seem to point to personal attacks published on blogs seem inappropriate here too. See also WP:TOPIC.

In spite of its excessive length, some information about the diocese is lacking entirely, like number of parishes, priests, ecclesiastical headquarters, and so on.

With your consent, I would like to edit most of this page’s content down into a historical section (roughly corresponding to current sections 3-12).

While I think we should all be thankful of the in-depth research work which has clearly been undertaken to edit the article into its current form, that very form is clearly not accessible enough to be considered encyclopaedic. I ask the main contributors to this page to be understanding, and wish to remind them that no page can be controlled by a single person (WP:OWNERSHIP, since I’m aware of ), and that a fresh look at things can help improve the greater picture.

Best,

Maximilian Aigner (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * P.S. In the absence of any response within a few days, I will be adding the relevant template messages and starting work on editing this page down.
 * Maximilian Aigner (talk) 21:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)