Talk:Russian Orthodox Diocese of Sourozh/Orthodox England Debate

POV issues
The recent rewrite of this article by an anonymous editor is long on analysis and short on fact. It doesn't much strike me as encyclopedic any longer, especially with the repeated unqualified addition of the Orthodox England site, whose author has frequently said quite a good number of nasty things about Sourozh leadership over the years (referring to it as a "personality cult" under Metr. Anthony, for instance ).

Perhaps the anonymous editor may be interested in working toward something more neutral. &mdash; A.S. Damick talk contribs 20:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Response to POV issues
I appreciate that there are controversial points on the Orthodox England website - certainly not all of them will be widely shared. However, the point is not to endorse these views (hence they are presented as a link, and not in the body of the text), but rather to observe their existence. Given the current diversity of opinion regarding recent events in Sourozh Diocese, it is important that not only pro-Bishop Basil opinions are allowed to be mentioned here (cf. e.g. the highly contentious Steenberg canon law article). Precisely in that this is an encyclopedic entry, it is appropriate to point to the full range of current viewpoints, rather than censoring particular perspectives - in this case the perspectives of Russian Church abroad priests - which may be uncongenial to one or other individual. Supporting Bishop Basil is not a necessary requirement for inclusion as a link on this encyclopedia entry.

Many people have serious questions about the sociological configuration of the Sourozh diocese under Metropolitan Anthony. Whilst such questions may not be congenial to supporters of Bishop Basil, the existence of such questions deserves recognition in an encyclopedia entry.

If there is a desire to qualify the reference to the Orthodox England web-page, then perhaps it could be suitably qualified - as has been done earlier with the reference to the Steenberg article?

Equally, as a perusal of a substantial encyclopedia (such as a the Encylopedia Britannica) will confirm, an encyclopedia article may very well contain a significant body of analysis as well as barren 'facts'. The nature of Wikipedia means that if there are facts missing, they can be added, and if there are other viewpoints of analysis, they can be introduced. The article as stands is hardly too long for Wikipedia. As the text stands it is clearly sub-divided, and the bulk of the article reports the recent 'facts' regarding the situation in the Diocese of Sourozh, providing some commentary. This is not inappropriate for Wikipedia, but can, if wished, be supplemented. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 149.254.200.215 (talk • contribs).

Suggestion
Obviously every article in Wikipedia is written from a certain perspective. This article can be no different. If there are particular points at which this article requires supplementation by noting other views/interpretations of the facts, then these ought to be added, so that the article properly represents an appropriate spectrum of opinion. (At this time in the history of Sourozh diocese, we can hardly expect any one viewpoint to be universally accepted - so this seems the best option, at least in the interim.) As I believe the perspective of the article as stands to be basically correct, I do not believe that it is for me to add other opinions, which I may not either agree with or even understand. But it would be good for the article if this were done by another.

As an invitation to this, in good will, I propose the lifting of the pov tag? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 149.254.200.215 (talk • contribs).


 * First off, the tag has been placed on the article precisely because there is not consensus on whether it violates Wikipedia's NPOV standards. Please do not remove it unless a consensus has actually been achieved.  Your reason for removing is precisely the reason for leaving it there, i.e., as an invitation to work the issues out.  Adding the tag is not making a "POV query" (i.e. some sort of official request for arbitration), but it is simply a statement that the editors working on the article have not come to a consensus.  However, because the tag has now twice been removed without first achieving consensus (and because of the Three-revert rule), I have asked a site admin to look into this article.


 * Second, WRT the Fr. Andrew Phillips Orthodox England site: The site is not mainly about the Diocese of Sourozh.  Only a small part of its content is relevant.  Thus, if there are to be links at all (which I'm not in favor of), they should be added only for specifically relevant articles.  In any event, the ROCOR POV regarding Sourozh is only indirectly relevant, since the ROCOR is not a party to the question.  (By the same logic, the main OCA website should be directly linked, since an opinion piece by Kishkovsky recently was included there.)  See External links for more on what kinds of external links are appropriate in Wikipedia articles.


 * Third, the article as it now stands is more of an opinion piece than a reporting on the facts in question. This represents a major change to the article as it stood previously.  Such major changes ought to be proposed before being made.  &mdash; A.S. Damick  talk contribs 21:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Further Comments
I take in part your point re the POV tag. However, pace your comment above, the tag does not indicate an invitation to further discussion, but rather a positive objection to the neutrality of the article. I am surprised by your inclusion of this tag without any clear indication of what specifically you consider in the article to be lacking in objectivity, save the Orthodox England link.

In any case, I only removed the tag once - the second time had nothing to do with me. I have no interest in playing games with pulling the tag on and off, and would rather not get involved in postures of fiesty petulence. I am sure that you have no such wish either.

The history of the editing of this page indicates that your objection concerned my inclusion of the Orthodox England link, rather than the body text itself. Indeed, the first time you objected, you stated concern only with the irrelevance of the site, and did not appear to have an objection to site's Sourozh-content. I considered the charge of irrelevance invalid, and put the link back, explaining why. You then objected again to the the link, but now on different grounds, giving an entirely different reason for your objection. Then you placed the POV tag upon the article - which you had not, it seems, felt it necessary to add previously.

I have two points here:

(1) Pace your initial post, I did not engage in 'repeated unqualified addition' of the Orthodox England site - at first I saw nothing controversial about it; then when you objected on the grounds of irrelevance, I responded with an explanation. That is not unqualified. Please acknowledge that to be so.

(2) It was only after I explained why I differed from your view that the Orthodox England web-page was irrelevant that you suddenly decided that the whole article was lacking neutrality, placing the POV tag on it. The history shows you did not consider that necessary until after I disagreed that the Orthodox England site was not, in fact, irrelevant.

More significantly, I am unhappy with your vague charge of lacking neutrality, which lacks a specific detailing of the points you consider to be lacking neutrality. If you are seriously interested in discussion - and not simply in trying to have this version of the entry suppressed - then please list these points, and please indicate how you suggest the article should be modified?

The absence of such suggestions would appear to me to amount to a misuse of the POV tag to prevent the unimpeded articulation of understandings to which you are opposed. (I am presuming that this is not the case and that you have sufficient knowledge of the current situation in, and history of, Sourozh to make and discuss such suggestions seriously.)

Moreover, the stub which I found was factually incorrect, and throughly lacking in neutrality. In particular, it was incorrect to state that the 'long-running dispute' in the Diocese was 'caused by the Russian Orthodox Church's attempt to impose the practices it follows in Russia on parishes in the British Isles'. (A) The dispute was not caused by 'the Russian Orthodox Church'. Sourozh is a part of the Russian Orthodox Church, not external to it, in a manner such that the Russian Orthodox Church could 'impose' upon it. (B) There was a prehistory to the dispute, which must be made clear, if the dispute is to be understood. (C) A significant initiating factor in the beginning of the dispute was the social and liturgical hostility of ex-Anglican converts to Russians newly arrived from the former Soviet Union. That there was a two-way beginning to the dispute is widely recognised. The stub does not reflect this, and is too partisan in its 'Basilian' viewpoint.

Lastly, I simply do not agree with you that the article is primarily an 'opinion piece' rather than 'reporting the facts in question'. Certainly, it is written from a perspective - JUST AS THE EARLIER STUB WAS AND ANY OTHER ENCYCLOPEDIA ARTICLE IS. Only, it was written from a different perspective. If you go through the piece sentence by sentence, most of it is informative fact. Some of it, however, is concerned with the socio-cultural facts of the Diocese. I would remind you that not all facts are dates and names. I suppose, for example, that you do not object to my stating the fact that the British constituent of Sourozh had primarily a certain socio-cultural background, and that this was a significant factor in the beginning of the tensions in the diocese? (If I may be light-hearted for a moment - there is more than one form of ethno-philetism. I personally believe that there is a significant amount of philetism in the 'British' component of Sourozh, and that this is a real source of the tensions. But it is not appropriate to mount such a judgement in an encyclopedia piece. What I have done is to describe the relevant socio-cultural factors behind the tensions. If you wish to find confirmation of such socio-cultural attitudes, you will, I think, find them evidenced in e.g. Gillian Crow's book on Metropolitan Anthony.)

I hope you are able to clarify what your objections to the article are, specifically.

But please be assured of my good-will in seeking clarification. From this point I would like to agree to not speak in harsh or haughty tones. Pentecost is, after all, (amongst other things) the Feast of spiritually harmonious communication!

PS The article was a stub. Wikipedia extends an open invitation to expand stubs. I do not believe it is necessary to seek the approval of earlier contributors to the entry before expanding a stub of only a few lines length which contains straightforward factual error. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 149.254.200.215 (talk • contribs).

The Same Suggestion Again
I would like to suggest that, since you originally do not appear to have had a problem with the article save for the Orthodox England link, that that link be removed together with the POV tag, and we discuss how the article might be modified/improved, etc.? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 149.254.200.215 (talk • contribs).


 * Thank you for your interest in extending and improving this article, 149.254.200.215. Allow me to suggest that you register a username; addressing you by ip address is somewhat awkward.


 * There's no question that the additions made by someone(s) at your ip address and someone(s) at another ip address have greatly extended the article and made it more informative. It's also clear that it deliberately adopts a particular Point of View (POV) regarding the matter. For instance, consider where the article says The tensions that resulted have often been characterised as being between 'British' and 'Russian' groups. This however is quite inaccurate. It's clear that there is more than one opinion about how best to classify those who favor and those who do not favor following the Russian typikon more closely. This does not tell me who thinks they should be characterised as British and Russian groups, or who thinks they should not be labeled this way. I can only infer the reasons they should be called British and Russian from the arguments presented against them being labeled that way. This should be rewritten to present both views, and the views should be attributed to the groups that hold them. (And no, saying that the "Russian" party thinks they should be labeled one way or the other would not be helpful. Amusing perhaps, but not helpful. ;-)


 * The same methodology for presenting opposing views should be followed in the rest of the text, wherever it is obvious that there is more than one view on the subject worth mentioning. After a sincere attempt to do this has been made, it would be a good time to ask for consensus on this page again. By the way, you were very right to ask for specific objections as justification for the NPOV tag; adding the tag should generally be accompanied by specific reasons here on the Talk page.


 * The current link to the Orthodox England site looks inappropriate, almost like spam. Why? I had to hunt to find anything on the page that was at all relevant to this article. It seems likely that as time goes by, those links will likely be removed from the front page as they are replaced by newer links. The vast majority of the page linked to is entirely off topic. Would you agree to either removing the link or replacing it with one that is more directly relevant? Wesley 04:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I do rather find your highlighting of the fact I do not have a username and your 'someone(s)' bracket-talk unnecessary and a little aggravating. (I have already stated that it was not me who removed the POV tag the second time - so to speak of 'someone(s)' is to insinuate a possible absence of honesty on my part.) Such actions do not dispose me to acquire a user-name.

I find your demand for 'neutrality' rather formalistic - as it amounts to a demand for a particular mode of expression, rather than a demand for change of material content. However, for the sake of non-confrontation, I have modified the article accordingly.

Again, in the interests of non-confrontation, I shall clarify in the entry the need for a ROCOR link. Since there is no ROCOR UK webpage, Fr Andrew Phillips' page is de facto the most readily-accessible internet link for British ROCOR viewpoint. And of course, the situation in Sourozh diocese is primarily a British situation. However, I can see that there is a sufficient ill-will towards the inclusion of the Orthodox England site that I shall let it drop. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 149.254.200.215 (talk • contribs).


 * 149.254.200.215, I'm sorry if you don't like to be addressed by number, but I don't seem to have a good alternative. By referring to the edits as being made by "someone(s)", I only meant to point out that it's impossible for anyone to know whether different people happen to be using the same ip address on different days, or if the same person is editing from more than one ip address. Both situations occur frequently on the internet, and without anyone being dishonest. I apologize for any misunderstanding that arose from that usage.


 * You're right, my demand for 'neutrality' is formalistic, and may sound odd. It's not entirely my demand though, it's the wikipedia NPOV policy, as I understand it. You can follow that link for a more detailed explanation. Thanks for trying to work with it. Wesley 16:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

All points taken happily. I reserve the right to remain anonymous without the adoption of a pseudish pseudonym.

As I do not insist upon the 'Orthodox England' link, if anyone really finds it totally unacceptable, I will not protest should it be removed. I certainly appreciate that the site is in places polemical in tone (although I do not think that renders it illegitimate as a link). I only ask that, should someone remove it, they replace that link with another link to a W European (preferably British) ROCOR page which makes clear the significance of the recent events in Sourozh for Western European Russian Orthodoxy from a ROCOR standpoint. This is not a partisan request - I am not a member of ROCOR - but rather one made in awareness of the fact that (1) the recent events in Sourozh have direct significance for all Russian Churches in W Europe; that (2) this is reflected by specifically W European articles on, especially Bp Basil's website; and that (3) these pro-Basil articles must be balanced in the external links section by some ROCOR link which gives the alternative interpretation of these events which are of significance for all of W European Russian Orthodoxy.

I raise, moreover, as an issue of concern the fact that the Orthodox England link attracted so much hostility in the first place. It was not my intention to 'spam' the article - after all I wrote the whole thing, I did not want to ill-dispose potential readers to it! But I am concerned with what seems to me (who am Ecumenical Patriarchate) the disproportionately hostile response of an Antiochean seminarian at St Tikhons' and an OCA Reader. I am worried that the strength of hostility owes more to the politics of Orthodox jurisdictions in the USA than to what is relevant to the site.

I take it (by your silence re POV issues) that you no longer have strong objections to the neutrality of the article. As I have no objections either, and have responded positively to all specific objections made re neutrality to the page, the POV tag no longer seems appropriate. I will therefore remove it.

If Dn Damick still has concrete problems, he can place the tag back on again - provided he states specific issues to be dealt with. If his only issue is RE the Orthodox England link, then, rather than putting the POV tag back on, he should just change the link for another which gives a ROCOR understanding of the situation of Russian Churches in Western Europe. I am not aware of a better site; if he is, then I am willing for him to show it to me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 149.254.200.215 (talk • contribs).


 * I'm still not convinced that the ROCOR link is absolutely necessary. ROCOR is not a party to the controversy.  As for the question of "balance" against the pro-Basil site, it would seem that links to the official diocesan site and the pronouncements against Basil which have been published on the MP site would suffice.  The ROCOR link is third-party commentary, not really much different than the various weblog entries that have floated around.


 * That being said, though, I would not be averse to links to specifically relevant articles on the ROCOR site, if they add something substantive to the article, per the style guide at External links. But their intensely polemical nature, coupled with being from an uninvolved third party, seem to make the site suspect WRT the Wikipedia external links standard.  If it were an official ROCOR site (i.e. from the administration), then it would be more understandable to include the links, but as it is, this is one highly critical priest with a strong streak of Russian Messianism writing about issues that do not directly involve him.


 * My objections to the article's formerly much more POV status are largely answered and satisfied by the recent edits. The former wording was, as Wesley said, too much editorializing (e.g. "this is highly inaccurate").  I have, however, tried to continue to make the article more balanced and encyclopedic.


 * I'm not honestly sure how being an Antiochian deacon seminarian at an OCA seminary has anything to do with trying to work on NPOV Wikipedia articles, nor is it clear why my objections were perceived as "hostilities." (I have good friends in the EP, the ROCOR, the MP, and even in the Paris Exarchate.  I have no "side."  The irony of this accusation is that I spent a good bit of time trimming down the work of a blatantly pro-Basil POV editor on other articles.)  If we could, though, wouldn't it be best to discuss the article and its issues rather than explaining editorial opinions based on the camps one is in?  One would think that the article could be worked on just as easily by atheists, assuming that they had knowledge of the subject.  Please try to refrain from ad hominem editorial discussion.  (As to my "silence," it was mainly from having other things to do.)


 * I don't know whether the anonymous editors are new to Wikipedia or not, but it is usually considered exceedingly bad manners (even vandalism) to remove the NPOV tag without first discussing the issue at hand on the relevant Talk page (in this case, mainly the Orthodox England link inclusion). That it was done so quickly after being added made it all the worse.  In the future, please follow the standard Wikipedia practice, which is to discuss NPOV issues before removing the tag.  &mdash; A.S. Damick  talk contribs 19:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Dn Damick Please stop sabre-rattling with the language of 'bad manners' and 'vandalism'.

As it was, your earlier application of the POV tag was itself extremely 'bad manners', and has been recognised as inappropriate. If you recall, you began the difficulties by unilaterally removing the Orthodox England link on the grounds that it was supposedly too general. If you were living by the standard you yourself dictate to me, you would have raised a query, and not unilaterally removed the link without querying first why it had been put there.

When I responded to this action (using no more force than you yourself had) by clarifying that I believed it to be necessary to link to a ROCOR site, and that this seemed the only way to link to this site (which admittedly is not best organised), you then changed your objection to the site and claimed that the material was too controversial to be linked to. Simultaneously you added the POV tag - giving intimations of general unhappiness with supposed non-neutrality, but with no clear stipluation of the precise issues to which you objected. ''That is an unreasonably aggressive use of the POV tag. If you have a query about neutrality you must state clearly the content of your query; it is - to use your phrase - bad manners to simply label the entry with no explanation.''

When the POV tage was removed with eirenic intent - after all I could not see what you were objecting to in the body-text of the article, and you did not tell me - you flat-footedly and bluntly reintroduced it, yet with no clarification as to what you specifically objected to in the body-text of the article. Then when someone else pointed out to you that your application of the tag was premature, you called in a site administrator - still without making clear the precise content of your objection re non-neutrality. All this is bad manners - and comes rather close to appearing to be an attempt to sabotage the entry.

Coupled with this, the tone of your language throughout has been uncongenially assertoric. Let me make it clear to you Dn Damick: I do not appreciate being issued with blunt instructions by somebody who has no authority over me. Please modify your tone in future. I remind you that you are a participant in a conversation, not its umpire. Let us be henceforth congenial and convivial.

As I pointed out above, you were incorrect to accuse me of 'repeated unqualified addition' of the Orthodox England link. As I said, at first I saw nothing controversial about it; then when you objected on the grounds of irrelevance, I responded with an explanation. That is not unqualified. Please acknowledge that to be so.

RE your cry ad hominem. I will not play disingenuous games: it is very obvious how a member of the OCA could harbour hostility to ROCOR. But I did not make an accusation; I raised a concern. If the concern is unfounded, that is well and good. That it is unfounded remains to be seen. I remain unclear on the motives for your hostility to the Orthodox England link (to which I am not personally particularly attached) - and given that your reason for wanting the link excluded changed from objection to objection, I had good reason to be concerned that your real objection to the link had another, deeper, motivation. However, should this be unfounded I would be very glad that my concern be unfounded. Also, I note in passing that all POV queries regarding neutrality are ad hominem, so it is somewhat disingenuous to cry ad hominem in this context.

It would take us too far away from this context to assess whether an atheist could properly understand what was at stake in a Church political split. It is an interesting question in Orthodox theology (and, I suspect not one in which Florovsky is likely to help us much). I suspect that perhaps you are employing a conception of facticity which would not be shared by the Fathers of the Church. I feel it best not to introduce such issues into this discussion page (if we are to discuss this, it cannot be here). Let me say only that whilst the homoians were 'neutral', it was Athanasius who was 'Orthodox'.

In any case, I am glad that we appear to be getting closer to discussing the concrete issues (if only by clearing away the obstacles to discussion). If we can keep the POV tag off, that I think would be for the best. Then we can speak on how to improve the entry.

As an expression of good-will, if we could find a ROCOR site which sets the Sourozh-situation in a W European context, I would be very happy to have the Orthodox England site replaced. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 149.254.200.215 (talk • contribs) 20:54, Jun 15, 2006 (UTC).


 * Just to be clear, I am not a member of the OCA, though it is true that I attend an OCA seminary. (Another irony is that I am often accused of being anti-OCA because of some of the conclusions of my studies into the relationship between the ROCOR and the OCA, namely that the latter was in fact at one point part of the former.)  The rest of this directed at me personally, I won't address, because it isn't relevant to the article.  I'm not interested in arguing about arguing.


 * Anyway, if you'll notice in my recent edits, I not only kept the OE site in the links, but I expanded its representation by including specifically relevant portions. I have never for one moment particularly cared whether the site was maintained by a priest of the ROCOR, the EP, or of the Vatican.  The issue is simply its topical relevance and whether it conforms to Wikipedia standards.  The link to the site such as it was&mdash;labelled only as "Reflections on the current situation in the Diocese of Sourozh"&mdash;was clearly misleading, as stated by Wesley above, who had to go searching to find the relevant material.  I am not "hostile" to the OE link.  I just find the inclusion of only the top-level URL to be unwarranted and not in keeping with Wikipedia standards.


 * I certainly understand your comments with regard to neutrality being associated with heretics, but the reality is that Wikipedia is not an Orthodox establishment. If you want to perceive pointing that out as being "assertoric" (I had to go look that one up), well, I can't help you.  Wikipedia standards are Wikipedia standards.  You are right that I have no authority here at all over you or anyone else.  But if I've misrepresented Wikipedia policies and standards here, I honestly enjoin you to let me know the truth of the matter.


 * BTW, I've removed the header marks around my name&mdash;I really don't think it's appropriate to make an editor the subject of a header on this Talk page. &mdash; A.S. Damick  talk contribs 21:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems now that this brings this round of stuff to a close. I must say that I really appreciated the edits you made to the article - it suddenly made the weighting in a few things I'd said stand out very clearly. I've qualified a stray unqualified mention of Russification, and I've moved the paragraph about Bishop Basil's reasons for leaving into the body of the text, and I've added a few other points of contention between the pro-Basil and pro-Moscow factions.

All this stuff now in the discussion seems like dead text. Shall we scrub it, with an agreed summary statement on where we have reached?

I suggest affirming that (a) neutrality must be maintained/improved as the site is updated as events in Sourozh unfold; and (b) we desire to have the Orthodox England link replaced to something more definitely representing the ROCOR/pro-Moscow viewpoint [which, BTW is not Archbishop Innokenty's] to represent completness of perspectives?

I also believe it would be desirable to have included a section on the controversy surrounding the episcopacy of Bishop Hilarion as Bishop of Kersh. I missed that bit out as I'm still not sure of the details. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 149.254.200.215 (talk • contribs).


 * I'm glad to see that we seem to be reaching agreement. While much of this discussion may be moot, it's generally considered better practice to archive it rather than completely delete it. I'd suggest we wait another week or so before archiving it.


 * I do think that there should be some presentation of the pro-Moscow viewpoint since Moscow at least is involved. That could be expressed by someone in ROCOR or someone else. Even a link to one of the specific articles on the Orthodox England site would probably be ok. That they were polemical wasn't ever really the problem in my mind, just that the link to the front page of the site made it too hard to find it. The main disadvantage I suppose to linking to just one of the three or four, is that the reader would miss the others, unless they did a little more hunting.


 * One thing I've wondered is whether this article ought to have a 'current events' tag on it, or if the events are likely to unfold more slowly than most 'current events'? I think the purpose of the tag is just to remind readers that because events are still unfolding, there's a good chance that the article may be out of date if it hasn't been maintained. Wesley 16:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)