Changes

Jump to: navigation, search

OrthodoxWiki talk:Administrators

4,810 bytes added, 21:06, February 17, 2009
Guess What Needs Moderating Again?
In my opinion WR stuff is so contentious because since we are supposed to be the small minority of the West people think they are supposed to put on airs. We're so few that we tend to get louder to be heard. That and Sarum is touchy for obvious political reasons, --[[User:JosephSuaiden|JosephSuaiden]] 18:05, February 17, 2009 (UTC)
 
:Sigh, I suppose I have to answer this....
 
:'''The allegation of personal spite, which Joseph levels, is rich coming from a man who ran a blog dedicated to attacking me by name.''' People alerted me Joseph addresses me "personally" on his blog's "why" page (mission statement), calls me a "cultist," and warns me to "prepare well. Because we have unfinished business." (If these quotations, which I'm told are located [http://westernritefraud.wordpress.com/about here], are inaccurate, please so state; I will ''gladly'' withdraw them.) Fr. Andrew, I agree that what people do elsewhere is irrelevant, unless they try to import it here. Yet in the last 24 hours we have seen the discussion being diverted away from the objective facts of the article at hand to an attack upon my character and imputing an agenda. (A [[User_talk:Chrisg|"warlike and unChristian"]] agenda, no less!) And a call for my censorship from a man who runs a blog dedicated to, finishing business, with me.
 
:'''As to the substance of the complaint''':
:I specifically refrained from removing the text's reference to the "Old Sarum Rite Missal," [[Talk:Western_Rite#Images_under_.22Congregations.22|stating]], "Since I was [[User_talk:Willibrord#Vandalism|falsely accused]] of 'vandalism' for editing this page, I could see the uproar if I removed it on my own." (More about that below.) The agenda has, in fact, been the reverse: to "source" certain materials as often as possible to make themselves appear more important than they are.
 
:The fact that Holyrood Monastery and St. Petroc's Monastery are small monasteries is immaterial; they are exclusively WR monasteries that celebrate a full cycle of Western Rite services, including WR hours and Mass/Liturgy. At St. Petroc, Sunday services are held at an associated church, not a home chapel. St. Petroc has a number of associated chapels, at least one sister mission (run by Fr. Barry Jeffries), and Fr. Michael celebrates WR liturgy on at least two continents each year. The "Old Sarum Rite Missal" is not being celebrated anywhere within Orthodoxy to my knowledge, not even the Eastern or Western Archdioceses of the Milan Synod. Met. HILARION reportedly allowed its author to pray his translation of Sarum (presumably the hours?) for his private, home prayers, not in public (where he serves a Byzantine church). I'm not sure that is relevant to Western Rite "Congregations"; frankly, bishops allow priests to pray all sorts of things privately. I am even less certain two large pictures (one mislabeled) of that missal, not being celebrated anywhere, are a more appropriate graphic for an article about the WR than a picture of Fr. Alexander Turner (which [http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Western_Rite&curid=838&diff=80850&oldid=80847 chrisg deleted in favor of the OSRM]). What's being "sourced" and "de-sourced" there?
 
:The other contentious issue is that Joseph is claiming Hieromonk David (Pierce) of Holyrood Monastery celebrates a Milan Synod version of Sarum (but a different version of Sarum than the OSRM, or St. Petroc Monastery's Sarum -- clear as mud?). His assertion is just that -- an unsourced assertion. But the [http://theyorkforum.yuku.com/sreply/12977/t/Western-Rite-Orthodox-News.html ''source''] I provided, which is still linked in the article, quotes Fr. David writing to the contrary, he celebrates the Mt. Royal usage DL and the "Holyrood/St. Petroc" recension of Sarum. If Joseph has any evidence to the contrary, this would be the place to offer it, and the article would reflect that; but he has dismissed all evidence as [[Talk:Western_Rite#Images_under_.22Congregations.22_2|"anecdotal."]] He then suggested we remove reference to Fr. David/Holyrood Monastery altogether. Here is logic I cannot endorse: removing reference to a functioning WR monastery (that houses two hieromonks) but retaining reference to the private prayers of a Byzantine priest, in the name of improving the section on WR "Congregations."
 
:The thrust of the last two days' edits have been to introduce material that sure seems off-topic, give it a place of prominence not in keeping with reality (e.g., its not being celebrated publicly, or at all), and to contradict sourced statements with unsourced statements, which happen to exalt the Milan Synod, of which Mr. Suaiden is a member (or a Reader).
 
:I hope this closes the hate-Ben-Johnson portion of the week, and the moderators -- having heard the evidence -- will green light sourced statements over unsourced ones. Then I can write about something I enjoy (the WR) not something I do not enjoy writing about (me). And maybe OW can return to its purpose of presenting well-written, factually correct articles, not assaulting its authors.--[[User:Willibrord|Willibrord]] 21:06, February 17, 2009 (UTC)
221
edits

Navigation menu