Talk:Holy Order of MANS

From OrthodoxWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

On this and other articles that touch on very controversial subjects in the life of the church, it's all the more important to stand by NPOV - this means being careful to describe and document the controversy as thoroughly and dispassionately as possible from both sides without making a value judgment. As the wiki-moderator, this is what I will be looking for and supporting in subsequent edits.

That's why I changed the part about motives to the header "Controversy". Perhaps someone who knows the situation from the perspective of these groups will care to make a response, and someone who knows more details will fill them out. Fr. John 09:40, November 14, 2005 (CST)

Excellent point Father. I confess I don't have the best literary background to convey a NPOV. I think I make the article sound immature with phrases like "some question" or "some claim." I could stand to learn a thing or two in this regard. I appreciate the name change of that header, thank you. Joe ( talk » inspect » chat ) 10:29, November 14, 2005 (CST)

IMHO this article reflects a bias against the converts from HOMANS/CSB. I don't think we should take out mention of the controversy, but I hope some of it can be reworked to include more of the long journey many of the folks coming into Orthodoxy came through. Fr. John 15:01, August 5, 2006 (CDT)

I can totally see why you might think that. In that case, I am mostly to blame because I believe I formed the original draft of this page. I live in an area where the HOOM issue seems to continue to be a stumbling block for some. Many people I've heard speak about our local post-HOOM parish still speak negatively about what has/does go on there. Then, one can talk to someone else and they have nothing but the greatest things to say about that parish. It was not my intent to make this article have any bias. I encourage everyone to shape it and make it a better article that I am confident will show how God is faithful and seeks to redeem all things. {{User:Joe Rodgers/sig}} 00:15, August 6, 2006 (CDT)

Joe, I'm always thankful that we can live and pray and work as part of a community, filling in each other's gaps. What you've seen is an important side of the story IMO, but not the only side. Hopefully someone will step up to give the other view as well. Fr. John

Removal of parish listing

Twice now a line listing a parish has been removed without comment as to its removal. This needs to be addressed here on the Talk page or at least in the comment line before it's done. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 19:46, April 1, 2006 (CST)

User:Magberry writes (offline): "I know the priest at St. Herman's in Grand Rapids, and he has no affiliation (present or past) with CSB, nor do any of his parishioners. I don't know how that parish got listed in this way, but I thought I'd correct the error."
I checked into this, and the confusion seems to come from the fact that the domain name is currently (since 2003) under new ownership. (It looks like it expired in 2001, and was re-registered in 2003.) Magberry is correct. We should be more careful about this when linking to in the future! — FrJohn (talk)
Good catch Father. I didn't check the domain registry timeline, but it seems like y'all found it somehow. Joe ( talk » inspect » chat ) 23:51, August 5, 2006 (CDT)
In review, I understand why [the link] was removed, but I still think it contains relevant information. Joe ( talk » inspect » chat ) 08:31 20070526

With the (generally) negative tone of this article, does anyone else think the listing of parishes/clergy might send the wrong idea? Perhaps it may appear as a blacklisting of sorts? I do want to say I completely understand this was probably not the author's intent at all. I just would not want, for instance, some inquirer in Atlanta to not visit a great parish like St. John the Wonderworker because it's somehow "connected" to what's labeled as a cult.