8,921
edits
Changes
no edit summary
Hi dear Father, I was leaving off the extra interwiki links for the Mian page until the additional localizations are ready for "Beta" stage, by which I mean that all the necessary documents have been translated... The "release" stage will then be when there are strong enough communities and moderation around these wikis to really launch them - i.e content and spam problems are dealt with quickly. — [[User:FrJohn|<b>FrJohn</b>]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit§ion=new talk])
==Metaxakis entry==
Dear Father,
Thank you for pointing out the issues of NPOV and MCB with the last edit I had entered. Of course I agree with having those standards for an encylopedic entry and I would like to see a better product along the lines you suggest. However I do have a few comments if i may.
* I feel that the substance of what was written - about the agenda of the Pan Orthodox Congress of 1923 - actually was accurate and unbiased; after all history is history, and if those were the subjects that were tabled at that congress, it is a matter of history and a very important matter at that, and information which every Orthodox Christian today has a right to be informed and aware of. Im sure you agree that to simply list the items of the agenda as they were, is, I think is a neutral approach ''(i.e. "here is what what was proposed in 1923: 1, 2, 3, 4,..etc, in fact seven changes in all.)'' Not sure how else to word that part of it, it is what it is; some subjects such as this particular example, may not be neutral in themselves, and for us to attempt to make them so or omit them risks the error of creating our own modern bias instead, a risk every historian is aware of. The writing of history must be impartial, whether the historical facts in themselves are or arent impartial to us is another matter. I agree that the source timeline that I located the information on would be NPOV/MCB, however as for the information in itself, it is either factual or it is isn't (fabricated)....in other words there was no editing or personal opinions presented with that list, just the list of proposals in 1923 itself . And I remember seeing a similar list of items (from the 1923 congress) years ago on an OCA site, which I cannot find now. And so for this reason I believe it is necessary and important to have this part included for the complete and unbiased picture.
* As for the second section I had entered (comparative study), which included a link to a site which detailed things about Metaxakis' early Masonic involvement right down to his troubled death, yes it too did not come from a MCB site, and that will need to be re-worked as you commented, perhaps with more research from other sources; but it too presented disturbing details, which in themselves were by nature * not neutral * (i.e. if he attained 33rd degree in 1909 that's important; if he was buried with Masonic honours in 1935 that fact too is important). It is doubtful how much other written research exists on this subject, at least in English.
At any rate I appreciate the direction. Would be interested in what you think. Cheers,
Chris.