renameuser, Administrators
5,600
edits
Changes
→Undid numerous Agenda driven edits
::::In cases such as this, however, in which you have a schismatic, railing against an Orthodox Bishop... it is specifically the [[MCB]] that applies. [[User:Frjohnwhiteford|Frjohnwhiteford]] 19:38, December 20, 2007 (PST)
:::::That's not the way I read the OW:SM. On the contrary, the accusations of schismatics are specifically allowed, ''so long as they are referenced as such'' (e.g. the Suzdalites consider the Church of Russia to be heretics). MCB applies mostly for the name of articles, not for reporting. Moreover, MCB is largely irrelevant when reporting established, documented facts. — edited by [[User:Pistevo|<font color="green">Pιs</font><font color="gold">τévοτéνο</font>]] <sup>''[[User talk:Pistevo|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|<font color="red">complaints</font>]]''</sup> at 22:49, December 21, 2007 (PST)
::::::There is a big difference between documented facts, and documented accusations. And while in an article on the Suzdalites it would not be in appropriate to not their opinions about the MP, it would be giving undue weight to their opinion, or any other schismatic group to have a litany of their opinions in articles about the rest of the Orthodox Church. [[User:Frjohnwhiteford|Frjohnwhiteford]] 09:03, December 22, 2007 (PST)
:::::::In the article, I am not talking about every schismatic group, but about how ROCOR understands itself in light of accusations of alleged KGB involvement, involvement in ecumenism and previous standpoints (e.g. 1983 anathema, sorrowful epistles). These are not accusations by an extremist group but are difficulties for ROCOR, used (correctly or otherwise) as reasons for schism - as such, they are integral to the understanding of ROCOR from many of its adherants (and ex-adherants) and warrant inclusion. Additionally, from an outsider's POV, with freely-admitted limited knowledge (although I attempt to improve), there has been a big change between previous positions (or the public perception thereof) and positions taken after the reunion - that's where this article needs to step in. All that being said, ISTM that the article would be improved by taking a lot of the leadup to the Act and placing it in a different article, where the fallout could also be examined with appropriate detail.
:::::::On a policy note, the standard OW practise has been to document the documented accusations and to document them as such on OW[ [[MCB#What the Bias Does Not Mean|1]] ]. Documented and undisputed facts can, of course, be presented as such; documented accusations that are unproven or disputed can be presented, often from MCB, with disputes noted. — edited by [[User:Pistevo|<font color="green">Pιs</font><font color="gold">τévο</font>]] <sup>''[[User talk:Pistevo|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|<font color="red">complaints</font>]]''</sup> at 20:26, December 22, 2007 (PST)
