User talk:Samson1957

From OrthodoxWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to OrthodoxWiki!

Hello, Samson1957, and welcome to OrthodoxWiki!

Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Please note that OrthodoxWiki is always in development, so not everything works quite right yet. You can help, though!

OrthodoxWiki is a community-edited encyclopedia of Orthodox Christianity. Articles are created and edited by our members, and so everything that we do here is subject to review and revision. The result is a true consensus product, with every interested editor contributing his own knowledge and writing skills. As such, when you feel that criticism of an article is warranted, we encourage you to join in and fix it! Don't worry about breaking anything or doing something wrong—the other editors here are happy to jump in and help you learn.

For newcomers For editors Important notes
About OrthodoxWiki
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
User guidelines
Community Portal
User list
Admin list
OrthodoxWiki News
Help files
How to edit a page
How to create a new page
How to write a great article
Copyright policy
Image licenses
Style Manual
Disciplinary policy
PLEASE read carefully the section of the Style Manual titled OrthodoxWiki:Style Manual (Point of View).

Also please note that other editors will assume that you have read the Style Manual (our official editing guidelines). If you're wondering why an edit was reverted, an article renamed, or any other unexpected changes were made by another editor, check there.

Please also take a few moments to edit your user page by clicking on your name here, so that we can know a bit about you: User:Samson1957. Feel free also to add your picture to the OrthodoxWiki:User gallery.

If you are uploading images, be sure you're doing so legally and according to OrthodoxWiki policy. Failure to abide by policy may result in your images getting deleted without warning.

If you would like to experiment with the wiki, please feel free to do so in the Sandbox.

By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and other discussion pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. Please sign your comments on Talk pages, so everyone will easily be able to see who left them.

You'll have to verify your email address before editing any pages. This helps us prevent spam. Don't worry, your email won't be viewable to anyone but the sysops. We respect your privacy.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the Questions page, or ask me on my Talk page.

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a part of our community! —magda (talk) 13:53, November 6, 2007 (PST)

ROCOR article

Hello! Thanks for your contributions to the ROCOR article, but they're not in keeping with the OrthodoxWiki Style Manual, most specifically the Mainstream Chalcedonian Bias. HOCNA's version of events (which seems to be what's guiding your edits) generally falls outside that mainstream, as I'm sure you're aware. Please follow the site's policies. Thank you! —Fr. Andrew talk contribs 20:55, December 12, 2007 (PST)

Thank you for your note, however you are not correct. There has never been any allegation that HOCNA left the greek archdiocese due to sexual scandal. While a sexual scadal has been alleged against HOCNA while they were part of ROCOR, there is no support for that which Fr. John is posting. His post is not footnoted or supported.

My second edit, referencing that the current patriarch was a KGB agaent is supported by a front page Wall Street Journal article, which I linked. Hiding from that truth, does not undo the truth.

If Fr. John can support his allegation in the first instance, then so be it. He cannot, and therefore did not reference a source. If Fr. John is upset that ROCOR's chief bishop was a government agent, that does not change the fact that it was reported and documented in a mainstream newspaper.

I stand by the edits.

Thank you


Your edits have again been reverted. Please don't add them again, or your account will be blocked from editing for a time. If you wish to discuss the article before making new edits (which is highly recommended, especially for controversial subjects), please do so on its talk page. (Regarding the allegations against Patr. Alexei II, it's not really relevant to this article but could be addressed in the article on the patriarch.) —Fr. Andrew talk contribs 07:59, December 13, 2007 (PST)

Dear Fr. Andrew:

What is amazing is that an unsourced accusation is permitted to stand, and my edits regarding the patriarch, which are sourced are removed. His background, given ROCOR prior anti-Soviet stance, is very relevant. ROCOR's prior affiliation some 20 years ago with Holy Transfiguration Monastery does not seem relevant, except to disparage the reputation of HOCNA. Again, there is no source for the allegation that they left the Greek Archdiocese due to sexual scandal.

The edit regarding Bishop Agafangel, and the 100 priests that left with him, has also been removed. Why? How is that not relevant, if Fr. John insists on listing him as a suspended Bishop?

Would it be relevant to add after Bishop Peter, that he was uncanonically elevated without an investigation, whe a sub deacon objected to his elevation and spoke ANAXIOUS? The canons are clear on this, yet if I add that comment, it seems you would "lock me out" of use. Would it be relevant that Bishop Michael was anatamatized by Metropolitan Vitaly?, or would that be edited out as well?

My purpose here is simply for people to be aware of facts, whereas Fr. John's purpose, and now it seems yours as well, is to tell only your version of events, which describe as "mainstream". I did not realize that truth or accusation was governed by consensus.

Unless Fr. John can provide support for his accusations, such as a mainstream newspaper, I ask that his inflamatory, and self serving accusations regarding other jurisdictions be removed.

Dear Fr. Andew:

I copy to you a copy of my reply to Fr. John You state that this is not a debate forum, however, that is exactly what you are trying to do. Why is Holy Transfiguration Monastery even relevant to an article on ROCOR. You state that the edit regarding Patriarch Alexei, and his KGB past which was sourced, was not appropriate, yet an entire heading on the ROCOR page is dedicated to disparaging a different jurisdiction. If a heading is appropriate regarding Holy Transfiguration, how about a heading regarding the Metropolia/OCA, and how ROCOR issued an official protocol breaking communion with them. How about a heading identifying all the official protocols ROCOR issued condemning the MP. How about a heading explaining Metropolitan Philaret's Sorrowful Epistles, as they seem now also to apply to ROCOR. How about a heading concerning the Anathema of 1983, and how it seemingly applies not to ROCOR, and as a result, ROCOR was obliged to essentially "void" the Anathema of 1983. All these seem to deal directly with ROCOR, while HOCNA's prior association with ROCOR is at best a footnote. However, you bias is clear, when you call HOCNA's views "narrow-minded and incorrect views ". Would you un-edit me, if I said, some people believe that ROCOR has fallen under its own anathema of 1983, of if I stated that ROCOR's current position is a total rejection of its historical past? I suggest that you would, but my remark is no different than your blanket statement that the Holy Transfiguration Monastery has "narrow-minded and incorrect views", except that I would argue that my statement would be true. If the statement about Patriarch Alexei's KGB past is inappropriate for the ROCOR page, so is the discussion about Holy Transfiguration Monastery.

I will respond to your additional comments at a later time. You may wish to check out yesterday's Wall Street Journal (December 18, 2007), which ran another article about the MP's ties to the KGB.