OrthodoxWiki talk:Style Manual (Point of View)
When the world wants information on the Coptic Orthodox Church, or the Syric Orthodox Church, or the Indian Orthodox Church, or the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, or the Armenian Orthodox Church, or the Assyrian Orthodox Church, or the Sudanese Orthodox Church, they will NOT be looking for Chalcedonian bias.
To say all the world is looking for Chalcedonian bias when searching for Orthodoxy, is very biased indeed.
The publication Theandros has been linked on OW by one of the OW editors to the Nebraska Eparchy. (Theandros itself says it is independent of any jurisdiction.) The self-proclaimed "Orthodox", of which Nebraska Eparchy seems to be an example, have never had any historical connection with world Orthodoxy. They are quite different from the Pre-Ephesian Orthodox, the Pre-Chalcedonian Orthodox, and the Chalcedonian Orthodox.
If the policy is to exclude the self-proclaimed, then that should be quite different from excluding the Pre-Ephesian or the Pre-Chalcedonian.
Perhaps the policy could be clarified and the self-proclaimed distinguished from historical Orthodoxy.
Hopefully the anti-pre-chalcedonian bias also can be removed or at least substantially toned down.
If the anti-pre-chalcedonian bias cannot be removed, then obviously there is a need for a WorldOrthodoxWiki which does not have this bias.
- For the reader: the Theandros link to Nebraska Eparchy is discussed on Themistocles (Adamopoulo), the page on which the link is made. Also, afaik, there is no intention to outright exclude.
- Regarding independant groupings - If an article on the Nebraska Eparchy was created, and have the independant template placed on it, then this would be (as far as I can see, anyway) a welcome addition to OW. However, it is standard practise to have the independant template even on user pages of those who edit on OW but are part of (or lead) an independant group (example). This, however, is specific to the independant groups.
- There are a lot of pages on Oriental Orthodox including the church bodies, dogmatic positions and whole articles by Oriental Orthodox personalities. No special attempt is made to censor these, and the main difference is having the Oriental template, saying that it may be different to Eastern Orthodox understanding. — Pιsτévο, at 23:32, May 30, 2006 (CDT)
The Project Page says this.
- Additionally, the administration feels that the bias is warranted along what might be termed "definitional usage" lines—that is, the rest of the world, when looking for information about Orthodoxy, tends to think definitionally in MCB terms. That is, it would probably look for an article on the Church of Russia (i.e., the Moscow Patriarchate) rather than one on the so-called Suzdalites when searching for "Russian Orthodoxy." Thus, the MCB helps prevent confusion.
I think it is incorrect to say "the rest of the world, when looking for information about Orthodoxy, tends to think definitionally in MCB terms."
That is defining the term in terms of itself. And the term itself a priori is biased. It is illogical. It is also unhelpful to recover lost sheep.
The simplest thing, is to use the term Eastern Orthodox when talking about Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox when talking about Oriental Orthodox, and to use the term Orthodox when talking about both Eastern and Oriental Orthodox.
Most educated non-biased non-Orthodox interested in Orthodoxy as a form of Christianity, are interested in both Eastern and Oriental Orthodox. So in that case, current OW policy is either to perpetuate confusion and bias, or else to promote one variety over another. That is most inappropriate for a non-confessional encyclopaedia.
However, if OW intends to be a confessional encyclopaedia, let it widely announce it, so no-one is deceived.
chrisg 2006-05-31-1613 EAST