Changes

Jump to: navigation, search

OrthodoxWiki talk:Administrators

16,284 bytes added, 12:34, February 18, 2009
no edit summary
: And could someone please explain to me why it is that the WR articles always seem to draw such contentiousness? &mdash;[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">Fr. Andrew</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]] <font face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''')</font></small> 22:04, February 16, 2009 (UTC)
::Well, it is one of the few areas of conscious development in contemporary Orthodox liturgics... building from that, it may be easy to see a crossover from Eastern liturgics which (which, for various reasons, better or worse) have been set in stone and earmarked under 'unchangeable', when Western liturgics is, while liturgics, obviously not set in stone... both mere possibilities, of course - but, at the very least, a definite image problem. &mdash; 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 14:12, February 17, 2009 (UTC) I submit that is precisely the agenda, and that a review of edits as well as condescending statements (referring to the OSRM as "authorized for use in a room in his sister's house", for example, when Holyrood house, Christminster, St Petroc and their work--all places he for some reason *doesn't mind*-- are apartment chapels) can be submitted as proof. The pattern is obvious when you look at any mention of Father Aidan or the "Old Sarum rite missal". Again, I agree with you on the putting up a private website-- normally. But searching for "Keller" on the blog establishes in this case -- the 'why' to the 'what' of the edits. In my opinion WR stuff is so contentious because since we are supposed to be the small minority of the West people think they are supposed to put on airs. We're so few that we tend to get louder to be heard. That and Sarum is touchy for obvious political reasons, --[[User:JosephSuaiden|JosephSuaiden]] 18:05, February 17, 2009 (UTC) :Sigh, I suppose I have to answer this.... :'''The allegation of personal spite, which Joseph levels, is rich coming from a man who ran a blog dedicated to attacking me by name.''' People alerted me Joseph addresses me "personally" on his blog's "why" page (mission statement), calls me a "cultist," and warns me to "prepare well. Because we have unfinished business." (If these quotations, which I'm told are located [http://westernritefraud.wordpress.com/about here], are inaccurate, please so state; I will ''gladly'' withdraw them.) Fr. Andrew, I agree that what people do elsewhere is irrelevant, unless they try to import it here. Yet in the last 24 hours we have seen the discussion being diverted away from the objective facts of the article at hand to an attack upon my character and imputing an agenda. (A [[User_talk:Chrisg|"warlike and unChristian"]] agenda, no less!) And a call for my censorship from a man who runs a blog dedicated to, finishing business, with me. :'''As to the substance of the complaint'''::I specifically refrained from removing the text's reference to the "Old Sarum Rite Missal," [[Talk:Western_Rite#Images_under_.22Congregations.22|stating]], "Since I was [[User_talk:Willibrord#Vandalism|falsely accused]] of 'vandalism' for editing this page, I could see the uproar if I removed it on my own." (More about that below.) The agenda has, in fact, been the reverse: to "source" certain materials as often as possible to make themselves appear more important than they are.  :The fact that Holyrood Monastery and St. Petroc's Monastery are small monasteries is immaterial; they are exclusively WR monasteries that celebrate a full cycle of Western Rite services, including WR hours and Mass/Liturgy. At St. Petroc, Sunday services are held at an associated church, not a home chapel. St. Petroc has a number of associated chapels, at least one sister mission (run by Fr. Barry Jeffries), and Fr. Michael celebrates WR liturgy on at least two continents each year. The "Old Sarum Rite Missal" is not being celebrated anywhere within Orthodoxy to my knowledge, not even the Eastern or Western Archdioceses of the Milan Synod. Met. HILARION reportedly allowed its author to pray his translation of Sarum (presumably the hours?) for his private, home prayers, not in public (where he serves a Byzantine church). I'm not sure that is relevant to Western Rite "Congregations"; frankly, bishops allow priests to pray all sorts of things privately. I am even less certain two large pictures (one mislabeled) of that missal, not being celebrated anywhere, are a more appropriate graphic for an article about the WR than a picture of Fr. Alexander Turner (which [http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Western_Rite&curid=838&diff=80850&oldid=80847 chrisg deleted in favor of the OSRM]). What's being "sourced" and "de-sourced" there? :The other contentious issue is that Joseph is claiming Hieromonk David (Pierce) of Holyrood Monastery celebrates a Milan Synod version of Sarum (but a different version of Sarum than the OSRM, or St. Petroc Monastery's Sarum -- clear as mud?). His assertion is just that -- an unsourced assertion. But the [http://theyorkforum.yuku.com/sreply/12977/t/Western-Rite-Orthodox-News.html ''source''] I provided, which is still linked in the article, quotes Fr. David writing to the contrary, he celebrates the Mt. Royal usage DL and the "Holyrood/St. Petroc" recension of Sarum. If Joseph has any evidence to the contrary, this would be the place to offer it, and the article would reflect that; but he has dismissed all evidence as [[Talk:Western_Rite#Images_under_.22Congregations.22_2|"anecdotal."]] He then suggested we remove reference to Fr. David/Holyrood Monastery altogether. Here is logic I cannot endorse: removing reference to a functioning WR monastery (that houses two hieromonks) but retaining reference to the private prayers of a Byzantine priest, in the name of improving the section on WR "Congregations." :The thrust of the last two days' edits have been to introduce material that sure seems off-topic, give it a place of prominence not in keeping with reality (e.g., its not being celebrated publicly, or at all), and to contradict sourced statements with unsourced statements, which happen to exalt the Milan Synod, of which Mr. Suaiden is a member (or a Reader). :I hope this closes the hate-Ben-Johnson portion of the week, and the moderators -- having heard the evidence -- will green light sourced statements over unsourced ones. Then I can write about something I enjoy (the WR) not something I do not enjoy writing about (me). And maybe OW can return to its purpose of presenting well-written, factually correct articles, not assaulting its authors.--[[User:Willibrord|Willibrord]] 21:06, February 17, 2009 (UTC) ::Alright, some things that I can see that are able to be resolved.::If it's not feasibly able to be attended by members of the public (i.e. if it's not advertised), it's not a church, it's private prayer.::That doesn't stop that usage from being an approved usage.::Blogs - and, whatever else you do on your own time - are neither here nor there. We're all about the articles. While a side tangent into why a person thinks the way they do is often amusing, it invariably snaps either into bowdlerism or ad hominem.::If there's a source, the line stays, particularly in an article so desperately requiring sources. That seems a fairly useful rule. Really, as far as hedging goes, counter-sources merely introduce a 'so-and-so claims that (text) (source)'. &mdash; 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 22:34, February 17, 2009 (UTC) == Responding to this attempt at self-defense == Fr Benjamin asserts-- ''"'''The allegation of personal spite, which Joseph levels, is rich coming from a man who ran a blog dedicated to attacking me by name.''' People alerted me Joseph addresses me "personally" on his blog's "why" page (mission statement), calls me a "cultist," and warns me to "prepare well. Because we have unfinished business." (If these quotations, which I'm told are located [http://westernritefraud.wordpress.com/about here], are inaccurate, please so state; I will ''gladly'' withdraw them.) Fr. Andrew, I agree that what people do elsewhere is irrelevant, unless they try to import it here. Yet in the last 24 hours we have seen the discussion being diverted away from the objective facts of the article at hand to an attack upon my character and imputing an agenda. (A [[User_talk:Chrisg|"warlike and unChristian"]] agenda, no less!) And a call for my censorship from a man who runs a blog dedicated to, finishing business, with me."'' '''This is mainly non-sequitur'''. We could probably go on all day about our last year or so, but it is largely immaterial. (I shall explain why shortly.) The origin of my site was a direct response to a letter that was sent from Fr Benjamin attacking the mental stability of myself (and my wife, who had nothing to do with him) as well as a number of broad claims. Over time, and getting to know others in the vicariate I felt that calling the whole vicariate a fraud just because of YOUR predilection towards Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism was in fact NOT as common in the AWRV as I had initially thought. Thus, I had taken down the original attacking blog (located at bloggingthefraud.blogspot.com) and created a friendlier site at (westernorthodoxchristian.blogspot.com). I didn't even realize those sites were still up, and so thank you for noticing. I've deleted them. I realized that the desire for Western Orthodox ''tradition'' was cross-jurisdictional, as was residual "Popery and Protestantism" (to call to mind Dr Overbeck). Further, I don't know ChrisG at all. '''That said, however, my direct response to you after you attacked my family in the hope of finding "Western Rite Critic"''' ''pales in comparison to your years-long obsession with Fr Aidan'', going so far as to keep him (albeit temporarily in retrospect) from being taken in by the ROCOR--in 2004. My issues on my websites were a few months old, and I realized my wrong. By contrast you are still very much interested in destroying Father Aidan's work. Further, I was invited to OrthodoxWiki to help on Old Calendarists, and I freely contribute in a number of places. I am curious as to what your contribution/deletion ratio is. Many of your contributions are edit-wars. He then states-- '':"The other contentious issue is that Joseph is claiming Hieromonk David (Pierce) of Holyrood Monastery celebrates a Milan Synod version of Sarum (but a different version of Sarum than the OSRM, or St. Petroc Monastery's Sarum -- clear as mud?). His assertion is just that -- an unsourced assertion. But the [http://theyorkforum.yuku.com/sreply/12977/t/Western-Rite-Orthodox-News.html ''source''] I provided, which is still linked in the article, quotes Fr. David writing to the contrary, he celebrates the Mt. Royal usage DL and the "Holyrood/St. Petroc" recension of Sarum. If Joseph has any evidence to the contrary, this would be the place to offer it, and the article would reflect that; but he has dismissed all evidence as [[Talk:Western_Rite#Images_under_.22Congregations.22_2|"anecdotal."]] He then suggested we remove reference to Fr. David/Holyrood Monastery altogether. Here is logic I cannot endorse: removing reference to a functioning WR monastery (that houses two hieromonks) but retaining reference to the private prayers of a Byzantine priest, in the name of improving the section on WR "Congregations."'' '''It's not unclear at all.''' Fr Cuthbert-cum-David was and is using the texts of the Medieval Monastic Psalter. Strangely, he has suddenly become interested publicly in the Overbeck recension... so the text of his ordinary may change. Perhaps he lacks one; as the MMP contains much of the Ordinary to begin with. I didn't suggest removing Holyrood at all, but references as to a use of which we are yet uncertain (and based on dialogue on the [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Occidentalis/message/14419 Occidentalis list], it may be "under development"). And Holyrood doesn't "house two hieromonks" I am aware of. You may now claim Fr Augustine (Whitfield) as ROCOR, but he lives in an aged home, not with Fr Cuthbert (or David). Note-- Don't try to cover up an agenda by claiming I have one.  P.S. I've already commented on you and Ari Adams working with each other to push a common agenda on this Wiki. What do the other posters have in common with each other, and why are you fighting them too? FrLev, don't know him. But a war you had. Same with ChrisG. Am I responsible for those too? --[[User:JosephSuaiden|JosephSuaiden]] 00:12, February 18, 2009 (UTC) Further, Fr Benjamin here makes a totally false claims: '':The fact that Holyrood Monastery and St. Petroc's Monastery are small monasteries is immaterial; they are exclusively WR monasteries that celebrate a full cycle of Western Rite services, including WR hours and Mass/Liturgy. At St. Petroc, Sunday services are held at an associated church, not a home chapel. St. Petroc has a number of associated chapels, at least one sister mission (run by Fr. Barry Jeffries), and Fr. Michael celebrates WR liturgy on at least two continents each year. The "Old Sarum Rite Missal" is not being celebrated anywhere within Orthodoxy to my knowledge, not even the Eastern or Western Archdioceses of the Milan Synod. Met. HILARION reportedly allowed its author to pray his translation of Sarum (presumably the hours?) for his private, home prayers, not in public (where he serves a Byzantine church). I'm not sure that is relevant to Western Rite "Congregations"; frankly, bishops allow priests to pray all sorts of things privately. I am even less certain two large pictures (one mislabeled) of that missal, not being celebrated anywhere, are a more appropriate graphic for an article about the WR than a picture of Fr. Alexander Turner (which [http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Western_Rite&curid=838&diff=80850&oldid=80847 chrisg deleted in favor of the OSRM]). What's being "sourced" and "de-sourced" there?'' 1. Holyrood is not a monastery proper: it's a hermitage. Further, it is not listed on the ROCOR official directory. http://directory.stinnocentpress.com/wujood.cgi 2. The fact that Fr Michael travels about and liturgizes means nothing. 3. According to Fr Aidan's [http://sarisburium.blogspot.com/2008/10/good-news-for-sarum-use-of-roman-rite.html press release] (which I assume was blessed by his Metropolitan) I assume he has the same liturgical rights as Fr Michael. Further, it states very clearly what Fr Aidan can do. 4. Fr Michael does in fact utilize a house chapel. It's [http://www.allmercifulsavior.com/images/aa-StPetrocChapel.jpg right here.] It appears to be a walk-in closet. 5. You seem to misunderstand the value of the OSRM to the wiki. It has historical value as a translation of a text most closely that of a pre-schism Western usage in English. It's not because of its use. It's because of its uniqueness in modern Orthodox history; and this is why it repeatedly sells for five times over its price on ebay, even though many texts in [http://www.allmercifulsavior.com/Liturgy/Liturgics.html Fr Aidan's work are available online free]. 6. Finally, I have nothing against having a picture of Fr Alexander Turner. I think it should replace the fon-du-lac circus. --[[User:JosephSuaiden|JosephSuaiden]] 01:15, February 18, 2009 (UTC) :First, Joseph, I can't see a single change to the article advocated in this enormous response. Probably related to (or caused by)::Second, and this goes for both Willibrord and Joseph, this is for talking to ADMINISTRATORS, not each other. Talking to each other is what User_talk: pages are for - if you really need an (unauthorised) outlet, go for those pages.Third (both again), do not ascribe motive or personally attack others. Again, User_talk: pages, blogs or gossip columns, '''not''' OW.Fourth, Joseph, the only exception that I can see to the first point is possibly the OSRM, which is for a new article.Fifth (both), since you BOTH appealed for arbitration, a ruling has been given. If you don't like it, appeal. &mdash; 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 02:42, February 18, 2009 (UTC)  :: '''Note:''' Both of the interlocutor complainants have now been issued warnings (2nd in both cases). I do hope that this matter can be settled down before someone gets banned. &mdash;[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">Fr. Andrew</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]] <font face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''')</font></small> 12:34, February 18, 2009 (UTC)
Interwiki, renameuser, administrator
13,510
edits

Navigation menu