Changes

Jump to: navigation, search

Category talk:Non-Orthodox

8,593 bytes added, 18:52, February 20, 2006
Re:
:: In order for OrthodoxWiki to be useful, it has to be limited. These are the limitations that the administration has put in place. In any event, except for your userpage, you've been editing articles here a total of only two days. Perhaps you may wish to examine the Style Manual thoroughly and familiarize yourself with our practices a bit further before indicating that there should be policy changes. {{User:ASDamick/sig}} 16:00, January 12, 2006 (CST)
 
::: I wasn't aware that joining OrthodoxWiki meant that I was not allowed to express an opinion. I have been duely chastised. It will be a long time, or never, before I contribute again.[[User:Thedogfather|Thedogfather]] 11:53, January 18, 2006 (CST)
 
:::: FWIW, chastisement wasn't the aim. It simply seemed that you were unfamiliar with our longstanding standards and policies, and your limited contribution level seemed to confirm that apparent unfamiliarity (which is why I mentioned it). Anyone may express an opinion (evidenced by the fact that yours wasn't edited out). {{User:ASDamick/sig}} 12:36, January 18, 2006 (CST)
:I don't think the problem is that articles on heterodox ideas (TULIP, et al) are inherently bad; rather, unless they have Orthodoxy somewhere in them - a response to, or a comparison with - they are better done on a bigger scale, ie on wikipedia, and there is no need for duplication here. However, if there is something Orthodox in the article (response, comparison, etc), then there is a good reason for them being here. Otherwise, it's easy enough to link the specific articles up with the equivalent wikipedia articles. --{{User:Pistevo/sig}} 16:25, January 12, 2006 (CST)
::See also [[meta:Deletionism]] and [[meta:Inclusionism]].
::[[Jehovah's Witnesses]] is definitely a [[heresy]] that is incompatible with Christianity in general and not just Orthodoxy (even Protestant Churches are denouncing it). On the other hand, the [[Immaculate Conception]] is a (non-essential) flawed dogma that appeared in the Catholic Church, a traditional old Church with valid Apostolic succession that no truly wise one can ever deny, and with a unique ministry (part of God's plan, I believe), reaching out to many parts of the world that are otherwise underserved/unserved by the Orthodox Church. I am very much relieved to see this attempt to reorganise this category. I have never been convinced with the classification of both the [[Rosary]] and [[Jehovah's Witnesses]] under the same [[:Category:Non-Orthodox|category]]. It was a bit odd. == Proposal == The general consensus seems to be in favor of the limits on non-Orthodox subjects set in the [[OW:SM]]. I thus propose the following measures: * '''Renaming''' all the articles to reflect that they are about Orthodoxy and their subject.* '''Editing''' them to remove material which does not address the subject's relationship to Orthodoxy, except for '''two paragraphs''' of introductory material. Especially regarding this latter subject, I think it would be good to create a new subsection of the Style Manual to address articles on Non-Orthodox subjects, incorporating the two-paragraph rule into it. What do y'all think? {{User:ASDamick/sig}} 06:29, January 19, 2006 (CST) :I think that this seems a reasonable course of action. [[User:Joffridus|Joffridus]] 16:30, January 20, 2006 (CST)  Hi  I am not sure if this is the right place to comment or not. If the articles in this section reflect a 100% exact and identical explanation of what has already been defined or explained elsewhere, then I agree that the information would be...redundant, and as such unnecessary.  However, the question concerning these articles aught to be (IMO) whether or not the articles help clarify the relationship between 1) the Orthodox Church 2) the Topic or group in question.  I would suggest that the nature of the articles is that they help clarify the information specifically as it relates to orthodoxy - contextually. In other words, material should be considered for retention and inclusion where it clarifies and/or Amplifies the definitions or explanations given in other articles. That would be one way that additional information could be made available to others. To rename the articles is not necessarily a problem, though I would urge further that the articles be retained rather than deleted.  I think it will take time for others on the net to learn about this section here, and that time could be used to continue to improve, change, refine and enjoy the articles already posted. (JMO). Theo. ====Re: Naming====Dcn. Andrew and all -- I'm for the editing, and the two paragraphs (as long as there is some flexibility here), but I'm not really in favor of renaming every article. I think it adds extra weight or length to the wiki and is truly unnecessary since this is the implicit focus of all the articles on the wiki. This is already clear in our guidelines and in general practice (though I understand that the impetus for this proposal is that this is not always clear to everyone). I think we can enforce this simple through constant reminders and a good category description. I acknowledge that "Non-Orthodox" is a tremendous category including all kinds of different things, but it doesn't bother me. It's a reasonable catch-all for the project we're engaged in here. If at some point in the future, we have a lot of articles on "Groups endorsing a heretical Christology" or that could be categorized as "Articles which related to the ongoing discussion between Orthodoxy and Catholicism" we can break them off into a subcat. {{User:FrJohn/sig}} ==== On a related topic (and this still may not be the place to address this), I have a deep concern that the material presented on the Orthodox Church...is proposed to be presented on Wikipedia in accordance with the Mainstream Chalcedonian Bias (MCB).  I have a hard time agreeing that the Mainstream Chalcedonian Bias (MCB) is itself, free of bias. As such it would seem potentially to be a contravention of the principles of neutrality of Wiki.  I am not an Orthodox. Having said that I do not object to Mainstream Chalcedonian Bias (MCB) as it is claming to represent Orthodoxy. I can agree - for this discussion - that Mainstream Chalcedonian Bias (MCB) represents the general tenor of Orthodox perspective as it stands today.  What is much problematic however,is the supposition that Mainstream Chalcedonian Bias (MCB) is historically based, and can be proven and demonstrated to be from actual documents that can be authenticated historically.  To claim that the Mainstream Chalcedonian Bias (MCB) is the legitimate descendant of the original churches that were in those original geographic locations seems very problematic, to say the least.  I do not mind the point of view that expresses that MCB is the POV of many Orthodox. What seems to be a more fundamental problem, is the supposition that this POV is based in actual historical data. Historic Data (though there are many definitions) would have to mean data which is in hard copy, demonstrably prior to 1850. It would have to be much closer to original sources. I am thinking about how to reconcile MCB with the underlying premise of neutrality of Wiki.  And for the record, I believe that most Orthodox are sincere. And my own goal is one of historic accuracy, nothing less - nothing more. I will look forward to the comments of others. (and if this is not the right place in Wiki for these comments, I will appreciate the input of where to direct these concerns).   Theo ====Re:====Theo, first off, we're not talking about Wikipedia here at all. One rationale for having a separate site is that we do not believe a "secular" or purely rational NPOV can reflect adequately an Orthodox understanding of reality or truth. I'm not sure what you mean by ''"To claim that the Mainstream Chalcedonian Bias (MCB) is the legitimate descendant of the original churches that were in those original geographic locations seems very problematic, to say the least."'' -- The historical succession is clear. Sure, not every single aspect is 1:1 (and we can talk about that), but I think we are indeed making a claim to substantial continuity. I don't think we're threatened by historical accuracy here. The glory of NPOV is that we can address things descriptively, and are continually challenged to cite sources and base oua rguments in fact. You're absolutely welcome to do that, as long as you respect the basic character and purpose of this wiki. Whatever happens on Wikipedia is outside of my concern. Hope that helps! {{User:FrJohn/sig}} ==My own misinterpretation==To likely obscure matters further, what I think makes the most sense to me (depending on whether or not I've recently had a head blow--do not prune trees alone) is that some of these non-Orthodox topics are likely to impinge upon the lives of Orthodox Christians today. Thus, it's a good idea to include the Orthodox viewpoint of them. The Immaculate Conception is one such topic--at least in the USA, where I get told about once a season by some Roman Catholic or another that the Church really does believe all the RC doctrines and is just uppity about obeying the Pope of Rome. Thus, an Orthodox view of the matter could be useful. Just War perhaps is not well-formed, but Just War still is the fundamental moral underpinning of warfare in the USA. Among Americans (and a large proportion of an English-language Orthodox Wiki will be Americans), we are taught that our wars are not merely necessary or acceptable, our wars have to be morally mandated. That is, they must be positively virtuous in conventional American culture. The closest thing that conventional American culture admits to seeing war as no better than a necessary evil is to reject warfare, altogether. It must either be virtuous or prohibited. There is no middle ground of "temporarily permissible by circumstance, but never to be desired". Instead, we are taught, as Americans that, for a war to be permissible at all, it must be virtuous. This presumption is not, from my understanding, Orthodox, and an Orthodox Christian might be helped by an explication of the Orthodox perspective, one that makes it far less easy to simply salve ones conscience and not worry about the effect of warfare upon our souls yet also does not take the simple solution of absolute prohibition. [[User:Dogface|Dogface]] 12:52, February 20, 2006 (CST)
100
edits

Navigation menu