OrthodoxWiki:Style Manual

This is the OrthodoxWiki Style Guide. Refer to it when writing new articles. It is currently tentative and therefore still under development.

Neutrality and the OrthodoxWiki Bias

For intellectual and administrative purposes, OrthodoxWiki is governed by what might be called the Mainstream Chalcedonian Bias (MCB). By Chalcedonian we refer to those churches of the Orthodox Church who hold to the decrees of the Fourth Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon (A.D. 451). By mainstream we refer to those "official" churches comprised by the fifteen autocephalous and four autonomous churches generally recognized as the "mainstream" of the Orthodox Church -- for those of us in North America, this will be all SCOBA jurisdictions and those with whom they're in communion.

What the Bias Means

The main places that the bias will apply will be in terms of naming. Naming is of course important, and the names by which we call things indicate what we believe about them. As is evident to anyone who knows anything of Church History, names are a potentially inflammatory topic. What might be termed namespace will be given priority in terms of the MCB. So, for instance, an article called Church of Alexandria will refer to the Chalcedonian body by that name, whereas one called Church of Alexandria (Coptic) will refer to the non-Chalcedonian body by that name. It applies similarly with regard to parallel hierarchies along other disputational lines, so the official chuch in Greece will have its article named Church of Greece and not Church of Greece (State Church) (which is how some groups might refer to it).

Additionally, the MCB is in effect in terms of the content in articles, so MC churches will not include content in any articles indicating in direct factual terms that they are heretics, schismatics, etc.

What the Bias Does Not Mean

The MCB does not mean that non-mainstream or non-Chalcedonian persons or groups are unwelcome to write or edit articles on OrthodoxWiki. It also does not mean that such groups or their members will be the subject of polemic in encyclopedic articles, though some non-encyclopedic articles may include polemic from any point of view if it is appropriately labelled regarding its own biases. So, instead of saying "the Church of Greece has fallen into heresy, schism and is entirely uncanonical," we might say, "the Church of Greece is regarded as heretical, schismatic and uncanonical by Group X."

The best thing on OrthodoxWiki we can do with regard to any dispute, no matter what side we're on, is to characterize the dispute in the terms of each of the disputants, rather than entering into that dispute and bringing the conflict here. That is, so far as we can, we try to word our articles from a neutral point of view (NPOV).

The MCB is not a judgment on any group or persons. It's simply a protocol for the OrthodoxWiki project.

Why Have the Bias?

It's for administrative reasons as much as anything else. OrthodoxWiki is owned and operated by a priest of the Orthodox Church in America, a mainstream Chalcedonian church. Also, if we think carefully, we realize that there must be some sort of bias regarding the issues outlined above, or else we'd have the potential for perpetual renaming and revision wars, all in one massive conflict. OrthodoxWiki is, after all, editable by anyone with an Internet connection.

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.

Of course, the MCB cannot prevent all confusion or conflict, but we hope that it will help. Where extra attention needs to be paid, extra care will be taken when the time comes. We ask you that, while we are certainly trying to be Orthodox, we take special care also to be Christian.

Churches

Autocephalous and Autonomous Churches

Refer to autocephalous and autonomous churches by the form when creating new articles and links: Church of Place. Referring with the adjectival form of the place (e.g., Smogarian Orthodox Church) is not only essentially incorrect but furthers the ethnic stereotyping of the Church. Thus, instead of Smogarian Orthodox Church, you would use Church of Smogaria.

The only current exception to this rule is the Orthodox Church in America, whose autocephaly is still in debate. To call it the Church of America would be to lend it a status not currently agreed upon.

Non-Chalcedonian, Roman Catholic, and other Churches

Many Non-Chalcedonian and Roman Catholic churches have parallel sees to those among Chalcedonian Orthodox, so distinction needs to be made. Refer to these parallel sees with this convention: Church of Place (Common Identifier). So, the Coptic church centered in Egypt would be Church of Alexandria (Coptic), or the Syrian Catholic Church would be the Church of Antioch (Catholic).

For non-Latin Rite churches within the Roman Catholic Church, using Roman in the name could be misleading for two reasons:

• Such churches typically do not refer to themselves as Roman, often stressing that fact very strenuously.
• Such a designation may also mislead readers into thinking that such churches are Latin Rite, which they usually are not.

The fact that these churches are subject to the Vatican would be noted in the relevant articles.

In other places, there are no parallel sees, so one would simply use the Church of Place convention, e.g., the Church of Armenia.

Dioceses, Archdioceses, Metropolises, etc.

Articles on component parts of autocephalous and autonomous churches should be named by their official self-naming convention. Examples: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America, Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Orthodox Metropolitanate of Hong Kong and Southeast Asia.

Extinct Churches

When writing articles on great churches that no longer exist, exist only as minor or titular sees, or whose modern successors appear to be in permanent heresy or schism, use the Church of Place convention and be sure to include the article in Category:Church History. Examples include the Church of Carthage, the Church of Rome (as distinct from the modern day Roman Catholic Church), and the Church of Persia (as distinct from the Assyrian Church of the East, i.e., the Nestorians).

There is some potential ambiguity here, especially regarding the Oriental Orthodox, but let's keep them as an exception, mainly due to their closeness with the Chalcedonian Orthodox and the ongoing talks regarding reunification.

Categories

All articles on church bodies should be included in Category:Jurisdictions.

Saints

Articles about saints should be titled with the most common English version of how the saint is known, e.g., Seraphim of Sarov rather than Serafim Sarovskii or Cosmas and Damian rather than Kosmas and Damianos.

Don't use "Saint" for article titles

Saints should not include "Saint" (or any variant thereof) in the article names. That can be taken care of in the body of the article. Not only would it mess with alphabetization and searching to have every article name for a saint start with "saint," but there would also be potential issues with regard to which form we use: Saint, St., St, S., or S (all are currently in use in English convention). Additionally, there are potential quibbles over which persons are considered saints or not (Augustine of Hippo, Saint Augustine of Hippo, or Blessed Augustine of Hippo). Not using "saint" for article titles also means that the necessity of moving articles will be lessened should a person already with an article be declared a saint. The note can simply be made in the article body.

Categories

All articles about saints should be included in Category:Saints and include a link to the saint's feast day(s), e.g., November 13.

Bishops

Basic Style

When creating articles about bishops, name the article with the following style: Firstname I (Surname) of See, so if there is a bishop named Moses Jones who is the fifth bishop named Moses of the Patriarchate of Springfield, the name of the article would be: Moses V (Jones) of Springfield. In cases where no surname is known, it is of course omitted, which will especially be the case with ancient bishops, e.g., John I of Antioch.

Additionally, most sees will not usually have need of the ordinal (the I, II, III, etc.), so if the bishop is of a more minor see (as most are), the ordinal would be omitted, e.g., Anthony (Bloom) of Sourozh. It's typically used only to refer to the primate of an autocephalous church, e.g., Alexei II (Ridiger) of Moscow.

Sainted bishops (and other historic personages)

Exceptions would be saints or other historical figures who are generally known by other names. For instance, instead of having an article named John I (Chrysostom) of Constantinople, we simply have John Chrysostom. Or instead of Cyril I of Alexandria, we have Cyril of Alexandria. Some ambiguity will exist for recently glorified bishops, e.g., Raphael of Brooklyn rather than Raphael (Hawaweeny) of Brooklyn, because the former is currently the more commonly used form.

English names

Additionally, use the most commonly used English form of the name of the bishop. So, instead of Vartholomaios I (Archontonis) of Constantinople, use Bartholomew I (Archontonis) of Constantinople. Some ambiguity will of course exist here, especially with names that are not commonly used in English-speaking countries.

Categories

Also be sure to include the bishop in Category:Bishops, and if he is the bishop of an important see, include him in the category of that see's bishops, e.g., Category:Patriarchs of Constantinople.

Other notes

The reason I would argue against naming articles with the bishops' first name in ALL CAPS is that such a usage is not common when referring to saints, and it is not a universal custom, anyhow. Certainly, within the text of an article a writer may choose to use ALL CAPS for bishops' names, but when creating articles or linking to existing or potential articles, the above convention should be followed.

A potential problem with this naming style is that a bishop may be transferred to another see, thus requiring the moving of the article to incorporate the new name. This wouldn't happen often, however, and having the move might well be helpful if searchers are looking for the bishop under his old title.

Comments?