Talk:Ben Lomond Crisis

From OrthodoxWiki
Revision as of 04:34, March 6, 2008 by Pistevo (Talk | contribs) (Additions to article)

Jump to: navigation, search

This page was here on Dec 31st, 2007, and removed by someone on Jan 1, 2008. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JulianDelphiki (talkcontribs) .

This is interesting. There's nothing here for this page on the internet archive (dated November 18, 2005). There doesn't seem to be a Google cache for the page. There are three articles linking to the page, but Google's cache of those articles (on December 23, 24, and 30 indicate that Google didn't see the page on those dates. It doesn't appear that anyone actually removed the page, or there would have been something in the logs, so I'm baffled as to what happened. —magda (talk) 09:03, January 2, 2008 (PST)
There is no indication in any of the wiki's logs that this page existed before it was created by JulianDelphiki on Jan. 1st. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs 14:39, January 18, 2008 (PST)

Disputed Objectivity

The good Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick (Antiochian Archdiocese) says that he deleted the article b/c there were no sources. However, the article put in its place is entirely one-sided and represents purely the party line on the matter, and does not take into account any of the immense wealth of contrary material available to anyone w. a few minutes to kill. In other words, it has frozen in place only selective use of sources. On the other hand, for his own claims, no sources are cited either. He doesn't apparently apply the same standard to himself. That is dishonest. He and his matushka call the original post a pack of lies, but it was nothing of the sort; it is, to be sure, different that the official statements of Fr. Andrew's Archdiocese, and that is all. This version is, however, as it remains, certainly a pack of lies. Is the Orthodox Wiki an arm of the Antiochian Archdiocese? It certainly has seemed to present, in this case, only the AOA's historiographical view. Surely that cannot be the intent of anything truly encyclopedic. The current article could have presented, as an honest historian would, that there is more than one historiographical frame of reference. That is the expected behavior for a wiki encyclopedia and works quite well. You give space to more than one viewpoint on something this controversial. Freezing the article from editing keeps it from being deleted, but it freezes in place the party line and certainly does, therefore, black out history. For history is a matter of understanding; historians don't disagree on when the Civil War occurred - they do disagree on what caused it, and on what questions are the essential ones to ask; that's history. This is conflating one historiographical viewpoint, a patently biased one at that, with history itself. Equal space, I say. If this is going to remain in this state, then updates will be provided over time at the Online Ben Lomond Archive. Orthodox Wiki can represent the AOA version, and the another version will be presented elsewhere. It's a shame collaboration isn't possible. With all due respect to the wiki owner, this is sickening.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Westernritecritic (talkcontribs) .

First of all, she (Gabby) is my wife, not Fr. Andrew's. She doesn't have a title as I am not a presbyter; I am a Reader. Second, she is proud of her statement. And third, where is your documentation on this that you claim is so easy to find? Inquiring minds want to know.
The Holy Apostle Paul tells us consistently throughout his Epistles to obey those who are in authority over us (i.e. bishops). Unless episcopal authority directs us to do something which is blatantly heretical, we are obliged to obey. We do not submit to false teachers, who in the name of Our Lord, teach their own doctrines.Mike 17:24, January 27, 2008 (PST)

Westernritecritic, no "claims" were made, other than the obvious observation that anyone could have made that the article completely lacked any citations. I've never written any "version" of this article at all (which is clear to see from its history). As a sysop on the wiki, it's part of my job to make sure that things are properly in order for an encyclopedia. It has nothing to do with my jurisdiction.

Honestly, you're new to OrthodoxWiki, so it might help if you took the time to learn how the wiki has been functioning for the past 3.5 years before deciding (and posting publicly) that the sysops are censorious monsters. We’ve never had any problems with the wiki containing controversial subject matter, even about our own jurisdictions, so long as it's properly cited and written in an encyclopedic manner.

BTW, regarding the "Online Ben Lomond Archive," it is of course yours to do with as you please, but it seems to be more commentary than "archive," which makes it something less than a reputable source, and it's certainly not third-party (IOW, it doesn't count if you cite yourself).

And I seriously doubt that my "matushka" has ever even heard of this article, though she does know Sophie Majmudar (quoted here), since we were next-door neighbors in Pennsylvania for a year. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs 19:15, January 27, 2008 (PST)

Polite words fail me, User:Westernritecritic.
At this point, I am the writer of most of what is currently the article. Not only am I not part of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America, I'm not from any part of the Americas (as Commonwealth English spelling on the article itself would probably give away). Hence, I have a very strong claim to objectivity (since I honestly don't care about either side going down in history as winning).
The article's source was not from the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America; rather, it was from Nova Religio, an independant research journal. The purpose of the article was to show both sides of the story, which it did, so as to draw out some of the challenges for converts to Orthodox jurisdictions of various ethnicities. In fact, the quality of the article would have been compromised if they were not able to do exactly that.
The only other potential source that I have found,, is very small and consists of two items - memory recalls, from one side. While information from this source can be incorporated, it actually says very little that isn't in the article itself.
In reality, the only things in question are whether unreferenced and oft far-fetched claims are permitted in an encyclopaedia. The Style Manual has this set very clearly. Please read it. — edited by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 01:51, January 28, 2008 (PST)

Non Wiki question

Hi, I read this article and was really interested in asking - If you belong to the Antiochian Church and do stuff from say the Russian Church or Greek Church (ie Byzantine style singing as opposed to something else) - is this valid grounds for excommunication? I thought that if we all belong to a 'Orthodox Church' then we are freely able to 'interchange' between them (ie celebrate at a Russian Church if I was Greek or vice versa) because we all originate from the initial Apostolic churches??? Vasiliki 18:55, January 17, 2008 (PST)

Under normal circumstances, there is no problem - although we are able to interchange, so to speak, because of our shared faith, not our origin. Firstly, I have a feeling that this article is somewhat less than balanced; secondly, disobedience to one's bishop can, under some circumstances, be grounds for excommunication. — edited by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 00:08, January 18, 2008 (PST)

Suitability of article

Given the nature of this article's subject matter (i.e., highly controversial and with most of the main players all still alive), there needs to be some third-party citations from reputable sources (e.g., historians, journalists, etc.), or else this should be deleted. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs 14:39, January 18, 2008 (PST)

I am of like mind with the rest of my colleagues on this article. While I am not an administrator, I certainly deem it unfair and unbalanced (to be Bill O'Reilly about the whole thing). I had the most distinguished pleasure of having Fr. David Barr as my father confessor for over two years while I was a student at the University of Texas. Though he isn't mentioned by name in the article, the V. Rev. Fr. David was sent in to help the Ben Lomond Crisis as a co-celebrant to this church. I have been told stories that are shockingly different than what this article claims (for example, the said priest telling his parishioners "not to think" about this issue, and urging them to act and align with him). And being a member of the Antiochian Archdiocese, I certainly know that our hierarchy is not nefarious as this individual makes it out to be. Priests don't just get defrocked for asinine and petty reasons. It is all a pack of lies, as my wife Gabriela stated so poignantly.
Also, where is the author getting his numbers on attendances? You don't have that many people at a Great Vespers in a bishop's cathedral.Mike 19:53, January 18, 2008 (PST)

Sorry if my question has caused a bit of an issue for Ben Lemond ... I have no idea who he is or what this article is actually about ...hence my curiosity. Vasiliki 14:50, January 20, 2008 (PST)

I've tried to dissect this article so that it can be rewritten. As it was, it was not encyclopedic, even if the subject matter is appropriate (probably debatable) and could be freely written about without citations (not the case).
I don't have access to journal articles anymore (soon, but not yet), but I remember an article titled 'Enfants Terrible' or something similar, which talked about three instances of problems with converts to Orthodoxy, and the first example was Ben Lomond, with some detail. This is the only reference I'm aware of, but it's a pretty good one. — edited by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 17:29, January 20, 2008 (PST)
Vasiliki: The article is about a parish church in the city of Ben Lomond, California. In this church, the senior priest apparently started criticizing Metr. Phillip and the other Antiochian hierarchy (among over things), refused to obey them, and broke off with a good chunk of the parish to start his own church. Don't worry about causing any controversy; this article had already been posted and deleted (for good reason, if you ask me) once before you posted on the second version, and it was obviously either written by one of the schismatic Ben Lomondites or someone highly sympathetic toward their cause. Gabriela 18:30, January 20, 2008 (PST)

Deletion of article

The 1st version of the article was the most objective and balanced. It lacked certain key information, but should have been acceptable to all. It was erased (rendering that page blank) by someone who would rather there be no real information available. Here's the timeline.

Late December - the first Ben Lomond Crisis article existed on 12/31/2007 and was completely erased from the Orthodox Wiki on 1/1/2008, beginning the new year with a blackout of history. Early January - notation of this fact and date was made on that wiki page.

Mid January - a new article describing the crisis was put up.

Late January (1/21) - that article was reformatted and rewritten a bit to give it some objectivity and balance.

Later January (e.g. 1/22-23) - that article was completely deleted off the wiki, rendering even the link broken. Here is a pdf of that article which shows when it was present: Deleted 3rd Version (PDF)

It is a terrible shame when the truth of something is so scandalous, that it has to be covered up by an information blackout.

It should be noted that, while this doesn’t indicate the source necessarily, the link to the article from the Antiochian website is not the link to read the article, but rather the direct link to edit it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Westernritecritic (talkcontribs) .

Here's the most recent article which was simply deleted wholesale. (transferred from main article by User:Pistevo)

This article should not be deleted without, at the very least, an explanation on the talk page. This is an article that documents an important moment in American Orthodox history, and needs to be written about properly and - most importantly - objectively, and IMHO this is best done here: it is our competitive advantage, if you like. — edited by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 14:28, January 27, 2008 (PST)
I deleted the article due to its twofold nature of being controversial and having absolutely no citations of reliable third-party sources (e.g., historians, etc.). Original research and uncited material is fine for uncontroversial material, but there needs to be citations for controversial topics. Anything else is just hearsay, innuendo, etc. If this article can be written as a summary of reputable, third-party publications, it certainly ought to be here. But I rather doubt that hardly any exist, especially since this event is still such recent history.
Deleting an unsourced article is not "an information blackout." It's part of writing and maintaining an encyclopedia. No remotely reputable encyclopedia gets published without some academic backbone. OrthodoxWiki is no exception. If folks would like to publish unsourced controversial material on another outlet, no one's stopping them. But OrthodoxWiki is not that outlet. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs 15:01, January 27, 2008 (PST)
One does exist, Enfants Terribles - I'm drawing on information from it as a base for this article at the moment. Perhaps this would be an article best protected, changes made on the talk page first? — edited by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 15:22, January 27, 2008 (PST)
That looks like a good start on a source, although it's more of a commentary than a standard source. It's a start, though.
As an aside, it might be a demonstration of good faith if scathing off-wiki commentary weren't made in an attempt to hijack our standard process here. Westernritecritic, it would really help if you tried to learn our standards here and worked within the system before storming off into the blogosphere and claiming that we're out to censor you. Every publication has an editorial process, and this is ours.
WRT this link in general, it would probably be fine to link and cite some of the source material republished there (though one hopes that copyright isn't being violated!), though I don't think the weblog as a whole should be linked, since its purpose is clearly beyond simply presenting sources and has gone on to lash out at OrthodoxWiki itself (in my lowly person, alas).
Additionally, with the republishing of material from OrthodoxWiki, it is required by copyright law that republications include our licensing, which also affects all derivative works (in this case, weblog entries). —Fr. Andrew talk contribs 19:05, January 27, 2008 (PST)


The Enfants Terribles link looks interesting, though its being password protected makes it hard to verify. Is everything in the current version of the article citable from that one source?

This is, by the way, why the article was deleted: It's not yet been demonstrated that any version so far put up is the result of distilling reputable secondary, third-party sources into an encyclopedic article. Despite the claim of our seemingly much-exercised new editor who just registered on the wiki yesterday, there isn't even an officially published "historiography" of the Antiochian Archdiocese on this. AFAIK, the only published piece from the AOCA is the metropolitan's archpastoral directive of depositions and excommunications, which is pretty short on narrative. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs 19:29, January 27, 2008 (PST)

Everything visible is, yes - I've done my customary ripping of information so that it can be rewritten later (an effective way of having an original way of expressing researched content, necessary in avoiding copyright). Some things from previous edits have been left in, but commented out with <!--'s, awaiting referencing (which may, perhaps, be forthcoming).
The article is available if you happen to have access to Proquest (or, assumedly, any other journal catalogue with religious publications) - I'd send it to you myself, but for fear of breaching copyright... — edited by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 01:51, January 28, 2008 (PST)

Additions to article

Have added a citation to the Archbishop's archpastoral directive (which was the suspension of the clergy), and ideally, would like to add citations to articles posted on Ben Lomond Tragedy. Although the sources are proper for encyclopaedic articles, based on new articles that have been posted there, I'd want a consensus to add such citations. — edited by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 02:03, January 28, 2008 (PST)

Pending any objections, I'll put a link up to Dcn R. Thomas Zell's article on this, written in the first AGAIN magazine post-court verdict. It's viewable here (about eight screens down), and I'm not sure where else it might be available. At some point, any additional points from this article should be added in to the article itself.

Anyone think that this should be unprotected, or is it just going to be a permanently touchy subject until all the key players are out of the Church Militant? — by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 20:34, March 5, 2008 (PST)