Difference between revisions of "Talk:Liturgy of St. Tikhon of Moscow"
|Line 1:||Line 1:|
*[[Talk:Liturgy of St. Tikhon of Moscow/Archive 1a|Archive 1a]]
*[[Talk:Liturgy of St. Tikhon of Moscow/Archive 1a|Archive 1a]] *[[Talk:Liturgy of St. Tikhon of Moscow/Archive 1b|Archive 1b]]
*[[Talk:Liturgy of St. Tikhon of Moscow/Archive 1b|Archive 1b]]
Revision as of 23:42, August 8, 2008
At 80kb, I'm fairly sure that this is the single longest Talk page on OW, probably even including those with archivals - so big that it needed to pages to archive it. It's the kind of thing that I instinctively congratulate, purely on the basis of perseverance - all 80,000 characters and six months of it. That said, this does need to stop.
So, my adjudication on the matter - the Observations aren't binding (they're observations), so it is thoroughly irrelevant whether they were followed to the letter (indeed, 'to the letter' gives quite a bit of scope to the diocesan). This is something that both 'sides' can accept, since one advanced this idea to begin with and the other highlighted that the diocesan needed to implement them properly. The way the article currently is (and I did edit it in the last couple of days) reflects this.
Secondly, I'm not convinced that the SASB is authorised in the same way as the OM is authorised - the definite and indefinite articles clearly have an important part to play in the English language, and only the latter has the definite article.
Regarding citations, the OM/SASB issue should be settled with a citation (e.g. Andersen, B., (2006). Lengthy Thesis: Title with Much Capitalisation that Rivals The Thesis' Word Count. Crestwood, New York: Publisher), but I strongly encourage that the critical part of this thesis be put online. The critical part about this thesis is what the Vicar-General says - if there's only one authorised text according to him, then that's it - if that wasn't the case, then in the same way that the Archbishop has full authority to authorise texts, he also has full authority to un-deputise people to speak on his behalf. At a minimum, all bibliographical details need to be given. In addition, whether there is a conflict of interest regarding the thesis is not an issue, for the simple reason that it was submitted to an impartial marker. One would not claim a conflict of interest if someone said 'I'm innocent' after the court case was thrown out. On another note, however, Occidentalis cannot be used as a source, for the simple reason that it is a "blog [that] is open to invited readers only".
In short, I hold that the article, as it stands, is correct. I'm archiving the rest of the page. For any further complaints about the article, <strikethrough>click on my complaints link</strikethrough> feel free to state this on this page or find another sysop. — by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 23:01, August 8, 2008 (UTC)