Talk:St. Petroc Monastery (Cascades, Tasmania)
I'm not sure why the whole article was deleted - the article as part of the Orthodoxy in Australia series was okay. The attempt at character assassination on a monastic wasn't. I'm a little suspicious based upon the statement 'baptized and chrismated by ROCOR due to "previous ordination"' - suggesting a lack of familiarity with reception into the Orthodox Church, or the standard practices of ROCOR. In any case, the article should stick to the facts of the monastery - and the ecclesiastical life of its members. Information from ROCOR AUS/NZ would be best. And, of course, the article should be under the title Saint Petroc Monastery - its official title (no 'of' and Saint unabbreviated.) - Aristibule
- I reverted the blanking. Feel free to edit the article to be more correct and charitable. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 20:01, 2 November 2005 (CST)
- I corrected minor items, removed the bio for now until an official one is received from the Archdiocese: I believe that is the source for the episcopal biographies on Orthodoxwiki? In any case, the bio was irrelevant to the article and included details that don't pertain to the life of a monastic. The numbers of those at the monastery has changed over time - novices have come and gone. I'll flesh out the article later from official sources, and also provide a companion article for sister monastery in the US. - Aristibule
- Most of the bios on OrthodoxWiki are from official sources, news sources, and historical references. That is, they're verifiable and documented, especially when including potentially controversial information. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 20:19, 2 November 2005 (CST)
- Thanks, Fr. Deacon - I do think some of the items are only controversial for those who misunderstand Orthodoxy's claims, monasticism, how the canons are used, etc. However, a bias is apparent if an emphasis is made on articles about how 'small' a particular monastery is, without reference to the same in articles on other monasteries. That is of particular importance when the monastery is new, and still in the planting stages. - Aristibule
- Two things, for information - firstly, the Biography of the Abbot was originally its own page before Fr John asked Lazar to move it to the Monastery page; secondly, 'Monastery of name (place)' was simply the standard I was following: that's the reason that it was listed as 'Monastery of St Petroc'. -- oea 21:16, 2 November 2005 (CST)
Please leave them as Saint Petroc Monastery - that is the official name (I am the official webmaster for the monastery) it follows the traditional Western form. The abbreviation of Saint should not occur in the title either - and the monastery is not 'of' but named Saint Petroc. The information from the bio is incorrect, and is the product of a certain Australian personality (non-Orthodox) of whom I have been aware for a few years. That bio is *not* the official bio, which Abp. HILARION has. Thanks - Aristibule
- Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was just saying why the name was the way it was; the correct way is (obviously) better. As you can probably tell simply by looking at what I personally have done on that article, I know very, very little about the Monastery, and would be very happy about the article increasing. -- oea 21:34, 2 November 2005 (CST)
Recent Major Changes: Actually the details added to the history and the bio by me are correct. I was concerned to place into proper perspective 2 things that were ambiguous or unclear in the earlier drafts, and some associated webpages.
1. The statement that "the monastery was founded in 1992," but not clarifying that it only became part of ROCOR in 1997.
2. The statement in earlier versions (and also in associated webpages) that "Hieromonk Michael comes to Australia from England in 1992" which infers that he is of English origin. In fact he was born in Australia and spent most of his life there.
The following, requoted from above, misrepresents what was written by me: "I'm a little suspicious based upon the statement 'baptized and chrismated by ROCOR due to "previous ordination"' - suggesting a lack of familiarity with reception into the Orthodox Church, or the standard practices of ROCOR."
This is what was written; the wording being virtually a direct quote from an email from one of his superiors at ROCOR. "Michael Wood approached ROCOR for reception. Subsequently he was received through baptism and chrismation into the Russian Orthodox Church on the basis of a his "previous ordination", with instructions to establish "Western Rite" ministeries in Australia and New Zealand."
Abp. Hilarion is well acquainted with the correct details.
BTW I added the bio details because most people would like to have some idea about the foundation, development and genesis of their spiritual advisors. In this case there was nothing.
Aristibule you say that "The information from the bio is incorrect". What exactly is incorrect?
Yes, Archbishop Hilarion is well acquainted with the correct details : he ordained said Hieromonk and is in possession of the official bio - your information rather reflects the version compiled by P. (surname withheld) a (possibly) Catholic laywoman who stalked Fr. Michael for a period in Tasmania, and was looking for 'dirt' on the Hieromonk as late as last August. The content betrays the intent : an attempt at a smear job. Depending on your identity (a secret) either you've been mislead by the wrong rumors, or are the source itself. - Aristibule
- It appears that the external links have been deleted. Is there a reason why they should not be included in this article? The monastery-template needs to be cleaned up. Also, since the monastery itself appears to be located in Cascades, Tasmania, rather than South Hobart, where the mailing address is located; when the dust has settled, we need to move the article title to reflect that. —magda (talk) 07:11, 3 November 2005 (CST)
Regarding this article, all biographical details must be from known, public sources, e.g., an official bio, news sources, or reputable history books. OrthodoxWiki will not become a repository for rumors.
At this point, I don't see any reason to have a separate article on the abbot, and what details of his life do get included in this article should be pretty limited. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 06:33, 3 November 2005 (CST)
When I first came across this page I found significant inaccuracies of fact which have now largely been corrected or removed. The source material for the additions/corrections I made on this subject is in the public domain, having already been published on the web, or elsewhere.
I am now concerned that recent commentary is avoiding matters of fact and, instead. is “playing/discrediting the man/woman