renameuser, Administrators
5,600
edits
Changes
m
→Relevance of text to title
:I haven't had to say this before, but my personal philosophy is that 10 reverts inside an hour is, well, unsane. I'm not worried about seeming like I'm taking sides because I figure that there's a 50/50 chance that either side's view will stay on the page (for now).
:Please cite your ''documented'' evidence. — by [[User:Pistevo|<font color="green">Pιs</font><font color="gold">τévο</font>]] <sup>''[[User talk:Pistevo|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|<font color="red">complaints</font>]]''</sup> at 22:00, August 3, 2008 (UTC)
:: And let me add that documentation has to be ''published'' and ''third-party''. No specially privileged papers, please. —[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">Fr. Andrew</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]] <font face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''')</font></small> 01:10, August 4, 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I cited, in this talk page (I still don't know how to footnote), an issue of a newsletter produced at Synod by Father George-- later Bp Gregory (Grabbe) -- that included the ROCOR 1978 resolutions. Since then, I have been answered with personal opinions. I've not stated my opinion on it, but simply noted its existence. I was told it was "ROAC point of view" (because I took it off an archive run by ROAC of all the newsletters from the 70's onward) but have not been given a single documented proof that these minutes were forgeries. Then I was told HTM forged it. By contrast, every member of ROCOR received these informational newsletters which contained Synodal archives and other news stories from Synod.
:A lot of the dispute seems to me to be about whether the extant minutes are valid minutes (or something along those lines). Remember, OW is able to describe an issue without taking sides in it (e.g. 'the extant minutes say ''x'', but objections from ''name'' have been recorded regarding ''problem with extant minutes'').
:An official website is a valid resource, no matter who runs it, but it does have limitations. It doesn't matter if (to use the pertinent example) Suaiden is the webmaster of the ROAC website, if official things are on the ROAC website, then we can cite it - but that only goes towards proving that ROAC puts these ideas forward - but that doesn't, in and of itself, make it correct (and the same is true of ROCOR, AWRV, etc). If there is a dispute amongst official sources, then I see no other course for OW than to document the claims on both sides in as NPOV a manner as possible.— by [[User:Pistevo|<font color="green">Pιs</font><font color="gold">τévο</font>]] <sup>''[[User talk:Pistevo|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|<font color="red">complaints</font>]]''</sup> at
So forgive me if I seem shrill. It does bother me when someone can only admit the truth (that this was not a "ROAC document", but a ROCOR one) once they've created a large series of convolutions. --[[User:JosephSuaiden|JosephSuaiden]] 00:56, August 4, 2008 (UTC)
P.S. You wrote above: "No one said that all of the material translated was not representative of the Synod's decisions - just that one item that ROCOR clergy have maintained was snuck in."
This is false. You said that. One can see that by looking at your deletions in the history of the page. (I don't know how to link that).
"The 'documentation' provided is ROAC pov, and still is considered spurious by our clergy. "
"putting the HTM Pseudo-Synodal anti-Western rite act in context:"
"false documents cited - reverting to version based upon personal conversations with ROCOR clergy"
"The burden of proof is rather with the claim that the ROAC document was both a good translation, and accurately reflects the actual decisions of the ROCOR synod. "--[[User:JosephSuaiden|JosephSuaiden]] 01:06, August 4, 2008 (UTC)
:So, if I may summarise...
:- There is common acceptance of the fact that the Synod did produce a proclamation in 1979. No actual source, of course, but mutual acceptance.
:- There is common acceptance of all but one of the declarations in said proclamation.
:- One side is accusing the other of bad/faulty minute-taking.
:Burden of proof is definitely on the side that is claiming that the translation of the minutes was faulty - either by official repudiation of the translation or, perhaps, the original minutes - otherwise, the minutes must be considered to be an accurate reflection of the meeting. — by [[User:Pistevo|<font color="green">Pιs</font><font color="gold">τévο</font>]] <sup>''[[User talk:Pistevo|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|<font color="red">complaints</font>]]''</sup> at 04:41, August 4, 2008 (UTC)
