Talk:Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Ethnicity of the clergy
Kpant, wikipedia is not a place for political pamphlets. The entire version of yours is tendentious editing, political soapboxing, full of weasel words (and not so weasel ones) and sourced from one side of the conflict (http://poa-info.org/), or by cherry-picking independent reports that support their viewpoint. Maybe that viewpoint is even correct, but I don't know and don't care. Let me pick up just few examples of your tendentious editing:
- "However, the bishops of the delegations ... soon succumbed to the political pressure"
- "Upon entering in the canonical and ecclesiastical unity with the Serbian Orthodox Church, and through that with the whole community of Orthodox Churches, Archbishop Jovan was illegally and brutally expelled by the police, without a court order,"
- "Bishop Marko was beaten up while serving at a public graveyard. The police again refused to investigate the case."
- US DoS report on Macedonia starts with "The Constitution provides for freedom of religion, and the Government generally respects this right in practice. ", and remains in generally positive tone. On the Vraniškovski incident, it says among other things "Jovan's home was vandalized on February 20, and unknown intruders forcibly cut the hair of several nuns present. Jovan claimed the attackers were state agents, but there was widespread speculation that Jovan's followers staged the attack to generate international sympathy." (emphasis mine).
- You conveniently omit the last sentence. You omit all positive aspects from the report, summarizing it as "...restrictions of the religious freedoms of the members of the Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric, existence of religious prisoners, violation of freedom of movement, police terror and demolition of a monastery, prevention of OSCE from obtaining a copy".
- First of all, it is not true that only one side of the conflict was the source, you surely saw the references to a dozen of independent sources, the poa-info.org site contains the actual documents, the references were not made to their commentaries section.
- You picked several examples which seem inapropriate to you, and instead of discussing only these issues, you rollback everything else? That is supposed to be objective?
- The reverted version of the article contains a number of issues, one of the most obvious and most trivial being the name of the prelate - Jovan IV (who lived in the 12th century) instead of Jovan VI.
- I do not summarize the report, I just provide evidence to support what is stated concerning the topic of this article - that is the Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric, not the report itself.
- Kpant (talk) 13:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- I don't like summary reverts either, but when I see an addition of 10 kB of text of which 2 kB is acceptable and 2 kB is salvageable with effort, I really can't be bothered to separate grain from chaff... or the vice versa. Why didn't you present both sides of the issue if you're just interested in improving the quality of the article? For now, I'm just interested in maintaining the appropriate tone and neutrality rather than on its size. No such user (talk) 14:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- As you could see from my previous note(below), I accepted your suggestions. I realize there is a deep point in your remarks, for example, on the issue "However, the bishops of the delegations ... soon succumbed to the political pressure". This sentence used to contain an interpretation of the facts - which does not belong in wikipedia. The facts are that they defended their standpoint for a while, but then changed their minds. There is no need that we interpret if that was due to political pressure or other things, let us point out the facts, and leave it to the reader to decide on the interpretation.
- In this manner, I cannot agree with you that "the report... remains in generally positive tone". That is a qualitative interpretation, which is also disputable. For example, for me it is inappropriate to give a positive qualification on the situation, when the report contains sections about the restrictions of religious freedom. The tone is just a matter of style, culture and civilization.
- So, thanks again for the feedback, I think that this way we do contribute instead of block each other. I'll be happy to hear more criticism, as that would potentially bring quality to the article.
- Kpant (talk) 15:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
If there are some issues which you consider to be untrue or tendentious, edit them as you find appropriate and objective. Bulk deleting an edit is not less tendentious. Kpant (talk) 14:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Although the current name "Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric" is taken from the Official site, the article name should be moved to a more descriptive title, such as Serbian Orthodox Archbishopric of Ohrid or Archbishopric of Ohrid (Serbian Orthodox Church), which is also the proper translation of "X архиепископија" (as in Пећка патријаршија - Patriarchate of Peć) while an addition to the intro would be "officially in English as Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric".--Zoupan 20:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)