Talk:Russian Orthodox Diocese of Sourozh/Orthodox England Debate

message: The recent rewrite of this article by an anonymous editor is long on analysis and short on fact.  It doesn't much strike me as encyclopedic any longer, especially with the repeated unqualified addition of the Orthodox England site, whose author has frequently said quite a good number of nasty things about Sourozh leadership over the years (referring to it as a "personality cult" under Metr. Anthony, for instance ).
Perhaps the anonymous editor may be interested in working toward something more neutral.  —A.S. Damick talk contribs 20:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV issues

message: Obviously every article in Wikipedia is written from a certain perspective. This article can be no different. If there are particular points at which this article requires supplementation by noting other views/interpretations of the facts, then these ought to be added, so that the article properly represents an appropriate spectrum of opinion. (At this time in the history of Sourozh diocese, we can hardly expect any one viewpoint to be universally accepted - so this seems the best option, at least in the interim.) As I believe the perspective of the article as stands to be basically correct, I do not believe that it is for me to add other opinions, which I may not either agree with or even understand. But it would be good for the article if this were done by another.
As an invitation to this, in good will, I propose the lifting of the pov tag? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 149.254.200.215 (talk • contribs) .
: First off, the tag has been placed on the article precisely because there is not consensus on whether it violates Wikipedia's NPOV standards.  Please do not remove it unless a consensus has actually been achieved.  Your reason for removing is precisely the reason for leaving it there, i.e., as an invitation to work the issues out.  Adding the tag is not making a "POV query" (i.e. some sort of official request for arbitration), but it is simply a statement that the editors working on the article have not come to a consensus.  However, because the tag has now twice been removed without first achieving consensus (and because of the Three-revert rule), I have asked a site admin to look into this article.
: Second, WRT the Fr. Andrew Phillips Orthodox England site:  The site is not mainly about the Diocese of Sourozh.  Only a small part of its content is relevant.  Thus, if there are to be links at all (which I'm not in favor of), they should be added only for specifically relevant articles.  In any event, the ROCOR POV regarding Sourozh is only indirectly relevant, since the ROCOR is not a party to the question.  (By the same logic, the main OCA website should be directly linked, since an opinion piece by Kishkovsky recently was included there.)  See Wikipedia:External links for more on what kinds of external links are appropriate in Wikipedia articles.
: Third, the article as it now stands is more of an opinion piece than a reporting on the facts in question.  This represents a major change to the article as it stood previously.  Such major changes ought to be proposed before being made.  —A.S. Damick talk contribs 21:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion