Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy

	This page is part of WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the Eastern Orthodox Church. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You may also want to look at the current collaboration of the month or the project's notice board.Eastern OrthodoxyWikipedia:WikiProject Eastern OrthodoxyTemplate:WikiProject Eastern OrthodoxyEastern Orthodoxy articles
Project	This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Collaboration of the Month

A number of other WikiProjects have the feature of having a collaboration of the month, essentially a call to enlist many editors to work on improving an article together for a month, drawing attention to that article. (See, for instance, the Wikipedia:WikiProject Anglicanism/COTM.) Let's begin a process of nomination and voting to begin our own COTM for August at this subpage. —A.S. Damick ^talk ^contribs 16:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for assistance

I've put up a request for comment on this, but I'd also appreciate assistance from other editors. The Diocese of Sourozh article has been a small battleground for some time now, particularly with NPOV and verifiability issues. Your comments and assistance would be appreciated.

BTW, do you think we should have a separate notice board page linked to the WikiProject for future requests such as this? —A.S. Damick ^talk ^contribs 14:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the person with whom you have disagreed on the Diocese of Sourozh page, I am concerned that you are using this WikiProject as a means of mustering support to force through your own POV in what is currently a well-sourced article, but which does not reflect your personal opinion.

I have worked hard on the Diocese of Sourozh article to achieve a consensus with you - adding sources to sentences for which you demanded citations; revising sections that could be improved upon; and deleting other material to which you have objected.

As the history and discussion-page of the article show, this dispute between yourself and myself arose through your repeated unilateral deletions of portions of long-standing text within the article, without solid justification, and with no attempt to work for conensus. Throughout the dispute, I have repeatedly stated that I do not insist on the assertion of any particular piece of text, but desire to work together consensus. I have, however, sought that good reasons be provided for the deletion of portions of the article. Unfortunately, I have found your attitude to be overwhelmingly hostile and negative, and you do not seem to have been willing to seriously work together to achieve consensus.

Again, it concerns me that, rather than seeking to resolve the dispute by simply working through the issues to consensus in a matter between yourself and myself - something you have not yet allowed to be positively discussed between us - you are instead spending your time advertising the dispute on this WikiProject

I continue to have good will towards the resolution of the dispute.

Maxim662 18:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. It is not a demonstration of good will to keep removing notice tags without first checking for consensus.

2. My request for assistance is not to push my own POV, but rather to seek a broader base for consensus. What consensus may be achieved could well be the opposite of my own POV, but it more likely to represent something in concert with Wikipedia standards than the current situation. How can it hurt to bring more editors to the article?

3. I've tried achieving a consensus with you, but you repeatedly sabotage the standard process for it. As such, I leave it to others to judge. —A.S. Damick ^talk ^contribs 19:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have not 'sabotaged' any standard process for consensus, but worked hard to begin serious discussion with you. I resent your unjustifiable accusation. I requested explanations for deletion rather than unilateral and aggressive deletion; this conforms to Wikipedia policy. Several times, I attempted to begin positive and constructive discussion on the Sourozh discussion page; this also conforms to Wikipedia policy. Each time you refused to engage with the material content of what I said, but displayed a flat-footedly hostility which stands somewhere between deletionism and nihilism; that does not conform to Wikipedia policy. I also worked hard to provide the references you insisted were required, and where this was not possible, I even removed material which in my opinion is fine - specifically to assuage your insistence that even deductive inferences intended to summarise sourced material violates Wikipedia verifiability standards.

I value the Diocese of Sourozh article, and I value its positive development. Please be assured of my continued good will towards the resolution of the dispute.

I do not wish to engage in an edit war across several pages with you, Dn Damick. I am, as ever, happy to work to a consensus with you. Please do not try to escalate our disagreement - which is, after all, over one small edit to one page. Our time on Wikipedia would be far better spent on more productive matters.

As ever,Maxim662 20:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, it is not an "escalation" to ask that other folks get involved. It's rather termed "Wikipedia." Regarding my alleged "nihilism," I'm not really sure at this point whether to chuckle or weep.

To everyone else: I hope you'll take a look at Diocese of Sourozh and, if you can stomach it, the lengthy discussion over at the talk page. It's a worthy subject which deserves a worthy article. —A.S. Damick ^talk ^contribs 01:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ratings

What we definetely need to do is to go around and rate all of the articles in their style and appearance. Have a look at the Trains wikiproject which I am part of and consider application of the similar templates they devised. --Kuban Cossack 17:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a fine idea. I suppose it would be incorporated into Template:Orthodoxyproject. How are the ratings usually determined? —A.S. Damick ^talk ^contribs 01:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its actually remarkably straightforward -> Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Assessment. I would never think that it be too difficult to distinguish a stub from an FA.--Kuban Cossack

09:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

template

I made this. I think its about ready to go live, but if anyone wants to edit it or make comments, feel free. All we need to do next is move the code from the subpage to the main template space, and move the inclusion tag on each individual article to the top of the page.--Andrew c 15:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we can add an image of some of the more famous churches. Say one from Greece, one from Middle East, one from Russia and one from Balkan area... or something like that.? --Kuban Cossack

15:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Browse through Category:Religion navigational boxes to get some ideas of the format generally used across wikipedia for these sort of boxes. I think one image is the norm. That said, if you'd rather have an image of a eastern Church, instead of a Byzantine depiction of Jesus, go right ahead and change the image, or suggest a few and perhaps we could vote? There are at least 5 images of buldings in the Eastern Orthodox Church article.--Andrew c 16:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archbishops of Crete

Although I won't be joining this project, I couldn't help noticing that at recent deaths, the report of the death of the Archbishop of Crete has been noted as unreferenced, and the list of Archbishops of Crete is in rather bad condition. Michael Hardy 14:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]