Talk:Russian Orthodox Diocese of Sourozh/Canon 28 Debate

Canon 28 and autocephaly

Constantinople's position is certainly not that "barbarian dioceses" are permanently under its supervision. The article as it has been reverted to essentially makes that claim, but this is demonstrably false. Constantinople's position is rather that such areas are considered "barbarian" until such time as they are defined by means of pan-Orthodox agreement as being part of the canonical territory of an autocephalous or autonomous church, whether by means of being incorporated into an existing one or forming a new one.

Regarding the issue of Russia: even if Constantinople's current interpretation of Canon 28 of Chalcedon is indeed novel, it doesn't disregard the history of the "barbarian" dioceses and the granting of autocephaly. Indeed, Constantinople's position is that its current interpretation is not novel and that the granting of autocephaly to formerly "barbarian" dioceses is a normal part of its pastoral duties. One can find this view represented on the EP's website.[1]

It should also be noted that one of the EP's leading canonists (Patsavos) has a somewhat more moderate view.[2] —A.S. Damick ^{talk contribs} 16:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

In response

(1) The article was reverted because your reason for eliminating the sentence you unilaterally eliminated was invalid.

(2) The interpretations of individual canonists are not to be confused with the interpretation of the patriarchate, any more than the creeds are to be conflated with the teachings of individual theologians. Also, the GOARCH website speaks of a different, new world, situation, not applicable to Sourozh.

(3) Your observations on canon law seem to me off the point. Constantinople only recognises two ecclesial principles of identity: geographical and ethnic (viz. the article already cited in the Sourozh entry, http://www.ec-patr.gr/docdisplay.php?lang=en&id=287&tla=en). However, it does not support the creation of ecclesial bodies constituted by political principles. Now, for Constantinople, 'Great Britain and Ireland' belong to Rome (hence its employment of titles like 'Thyateira' and 'Amphipolis' rather than 'London' or 'Oxford'). So it will not create an autocephalous British Church constituted geographically on Roman territory. And what it has done is create a vicarate whose principle of identity is ETHNIC ('Russian tradition') not geographical. So if this were to 'evolve' into an autocephalous Church (as if!) then it would not be an autocephalous British Church, but an autocephalous Russian tradition Church. So there will be no autocephalous British Church emerging in this way from Amphipolis. Which is the point of the sentence you have unilaterally removed.

If you wish to know why this is connected with canon 28 of the 4th Ecumenical Council then here is the reason: Constantinople considers itself to have granted autocephaly to a Russian Church consisting of 'barbarians' who are de jure under Constantinopolitan jurisdication, precisely as barbarians. 'Roman' Christians are not under Constantinopolitan jurisdication in this way. Constantinople is able to apply the canon 28 to the Sourozh situation because it considers the diocese as a Russian-tradition (hence ethnic) diaspora diocese, and therefore as a 'barbarian' diocese. If it considered Sourozh a British diocese, or those departing from Sourozh as British Christians, then it could not apply the 'barbarian' canon to them. The application of this canon thus shows precisely that Constantinople considers those whom it receives canonically as ethnic-Russian-tradition Orthodox ('barbarians') and not as British Orthodox Christians. And that means that they cannot evolve into a local British Orthodox Church.

The reason why this is a step backwards is that Moscow does not accept this canonical understanding of matters, and is quite happy to look towards the formating of an autocephalous Russian Orthodox Church in Western Europe.

The issue is a lot more complex than a canon-law 101 treatment.

This situation is different from what obtains in the New World, since there Rome does not have historic jurisdication. So GOARCH,OCA etc. are in a wholly different situation.

Again, therefore, your reason for again removing the sentence is unfounded. I will replace it. Please do not unilaterally remove it again. I propose we discuss it, and arrive at a rewording, should its present form be especially problematic for you.

I am also keen to reduce the size of the article - which is unwieldy at present. This section is one which I would be happy to see rephrased. So perhaps we could work together towards a condensation of this section (and others)?

Best, M

Given the reality of the Paris Exarchate, it would seem that the "of Russian tradition" bit is not so much ethnic as liturgical, or so it has been told to me by a Danish seminarian from the Exarchate.

I'm still very much of the opinion that it is false to say the invocation of Canon 28 of Chalcedon necessarily means that Constantinople is precluding the possibility of a British Orthodox Church. "Barbarian dioceses" is a geographic designation, not an ethnic one, else Constantinople would be claiming jurisdiction over, for instance, the Russians in Johannesburg, South Africa.

In any event, this is explicitly an interpretation of Constantinople's invocation of Canon 28 which Constantinople itself is not making. Additionally, the Paris Exarchate folks certainly speak enough about the formation of a local Orthodox Church for Western Europe that they don't seem to be under the impression that the EP is precluding that possibility for them. Unless you can find an explicit statement by Constantinople that the invocation of Canon 28 precludes the formation of a new autocephalous Church, then I cannot assent to its inclusion in the article. —A.S. Damick ^{talk contribs} 20:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Dn Damick,

Again you unilaterally delete the sentence that has been part of the Sourozh article for several weeks. This is the third time in less than 24 hours you have done this. Each time you invent a new reason for deleting it, after the reasons you claim are countered. You refuse to discuss the matter in a spirit of collegiality, and instead act in an aggressive and unilateral manner. This is against the spirit of Wikipedia, and I consider your actions an attempt to engage in a revert-war, and to verge on vandalism. Although it is irrelevant to Wikipedia policy, I am surprised by such conduct from a Deacon of the Orthodox Church.

Please read the article on the Ecumenical Patriarchate page rather than simply ignoring what I said - it answers your points and contains the references you are demanding.

I make the following comments:

(1) Your reference to Russians in Johannesburg is utter nonsense. Regardless of whether 'barbarian dioceses' are ethnic or geographical, Constantinople could have no claim upon Russians in Johannesburg on the simple grounds that since Johannesburg is in Africa, it is under the jurisdication of the Patriarch of Alexandria and all Africa, and not under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople. If anyone could claim such Russians to be jurisdictionally subordinate to himself, it would be the Patriarch of Alexandria, not that of Constantinople. (Cf. the incident in which the Patriarch of Alexandria had a Serbian priest removed from Johannesburg for refusing to commemorate the Alexandrian Patriarch first when celebrating.) This is basic to Orthodox ecclesiology, and I am shocked you have made such an elementary blunder.

(2) The opinions of your friends at your seminary are not valid sources for Wikipedia. Neither are your comments about 'what the Paris Exarchate folks' say (a locution which I consider disrespectful to the members of the Paris Exarchate). Please do not attempt to justify your position by hearsay. You provide NO citations to justify your UNILATERAL and AGGRESSIVE deletion of this sentence which has stood unchallenged in the article for several weeks. This is inappropriate conduct on a Wikipedia article.

(3) You say that I foist an interpretation which is not Constantinople's upon the Canon 28 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council. I am sorry, but the article I cite IS Constantinople's own interpretation of the 28th Canon of the Fourth Ecumenical Council. It comes from Constantinople's own website. So you are entirely wrong to say that this is an interpretation of the Canons which 'Constantinople itself is not making'.

(4) The fact is that whether you want to speak of 'ethnic' or 'liturgical', it makes no difference. FIRSTLY, it seems to follow from Constantinople's position, together with the canons on Roman territory, that (a) Constantinople can only grant autocephaly to local Churches whose territory is defined as Constantinopolitan by the Councils; that (b) the UK is not 'barbarian' territory, but Roman territory; so that (c) it is not for Constantinople to grant autocephaly to a British Orthodox Church. SECONDLY, if Basil, etc. were received on the basis of canon 28 as 'barbarians' then they could not have been so received qua British, since Britain is not 'barbarian'; hence they could not be in Constantinopolitan eyes a 'British' church which could become an autocephalous British Church. THIRDLY, the Vicariate is not demarcated simply by its geographical locale, but by its 'Russian tradition' (whether you want to call this 'ethnic' or 'liturgical', I don't care), so that it could never in any case become an autocephalous British Church, but only an autocephalous Church of Russian-tradition Churches in Britain. These are reasons (of varying strength) for seeing the appeal to canon 28 as counting against British autocephaly for the Vicariate. To these reasons we may add two more which point in the same direction: FOURTHLY, at present the Vicarate is not centred in the UK at all, but in France, where it's Archbishop resides. FIFTHLY, Constantinople does not tend to grant autocephaly, but on the contrary it tried to excommunicate the OCA when it became autocephalous.

(5) Your utopian understanding of local churches developing naturally into autocephalous Churches with the blessing of the older churches is a pious ideological fiction. (Perhaps it is taught at St Tikhon's, but I hope not.) The elevation of Constantinople in the fourth century did not occur without a fight with Alexandria. The elevation of Russia to patriarchal status did not occur without the exertion of Russian polical pressure. The same holds for the nineteenth century autocephalous Churches. (Cf. again the Ecumenical Patrairchate article to which I have referred.) It certainly holds good for the OCA (cf. the Soviets and the Church in Japan). Your idea about the development of Churches to autocephaly is ahistorical. It seems to me that you just do not the facts.

(6) The historical facts are incontrovertible - Constantinople is not in the habit of granting autocephaly. Give me modern counterexamples! This Constantinopolitan unwillingness adds further support to my position - it also undermines your arbitrary and ahistorical interpretation.

(7) You do not stand in judgement over the content of the article as if you were its moderator. In wikipedia different contributors collaborate together. And if we have a disagreement, we resolve it through reasoned discussion, not through unilateral delection justified by illegitimate hearsay. Please keep to the spirit of the project and collaborate without domineering.

All in all, I find your objections bogus and vacuous. You base your arguments illegitimately on the hearsay of your fellow seminarians and upon unsourced quotes of 'Paris Exarchate folks'. This is wholly inappropriate for a Wikipedia article. Beyond that, you display an incompetence in ecclesiology and canon law which calls sharply into question your ability to engage with the authority you presume yourself to possess in discussions of the ecclesiological perspectives manifested in the Diocese of Sourozh article.

But as ever, I am not especially bothered about one sentence in a wikipedia entry which is already too long. The entry certainly needs pruned. But the manner in which it should be pruned is through discussion and co-operation, not through unilateral aggression and revert wars. I have no desire to play such games - with you or with anyone else. In my time editing wikipedia articles, I have found constructive and deconstructive disagreements. For example, on this page, the disagreements I had with Clicketyclack were constructive and improved the article considerably. However, I find your conduct nihilistically destructive. Please modify your conduct in the spirit of synergeia. I am happy to contribute to working together for something balanced and superior to what is present already. But it must happen by discussion, not by unilateral deletion on your part.

M

Honestly, I have despaired of being able to do substantial work on this article with you in a peaceful manner. Your comments are frequently personally disparaging ("bogus and vacuous," "nihilistically destructive," etc.), and you don't seem willing to give any ground at all regarding your own POV and attempts to make things more NPOV. Your interpretation of the canons and situation is the only one possible. I pray for your forgiveness if I have genuinely offended, but I hope that other editors may have more success than I have. I am done with anything more than minor fixes. If your purpose was to drive me out of editing articles with you, you've succeeded. —A.S. Damick ^{talk contribs} 12:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

In response to your response, I note simply that:

(1) At no point did I call you 'bogus and vacuous' or 'nihilistically destructive'. I called the cursory and inadequately explanations of your repeated revertive deletions of the canon 28 paragraph 'bogus and vacuous', and I called your conduct in making such repeated deletions 'nihilistically destructive'. Please make the distinction. It was not, and is not, yourself personally to whom I have an objection, but rather your aggressive deletion.

(2) Whilst I am flattered that you think my 'interpretation of the canons and situation [to be] the only one possible', I lack the confidence which you have in me. You will notice that the bulk of the Sourozh article consist of other peoples' documented opinions, rather than my own, and that where there are undocumented opinions, it was not me who put them there. In all cases I am perfectly happy with divergent opinions being presented - provided they are documented. I have also modified the paragraph on canon 28 to accommodate your hostility.

(3) As regards the variety of interpretations of canon 28, I was annoyed not by your disagreeing with my understanding, but by your deletion - rather than modification or querying - of my view, with inadequate justification. It was apparent from what you said that you were not aware of the complexity of the divergent interpretations of the canons. I would have been very happy to have worked through things with you to arrive at a median position. You were the one who made that impossible through repeated deletion, not me. Indeed, after you had stopped deleting the item (or at least, after you had stopped deleting it in your own name), I did try to rewrite the paragraph to avoid the one thing that (I think) you took most exception to - namely, the implication that Canon 28 entailed no autocephaly, ever. Perhaps it needs to be re-written again, I don't know.

(4) I point again to the contrast between your repeated unilateral deletion and the constructive interaction which I had on this article with Clicketyclack - with whom I suspect I stand far more diametrically opposed in viewpoint than I do with you. I think everyone would agree that the article benefited greatly as a result. It shows clearly that one need not agree with a person to work well together on a Wikipedia article.

(5) What seems to me to really lie at the heart of this issue with you is your policy of aggressive, unilateral deletion. This is inflammatory and anti-collegial - as such it will provoke time after time. I believe that if you were a bit less abrasive and abrupt, your contributions to Wikipedia would improve.

(6) As regards your withdrawal from contributing to the article, it is, in light of the above comments, regrettable. In response, I exhort you to reflect upon the word 'andrizesthe' (1 Cor. 16:13).

As ever,Maxim662 14:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

For whatever it may be worth to you (which I gather is probably quite little), every edit to a Wikipedia article may be characterized as "unilateral," since only one editor may make changes at a time. It's standard (not "aggressive" or "unilateral") on Wikipedia to remove unsourced statements. The interpretation provided was (and remains) unsourced.

As to whether the edits were the product of consensus or not, well, the original addition was not the product of consensus. Is there anyone else here besides you who believes that the manner of reception of Bishop Basil and his group by the EP necessarily specifically precludes the idea of the eventual formation a British Orthodox Church? Further, do you have a specific citation from the EP other than your own interpretation of the situation to support this assertion? The burden of proof is on those who make the assertion, not on those who question its inclusion, which by your standards might easily be characterized as "unilateral" and "aggressive."

What manliness (the andrizesthe reference) has anything to do with all this is quite beyond me, unless perhaps it is meant to be a rationale for the extremely strong language which you customarily use in your comments. I have at least tried to be civil, without calling into question whether your education is lacking (see comments by you about my seminary classes and friends), your conduct as an Orthodox Christian is questionable (see comments by you about what is appropriate behavior for Orthodox deacons such as myself), your understanding is lacking (see comments by you above about my alleged "utopian" view of autocephaly, which I didn't actually set forth), or your edits on Wikipedia were based in some ignorant or evil motive (cf. the "bogus and vacuous" and "nihilism").

I have simply tried to address the subject at hand, not your person. It is your complete refusal to extend to me the same courtesy which leads me to regard it as being more useful and edifying to me to give up on working with you. To be most forthright, however, I regard your edits as blatantly anti-Basil and anti-EP POV, your manner of discussion on Wikipedia as brutally crude, and that you are either incapable of or unwilling to work by consensus (the short back-and-forth between you and Clicketyclack notwithstanding). This has been my experience since you first began editing here as User:149.254.200.215 (just a bit over a month ago). In my nearly two years on Wikipedia, my experience working with you ranks as one of the worst. I hope that other editors may fare better. —A.S. Damick ^{talk contribs} 15:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Dn Damick,

I think you've gone a bit over the top on this one. However, for propriety, I shall reply.

(1) I have always made it clear that I have been happy for controversial text to be modified to achieve a consensus, just provided it is done collaboratively and that good reasons are given for the modification. The history confirms that. This situation arose through your aggressive and repeated deletition. Please do not claim that your repeated deletion without discussion or justification was Wikipedia policy. It was inflammatory - you could, for example, have put a citation tag beside the text; or you could have tried to rewrite the paragraph to assauge your unease. To delete significant points of someone else's work when other options are open is aggressive. In any case, I have always said that I had no problem with modifying the paragraph. And, indeed, after you had stopped deleting the text, I tried to modify it to avoid the controversy.

(2) All my negative comments have been directed towards your aggressive deletions and the inadequate explanations you offered for them, not your person. I did not say anything bad about your friends; I merely said that 'one of my friends told me so' is not an acceptable form of citation in Wikipedia.

(3) You are right that I personally disagree with Bishop Basil's recent actions. However, I am not anti-EP. Personally, I would be quite happy if UK Orthodoxy were united under and remained always a Constantinopolitan archdiocese. Looking at the OCA, I really don't see the benefit of autocephaly. But that is just a personal opinion, and you will have noticed that I don't mention such things in this article - as that would be irrelevant to it. However, the fact that you assimilate my position to being 'anti-EP' is telling - as if you consider that anyone who was anti-Basil must also be anti-EP. There are, in fact, far more squares on the board than I suspect you realise, and where I have been sharp with you, it has been for the reason that you appear not to realise that there are many more possibilities than your edits suggest there to be.

(4) Despite what I have said previously, you do not recognise that I do not claim, and have never claimed, that 'the manner of reception of Bishop Basil and his group by the EP necessarily specifically precludes the idea of the eventual formation a British Orthodox Church'. A British Orthodox Church could be formed, e.g. by Moscow Patriarchate, etc. Thyateira could also develop into an autocephalous Orthodox Church, under EP. My point is that a diocese that is constituted specifically as (so to speak) an 'ex-patriot' diocese is not on the trajectory to autocephaly whilst it is constituted in such a manner.

(5) Apart from perhaps my initial edits (which, I confess, were made before being fully cognisant of Wikipedia policy, etc., and which have well-nigh vanished from the arcticle), all the material I have contributed has been sourced or has consisted of edits to neutralise pro-Basil POV. I honestly don't think it violates NPOV. I even tried to remove all that stuff about Fr Stephen Platt in Oxford - which in fact I would like to see included - simply because it isn't sourced, etc. However, I didn't think it worth antagonizing someone through aggressive reversion, so when it was put back up I left it. Perhaps if it's not improved in a bit, a citation-tag or two could be added?

(6) Against your ad hominem, I would point out (re your Clicketyclack comment) that it not an acceptable form of argument to infer that 'I am incapable of working to a consensus' from the premiss 'I am incapable of working to a consensus except with the people with whom I am capable of working to a consensus'. The ONLY person with whom I have had any difficulty is you. On two occasions, you have been aggressively deletionist, and that has caused the problem. (Can you say that there is only one person with whom you have had difficulty?)

(7) Lastly, and unfortunately this touches the education-issue, if you do know the work of the Fathers of the fourth- and fifth-centuries, you will know very well that my rhetoric, far from calling into question my Orthodoxy, is in fact far more moderate than that of e.g. St Gregory the Theologian or St Cyril of Alexandria. (Perhaps you may also consider these Holy Fathers to be 'brutally crude'?) Upon their example, I could be far more severe in my language, and yet still fall well within the bounds of sanctity. That I am not a saint, I do not contest - but it is not because of my language to you that I fall short of sanctity. Holy Orthodoxy is not luvy-duvy pietism; nor is it running away from a task. (Cf. Yannaras - another man of fine rhetoric - on 'pietism as an ecclesiological heresy' in The Freedom of Morality.) It is in this light that my remark on andrizesthe is intended.

And, BTW, if you think what I say is harsh, then woe-betide you should you become the priest of a parish! This is child's play compared with the abuse parish priests have to put up with. Believe me, I know.

As ever,Maxim662 17:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It is a matter of priorities. It is a high priority of mine to have a good working relationship with those in my community. It is a low priority of mine to help maintain NPOV on Wikipedia. I would not leave a parish if parishioners were harsh, but I might choose to go to a different restaurant if the wait staff were always rude. —A.S. Damick ^{talk contribs} 17:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Dn Damick!!!

At last!!! A sense of humour!

Unfortunately though, I can't imagine you at a restaurant with table-service.

But I appreciate the attempt.

Now, maybe if you cut out the aggressive deletion, quit with the ad hominem and smile a bit more then we'll all get along better...

Amused, Maxim662 19:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The ad hominem, I will admit was probably not warranted, but I do feel that it was merely a single jab in the rather intense barrage of the same that I have received from you. That is, I feel that your comments have been ad hominem pretty much from the start, commenting on my alleged views and so forth in decidedly uncomplimentary fashion. I returned the favor to attempt to show you how I regard your own contributions to the discussion. It was my mistake to stoop to discussing the discussion or the participants rather than the issue. But I would hope that you would cease from doing so, as well. You haven't once stopped in the five weeks you've been on WP. You are right that I am not an admin on WP (nor do I wish to be) and that I do not have any authority here. However, it is up to every editor to uphold WP policies, which is why I frequently cite WP practice where I feel it is being violated.

In any event, you say: My point is that a diocese that is constituted specifically as (so to speak) an 'ex-patriot' diocese is not on the trajectory to autocephaly whilst it is constituted in such a manner.

First, the phrase "of Russian tradition" does not mean "of Russian extraction" or "Russian migrants," but rather refers (as is actually the case in the Exarchate) mostly to liturgical customs. This by no means makes the Exarchate (nor the Vicariate) necessarily expatriate in its nature. (You yourself have made much of the decided Britishness and un-Russianness of those in the Vicariate.) Additionally, if such a phrase as "of Russian tradition" precludes the idea of the Vicariate becoming part of an eventual British Orthodox Church, how much more does the decidedly more strongly worded "Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Thyateira," which doesn't even specify "tradition," but rather uses "Greek" without a modifier of any kind. If any name would seem to be expatriate, this would qualify more. Yet you say that it is the Greek Archdiocese that may develop into autocephaly and not one whose designation simply refers to its liturgics.

Even if you were absolutely correct in this matter, it is still the case that it is not a mere reporting of the facts to say that the Vicariate as constituted cannot be part of a British Orthodox Church. I am interested, though, that you've now added "as constituted," which would at least seem to leave open the idea that perhaps it may be reconstituted. Do you honestly think that Bp. Basil and his supporters think that the Vicariate is a permanent structure?

I still very much regard the article as it now stands on this matter as representing a particular POV (which is not one publicly held by any of the involved parties) and that it must be edited for NPOV. In short, by WP standards, either a source must be cited or the passage removed. (Leaving undocumented passages in articles permanently is not permitted on WP. Adding the "citation needed" tag is essentially a call for the passage to be backed up or removed.) —A.S. Damick ^{talk contribs} 10:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Moving Forward

Dear Dn Damick,

I appreciate your latest contribution, which I take to be positively constructive.

For my part though, I don't consider grand-scale rhetoric to be 'stooping'; nor do I find it necessary to seek moral high-ground. As I said previously, such rhetoric is entirely in line with the modes of discourse of the Fathers, and, following their example, I am quite comfortable with such registers.

I think there are two issues here: (a) the need to point to the issue of the significance of the move from the Russian Orthodox Diocese of Sourozh to the Paris Exarchate of Churches of 'Russian tradition'; and (b) how best to structure the presentation of this issue in the article. I think they're best tackled one at a time. Below, I've stated my overall understanding of the situation in response to your comments above. This is intended as a first step to resolving the disputed paragraph.

I am, as always, very happy to work towards a rephrasing of the paragraph. Clearly it is not yet well-put, given your objection to it.

Maxim662 16:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you honestly think that the sort of rhetoric appropriate to defending the faith against heretics who are seeking to destroy the Church is also appropriate for doing editorial work on an Internet encyclopedia article with someone who shares the same faith? The Fathers use many kind of rhetoric, not all of it polemic. Polemics are for a polemos, a war. On Wikipedia, the standard is instead to assume good faith. —A.S. Damick ^{talk contribs} 15:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The Exarchate and Local Ecclesiology

I used 'ex-patriot' figuratively - I meant it in the sense of those who are outside the patria. According to Constantinople current interpretation, the Russian Church is a territorially-bounded Church, whose boundaries lie around the periphery of 'all Russia and the Far-Northern Territories of Moscow within the Russian realm'.[3] When I said 'ex-patriot', I was speaking figuratively of this bounded 'realm' of the Russian Church as its 'patria'.

Now, for Constantinople - on its interp of the Canon 28 of the 4th EC - any Church which follows the traditions which are normative within the Russian Church, but which falls outside the territorial boundaries which Constantinople considers to delimit the jurisdiction of the Russian Church, should be, de jure, under the jurisdiction of Constantinople.

Constantinople is also committed to the notion of local-Church ecclesiology, and it has local hierarchies in areas in which there are Orthodox Christians and where it considers itself to have jurisdicational authority. In the UK the local-Church hierarchy of Constantinople is the Archdiocese of Thyateira and Great Britain (its full title). This is the Constantinopolitan 'local Church' in the UK. (That Thyateira does not have an exclusively 'local' title is principally a political gesture to avoid annoying the Anglicans, who obviously think of themselves as the historic and canonical local Church in England. One must remember here the political circumstances of the time in which Thyateira was founded.)[4] Of course THIS local diocese could, in theory, be granted autocephaly - but if we are honest, in the current political climate of the Church, that is hardly likely. After all, how many times has Constantinople willing granted autocephaly in the last century, etc.?

In a similar manner, the Russian Church (which firmly rejects Constantinople's interpretation of Canon 28), is committed to a local-Church ecclesiology. Thus it set up a local Diocese in the UK, the Diocese of Sourozh (again the name was to avoid upsetting the Anglicans at the time). (Gillian Crow's book on Metr. Anthony explains why, if I remember correctly.) This Diocese in the UK was the local Orthodox Church in the UK under the Moscow Patriarchate. This diocse too could, in principle, become autocephalous - in a manner parallel to the OCA. (Although, in practice, Moscow seems to want to create an autocephalous Western European Church, rather than an autocephalous British one.)

From this we can see why the jurisdiction situation in the UK has been so stupid - it is not that officially there are different ex-patriot dioceses, but that, officially, there are several local Orthodox Churches of Great Britain. This is widely recognised to deeply problematic.

It is against this background that the move of Basil and his followers must be understood, and why the Vicariate cannot be understood as a local diocese.

If Constantinople were simply working with the Basil-group on the basis of local-Church ecclesiology, then they would just have assimilated them into the Archdiocese of Thyateira. They would then be part of the local Constantinopolitan Archdiocese. But, since they formed the Sourozh-breakaways into a 'vicariate' in the UK which is NOT part of Thyateira, nor in any way subordinate to the Archbishop of Thyateira, this 'vicariate' is NOT constituted as part of the Constantinopolitan local-Church structure.

How then is it constituted? It is constituted as part of Constantinople's 'Exarchate of Churches of Russian Tradition'. This Exarchate is not constituted as a local Church, since it doesn't have any clearly-specified geographical limits (save the geographical 'limits' of Constantinopolitan jurisdiction, on Constantinople's own interpretation). It works rather as an eclectic supra-local exarchate, which contains Churches 'of Russian tradition' located in Europe under Constantinopolitan jurisdiction and which are not part of Constantinopolitan local dioceses (such as Thyateira, etc.) What is the primary criterion of identity for the Churches of the Exarchate is their being Churches of 'Russian tradition', not their being Churches located in a particular geographical locale.

And what does it mean to be a parish 'of Russian tradition'? It means one of two things. (A) It means that the parish is a parish which was founded by the Moscow Patriarchate but which is located in 'barbarian' territory, and which has subsequently left Moscow to go under the omophorion of Constantinople, whilst preserving the liturgical traditions of Russian Orthodoxy. Or (B) it means a parish which is founded by people from a parish or parishes of type A, and which preserves the liturgical traditions of the parent parish(es).

Now, it is the reception of the Basil-group into the Exarchate which necessitates the inclusion of canon 28. For, since Constantinople HAS given the Russian Church autocephaly (within geographical boundaries), it does not have jurisdictional authority over Russian Churches per se, as Russian Churches within the geographical boundaries of the Russian Church are under Russian jurisdictional authority. Therefore, the only way in which Constantinople can claim jurisdictional authority over Churches 'of Russian tradition' is by their being located outside the boundaries of Russian jurisdication, and within the boundaries of Constantinopolitan jurisdication. Now, the only way in which Russian Churches located in the UK can be considered under Constantinopolitan jurisdication is if they are considered 'barbarian' Churches.

Britain, however, is not barbarian territory, but - historically speaking - Roman territory. This is why the Anglicans get upset about Orthodox bishops having UK titles. (Here Constantinople's position is ambiguous - hence 'Thyateira and Great Britain', etc.) And here, I am willing to say, there are two ways of reading the appeal to Canon 28:

(A) One may say that members of British Churches are not barbarians, but that Russian-tradition Orthodox ARE Barbarians, because their Churches, located in Britain, are not canonically-legitimate British Churches, but rather illegitimately-located Russian Churches - hence barbarian.

(B) One may say that all British Churches are barbarian and that therefore Constantinople has jurisdiction over them all.

Either way, canon 28 is necessary for Constantinople's reception of the Basil-group.

Where there is a difference is on the relation of canon 28 to possible autocephaly: OTOH, if A is correct, then no barbarian-diocese can ever become a local British autocephalous Church, since no barbarian Church can be local in Britain; OTOH, if B is correct, then this is not the case.

Either ways, however, the fact is that the Vicariate is not constituted on a local-Church principle, and therefore cannot, in its current form develop into an autocephalous local Church, precisely since it is not 'local', ecclesiologically. In this, the Vicariate is unquestionably a 'step backwards' from the ecclesiological situation that obtained in Sourozh. That is not to say that the ecclesiological situation of the Basil-group couldn't change again; it is only to say that THIS change, from Sourozh to Vicariate, isn't a step towards, nor a step sideways, but a step away from, autocephaly.

I do hope this helps to get in motion a positive discussion between us for the development of the Sourozh article.

Best, Maxim662 16:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

While all of this may well be true, it is nonetheless still speculation and interpretation. What Constantinople's intentions are or whether the hopes of Bp. Basil and his group have been dashed are neither things that have been documented. If it's not documentable but is rather from your personal knowledge, that that constitutes original research, which is not permitted on WP. It's got to be verifiable. Unsourced material can always be challenged and removed, as per WP policy. Of course I am not an administrator, but in the years I've been on Wikipedia, I've become accustomed to its policies. I would urge you, if you have not already, to do the same. (I'm putting the standard welcome message on your Talk page, for reference.)

In any event, I don't think that the desire to form an autocephalous British church on the part of the Vicariate has yet been documented, either (though it is mentioned three times in the article). —A.S. Damick ^{talk contribs} 15:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Dn Damick,

I am disappointed by the non-engagement with the material which you have demonstrated in your reply.

The material above was presented as the first step towards working something out positively. It is all documentable, through a variety of sources, and is indeed non-controversial in UK Orthodoxy. However, since it is only a first step, I am not going to provide exhaustive citations for something that is not final, and which is intended only as a background contribution to discussion.

As such, the material is not speculation or interpretation. There is a difference between deductive inference and speculative interpretation. This is a point of logic. Please acquaint yourself with the rules of formal inference if you have not already done so. Please desist from labelling everything which escapes the bounds of what you already know as 'speculation and interpretation'.

The point was to lay out the broad context, so that you may not be unclear on matters of UK Orthodoxy (e.g. the status of Sourozh and Thyateira, of which you were not aware). The purpose of this material is to facilitate discussion on what to include on canon 28 and how to include it.

I included this material as an expression of good will. Through your non-engagement you have demonstrated a lack of good will. Please make clear to me whether you are genuinely interested in constructive discussion and resolution, or whether you are only concerned to nihilistically question what you don't like. If it is the latter, please cease from editing Wikipedia articles.

As ever, Maxim662 16:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to provide "exhaustive" citations that Constantinople has no intention of forming the Vicariate into or part of a British Orthodox Church or that the Vicariate's hopes are to become such a church or that those hopes have been dashed by their manner of reception. Just one would be a start. Do you have one? —A.S. Damick ^{talk contribs} 16:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Constantinople has made no such statement. But that Constantinople claims this has not been my claim. Nor is such an explicit statement necessary for Wikipedia standards.

What is needed is to make clear (a) the significance of the constitution of a diocese according to local ecclesiology but according to 'Russian tradition'; and (b) the significance of the appeal to canon 28 in this context.

I have added a logic link to your talk page. Please consult the relevant sub-pages on logical inference.

Again, please make clear to me whether you are genuinely interested in constructive discussion and resolution, or whether you are only concerned to nihilistically question what you don't like. If it is the latter, please cease from editing Wikipedia articles.

Maxim662 16:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Making logical inferences, no matter how true, does not meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Verifiability: "One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they must refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers." Absent a documented source, what has been added regarding this issue does not qualify.

Additionally, most of the material which relies upon information from the Orthodox England website does not qualify, either, since it is self-published, clearly contentious, and not written by a well-known professional researcher or journalist.

I recommend that you take a close look at Wikipedia:Verifiability. —A.S. Damick ^{talk contribs} 16:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Please acknowledge you have genuine good-will in working towards a consensus, and that your intentions here are not simply nihilistic; this is not clear to me at the moment.

There is nothing in Wikipedia:Verifiability that prohibits deductive inference. Without deductive inferences, it would be impossible to write conclusions to paragraphs. Please refer to the logic link I posted on your talk. Maxim662 17:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, acknowledged, though one should imagine that it is to be assumed. I have genuine good will in working toward a consensus (but only one which meets WP policy, because of course a consensus could be reached which violates it), and my intentions are most assuredly not in any way nihilistic. Why you repeatedly make this accusation is quite beyond me. How is it nihilistic to want Wikipedia articles to conform to Wikipedia policy? Additionally, you may not be aware, but attempting to school one's interlocutors on the basics of logic could easily be interpreted as insulting.

The prohibition in Wikipedia:Verifiability is against anything which is not a reference "only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers." What you're referring to as "deductive inferences" certainly does not meet this requirement. They are conclusions not from a cited published source from an involved party or a recognized expert on the subject, but are rather your own conclusions based on your own research and reading in sources not directly addressing the matter at hand (i.e. the departure from Sourozh, not general theories on church organization). So, while they may well be true, they are not verified according to WP policy. —A.S. Damick ^{talk contribs} 17:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I am happy to constructively discuss what to put in the article re the canon 28 stuff on the discussion page. Do you agree?

In the interim, I shall revise this material down to the bear bones; we can build from there. Maxim662 17:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The latest removals of the requests for citation do not provide citations for the assertions in the article. In one instance, the request was simply removed, and in the other, a citation was made to an article which didn't make the claim. This article does not state that "In the eyes of the Ecumenical Patriarch, the diocese with responsibility for Great Britain in general is the Archdiocese of Thyateira, not the Episcopal Vicariate of Orthodox Parishes of Russian Tradition in Western Europe'".

I can only conclude from this round of removals that you don't think that these inclusions need to be verifiable. Yet they remain unverified and unsourced. I've asked an administrator to have a look at this article. —A.S. Damick ^{talk contribs} 17:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

As I said above, I've paired back the material you dispute and removed the verifiability tag accordingly. Perhaps you could have held off with your latest aggression until I'd done that. Even so, re the article you dispute, it says clearly that the Constantinopolitan which has local administration over the UK is Thyateira. According to its own local ecclesiology, Constantinople cannot have two dioceses covering the same territory. That is why I cited that article, and on these grounds the citation is valid. In any case, I've already removed it, pending discussion.

I intend to discuss the matter with good will; I hope you do too. Maxim662 17:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove tags calling for verification or the settling of POV issues just because you personally believe them to be settled. Removing such tags must be done by consensus. The issues are not considered dealt with just because you consider them dealt with. —A.S. Damick ^{talk contribs} 02:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Positive Proposal for the Section on Constantinople's Reception of the Basil-group

I propose that the section on the reception of the Basil-group into Constantinople make clear the mode of reception of this group. In particular, I propose it make clear that:

1. the group are no longer members of a self-standing UK diocese, despite Basil's request to Constantinople to be received as such;
2. the group are no longer headed by an Archbishop/Metropolitan resident in the UK;
3. whereas the local UK Diocese of Moscow Patriarchate is Sourozh, the local UK Diocese of Constantinople is not the Vicariate or the Exarchate, but the Archdiocese of Thyateira;
4. the primary identity of the Vicariate & Exarchate is determined by their being 'of Russian tradition', rather than by their geography.

These four factors I take to justify straightforwardly the non-problematic conclusion of the paragraph as stating that the Vicariate has less of the character of an autocephalous Church than does the Diocese of Sourozh. Maxim662 18:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The first is, ISTM, easily documented and verifiable, though I don't recall seeing a document that Bp. Basil did in fact ask to be head of a separate diocese. Do you have that reference?

The second is implied by the statement of the Vicariate's status as part of the Exarchate and Bp. Basil's status as an auxiliary, so making the statement again separately is either redundant or part of a POV agenda.

The third and fourth also seem to be redundant at best but also still suffers from verifiability issues. Where does the EP define Thyateira as "the local UK diocese" and not the Vicariate? You yourself have argued that the EP regards Rome as being the proper canonical authority in the UK (though I have yet to see documentation for that, too), which would then preclude Thyateira, as well. In any event, I don't see the EP asking Rome for permission to build churches in what used to be Orthodox Rome's territory. It may use "Thyateira" for the UK, but it clearly has no problem using "Archdiocese of Italy" in the area right around the Vatican itself.

This paper at the EP site pretty clearly argues that the "barbarian dioceses" have nothing to do with ethnicity, expatriation or which "tradition" a group is from, but are purely a designation for areas outside the Church's canonically defined territories. That therefore includes all of Western Europe, the UK, the US, Australia, much of Asia, etc. This is the relevant passage: The newer lands of North and South America, of Australia, the Far East and so on, and also those in general that are outside the boundaries of the local Churches as defined by the sacred canons and the decisions of the Ecumenical Synods, as well as by the Patriairchal and Synodical Tomes, are included in theory, and hence in practice, in the “other” barbarian lands, according to the general terminology of the 4th Ecumenical Synod and of the other synods. This has nothing to do with an ethnological or any other modern cultural definition, but is geographical, since they were not included, at the time of this synod, within the bounds of the then Roman Empire and were not named in the canonical sources, as were Alania or Russia (emphasis added).

That is the explicit claim of the EP as published on its official website. The "of Russian tradition" bit has far more to do with placating the feelings of those in the Exarchate who were joining with the EP in the early 20th century and their descendants than it does with whether a group's "primary identity" is ethnic or whatnot. To say that the Vicariate's "primary identity" is "of Russian tradition" rather than "of Great Britain and Ireland" requires one to ignore the very name of the Vicariate and also to make a statement which is not verified. Where is there a statement by the Vicariate, the Exarchate, or the EP as to what the Vicariate's "primary identity" is?

This article still has serious POV and verifiability issues. In matters like this, there need to be references to explicit and documentable statements by the parties involved, especially when talking about things like "primary identity," which is not simply a point of fact but a point of interpretation and perception. —A.S. Damick ^{talk contribs} 13:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Dn Damick,

Let's deal with these issues one by one - otherwise we'll never resolve any specific issues.

1. Basil's letter to the Ecumenical Patriarch contains his statement that he wishes to be received as a separate diocese 'alongside' the Exarchate. This link was already before your query, right beside the the statement. You do not seem even to have checked the link. Please acknowledge this to be your mistake. We can then move onto the next point.

2. Please indicate whether or not you have any verification problems that merit the verification-tag.

Please remain assured of my good will.

Best, Maxim662 13:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Which link? I've scoured the web for weeks looking for a copy of Bp. Basil's letter to the EP, but I've never seen it.

The statement in the article as it now stands (Soon after writing to the Patriarch of Moscow, Bishop Basil wrote to the Ecumenical Patriarch, asking to be received under his omophorion together with the diocese, to exist alongside Constantinople's Patriarchal Exarchate for Orthodox Parishes of Russian Tradition in Western Europe, based on Rue Daru in Paris.) has no reference link attached to it.

The only relevant link in the article is this interview with Bp. Basil, in which he says: the appropriate arrangement would be for the diocese to be aligned with the equivalent diocese in Western Europe, that is the diocese of Russian parishes under the ecumenical Patriarchate, and I wrote to the Patriarch to that effect. That's not a direct statement that his request was to be a separate diocese, though of course it might mean that. What does "aligned" mean, canonically? It seems to me that this statement by Bp. Basil is somewhat ambiguous, especially without a copy of his actual letter to the EP to explan what, precisely, was requested.

I'm not saying that this isn't what was requested, but if the article is going to say that he requested this, there has to be direct documentation from a reputable, published source.

Additionally, please do not remove the verifiability tag from the article until consensus has been reached. It is exceedingly inappropriate to decide for yourself that the article has been fixed and remove the tag without first consulting the other editors, especially when it is your own work which is under criticism. There is a decided conflict of interest there. If you keep removing the tag without first seeing of consensus has been achieved, then there will be no choice but to request mediation or arbitration. Meanwhile, I've put up a request for comment. —A.S. Damick ^{talk contribs} 14:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Dn Damick,

Sorry - the links appear to have become messed up, which seems to account for the confusion. I should have checked them. I've added (or re-added, since I'm sure I added them a while ago) the links to Basil's letters to Constantinople and Moscow. Also I had my wires crossed with them - it was Basil's letter to Moscow (which I'm sure you have seen already) which declares his desire to be received alongside the Exarchate.

BTW all this information is on http://www.orthodoxie.com.

Please indicate whether you continue to have verification questions about the material currently located in the Diocese of Sourozh article. If not, please remove the verification-tag.

Since you are now seeking external assistance in the resolution of this matter, please let us be clear that this dispute began with your repeated and unilateral deletions of long-standing portions of the article, without discussion and without any attempt to achieve conensus. As the history of this dispute shows, I have spent considerable time and effort trying to discuss the matter so as to begin to move to consensus. Each time you have raised objections, I have responded to them, in an effort to work towards consensus. I have never been insitent on the inclusion of a particular portion of text - only that matters be worked through to consensus, not determined by your arbitrary diktat. From you, I have met with a wall of hostility, consisting of ever-changing objections, some of which have been entirely spurious; others of which have been based on your friends having told you that my position was wrong. Throughout, I have found your conduct destructive and nihilistic, with no real interest in working towards consensus. (For instance, you have not even begun to engage in achieving conensus before you placed your verification-tag - this evidences further your characteristic aggression in the matter.) Now you have begun the process of seeking consensus. However, this has only come at the end of a sustained period of aggressive and nihilistic deletion on your part.

I note also that this is the second time you have called for external assistance, and that the first time, the administrator did not see fit to uphold your deletionist objection, on the grounds that it was unsustainable.

Best, Maxim662 14:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Your response has been to change a few things in the article and then within minutes to remove the tags indicating that a dispute is underway. This essentially makes it look as though the dispute has been resolved. This is misleading, and it is against Wikipedia practice. Consensus requires that most parties involved in a dispute agree before the relevant dispute tag is removed. Please stop removing the tag. You don't get to decide instantly by yourself that a dispute has been resolved without even asking first.

It does not matter whether a portion of the article is long-standing (though nothing in this article is long-standing, since the article only stopped being a redirect to Sudak on May 30 of 2006. Even if it were long-standing (which it's not, since the article isn't even two months old, and the changes in question less than that), if parts violate WP:V, the standard practice is to remove them.

The accusations of nihilism are really getting pretty tiresome and even rather silly. Nihilism is the belief that there is no truth and that nothing ultimately matters. How is desiring that WP policy be followed nihilistic? I could just as logically accuse you of being a fascist or Marxist for your flagrant flouting of the policies and standard procedures. That is to say, there would be no logic in it at all.

Why should it bother you that assistance from other editors is being requested? What do you have to fear from more collaborators? I made the request because I am growing rather tired of attempting to follow WP standards only to have them thrown to the wind by an editor who has been on WP scarcely more than a month and accuses his interlocutors of all sorts of amusingly droll philosophical bents at the drop of a hat.

In your 37 days here (since you began editing anonymously on June 13 and then under your current username for the past week), you've assumed bad faith (witnessed by your constant demands that I affirm my good faith), been uncivil (while proclaiming your right to be so by an appeal to the rhetoric of the Church Fathers), made personal attacks (by constant denigration of my education, my ability to use logic, my conduct, and my alleged nihilistic philosophy), violated the three-revert rule (I can't even count how many times), engaged in original research (with repeated references to how you have some knowledge of the situation that the rest of us aren't aware of), refused verifiability requests, rammed through your own POV (even objecting when an admin insisted on neutrality), removed comments from your talk page, complained of inflammatory behavior when I put the standard welcome message on said talk page, removed dispute tags from articles immediately after making changes and without asking if said changes were acceptable, and got riled up when it was requested that other editors help with the article. The only thing I can think you've got left is either outright obscenity and vandalism or legal threats against my person. (Yes, that last bit is sarcastic, but at this point, I wouldn't put it past you.)

So, you can imagine that I hope you are simply unfamiliar with WP policy, but I'm really more and more of the opinion that you just simply don't want to follow it.

I will, however, accept your accusation of deletionism, but that doesn't apply here, because I've nowhere said that this article does not belong on Wikipedia. On the contrary, I'm the one who in fact brought it from being merely a redirect.

I think this is an important article, but I feel that a lot of work remains to be done on it before it meets Wikipedia standards. As it stands now, it still has not verified its conclusions regarding the question of whether it can become part of an autocephalous British Orthodox Church, what exactly its "primary identity" is, and even the precise nature of the request by Bp. Basil to the EP.

The letter from Bp. Basil to the EP nowhere asks for a separate diocese, but instead asks for himself, clergy, and parishes to be received. Nowhere does it stipulate what canonical form this is to take. Neither that letter nor Bp. Basil's letter to Moscow use the language of "alongside" which is presented in the article in quotation marks, as though it were an actual quote from one of the letters. As such, neither letter qualifies as documentation that Bp. Basil requested a separate diocese. And further, those letters are primary source documents rather than secondary source material. Using them for citations qualifies as original research and does not meet WP:V. —A.S. Damick ^{talk contribs} 01:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad that in the last paragraph you got round to talking about the Diocese of Sourozh article. It is a shame that the rest of the paragraph is simply a diatribe against me personally.

As I said above, I had my wires crossed as to which letter it was. And I apologised. I apologise again for what was my mistake. It was in fact the letter to Patriarch Alexei. There he says that: 'Events of the last few years, however, both before and after the death of Metropolitan Anthony, have finally convinced me that the Diocese created by him in Great Britain and Ireland should now leave the Patriarchate of Moscow and become a Diocese of the Ecumenical Patriarchate with a status similar to that of the Archdiocese of Russian Parishes based in Paris.' Here Basil says clearly that he wants the Diocese of Sourozh to become a Diocese like the Paris Exarchate, and not a Vicariate within the Exarchate.

But beyond this, of course the Basil-letters do not violate Wikipedia:No original research or WP:V. They have been published in several places - on the official Diocese of Sourozh web-page; on Bishop Basil's web-page; and on the French Orthodoxie.com Orthodox news page. They may also have been published on www.interfax.ru. They are well and truly in the public domain. This is what I mean by your displaying bad faith. Of course the citation of these letters clearly does not violate the original research or verification criteria. That they do not is obvious. Yet you unreasonably bring this claim into the debate, when it is clearly false. This looks to me like a deliberately destructive attempt to prevent discussion over our really very small original disagreement.

Please stop saying I attacked your friends. I did not. I said that to tell you that your friends told you such-and-such was not an appropriate way of sourcing information in Wikipedia. That was all.

I'm not really bothered about your civility accusation, since any 'incivility' I have shown you has been reciprocated on your part (not least in this last posting).

I do think that your conduct in this dispute leaves a lot to be desired however, and I have told you so. I do think that your earlier objections in this dispute over Orthodox ecclesiology (in which, e.g. you showed that you did not know that Africa belonged to the Patriarchate of Alexandria) displayed a lack of learning in Orthodox ecclesiology, and as such called into question your ability to debate the suitability of this or that matter of Orthodox ecclesiology with respect to the Sourozh article.

I'm not sure I have violated the 3-revert-rule - certainly, I suspect, no more often than have you. Possibly I may have violated a 2-revert-rule, if there were one.

Your refusal to allow a distinction between deductive inference (e.g. 'Socrates is a man; all men are mortal; therefore Socrates is mortal') and speculative interpretation seemed - and continues to seem - to me as a lack of awareness of basic logic.

I did not justify my language by appeal to the Church Fathers; I appealed to the Church Fathers to show why using such language was not 'un-Christian' - a charge you made against me because I did not speak in the way you wanted me to.

As regards the charges of 'nihilism' - this relates to your refusal to discuss constructively what was the original issue in this dispute. You began by repeated unilateral deletion without proper justification or any real attempt to work to consensus. You continued by avoiding constructive discussion to arrive at consensus. In general, it has been this nihilistic attitude which has roused my ire. Had you been more constructive and less aggressive at the beginning, this dispute would never have arisen. Remember, I am very happy to discuss matters, and I have at no point insisted dogmatically on the inclusion of one piece of text - I have only wanted proper reasons for the deletion of (especially long-standing) text.

I also take your point re the tag. That was perhaps overzealous in the heat of the moment. However, I would also be appreciative if you would not be tardy in removing it yourself.

I have said several of these things already. I don't feel any need to go round in circles. It seems to me that the only way for this dispute to be resolved is if both sides agree to cease to discuss personal issues and stick entirely to the issue at hand, which is the Diocese of Sourozh page. I don't have to like you; you don't have to like me. Are you willing to do this? Maxim662 19:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

My one point of fact: I am and have been quite aware that South Africa belongs to the Alexandrian Patriarchate. My reference to the Russians in Johannesburg was that they did not qualify as belonging to the EP's "barbarian lands" just because they were expatriates. That's all.

I leave the article and the talk page entirely to you now. It's passed my threshold for stress versus usefulness. —A.S. Damick ^{talk contribs} 23:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you don't want to work through the issues. It is unfortunate that the matter became heated on both our sides. Matters would have been better had we both been calmer. Should you change your mind in the future, I would be happy to collaborate positively to improve the article. I also hope that we will be able to collaborate on other projects in the future.

As ever, please be assured of my good will.

As this dispute was only between ourselves, I propose to archive it - it takes up much space and contains little of importance to anyone save ourselves.

Maxim662 01:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)