This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Egypt Low‑importance

	Egypt portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egypt on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject EgyptTemplate:WikiProject EgyptEgypt articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Christianity: Eastern O. Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy (assessed as Mid-importance).

Russia: Religion Low‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the religion in Russia task force.

"Defrocked" or "Laicised"?

To avoid constant reverting I suggest that the involved editors - only three of us at present - try to come to an agreement through discussion. Without any further evidence to the contrary I don't believe we can use the language of "defrocking" as this has certain connotations that in this case do not seem warranted. Yes, the Moscow Patriarchate's website uses "defrocked" but it could be argued that "they would say that, wouldn't they". As the official announcement only refers to laicisation then that - at present - is the definitive statement on the matter. I am also doubtful that the Western concept of "defrocking" - which may only be a slang term anyway - is one that Orthodoxy actually holds to. In any case, can we please at least try to discuss the issue further instead of edit-warring? Afterwriting (talk) 07:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the policy of Wikipedia, Wikipedia articles are meant to adhere to "a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" - see WP:NPOV. Now, when it comes to an article concerning an Orthodox bishop, the official website of the Russian Orthodox Church most certainly counts as a significant view and a reliable source. To exclude material from the official website of the Moscow Patriarchate on the grounds that "they would say that, wouldn't they" is certainly in violation of wikipedia's policy of maintaining a neutral point of view. I personally don't share your scruples about the language of 'defrocking'; but in any case scruples are beside the point, since what matters is that the wikipedia article report fairly 'all significant views that have been published by reliable sources', and a reliable source - the official website of the Russian Orthodox Church - has used the language of 'defrocking'. I don't think it is right to censor a wikipedia article to remove reference to Moscow Patriarchate material.

If you are serious about discussing the issue to reach consensus, then please don't remove the reference to defrocking until consensus has been reached.

I don't think it is a matter of 'defrocked OR laicised'. The terms are not mutually exclusive. I think the best course of action is to use both terms, and to say, with citation, that Basil Osborne was defrocked and laicised. That seems to me the best way to represent 'all significant vies that have been published by reliable sources'.

83.212.127.130 (talk) 18:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth pointing out that Orthodoxy certainly does have a concept of defrocking. Apart from anything else, this is shown clearly by the very fact that the Moscow Patriarchate has spoken of Basil Osborne as having been defrocked.

194.219.96.170 (talk) 10:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you like it or not - and it seems obvious that you don't - the OFFICIAL statement on Osborne *only* refers to him being laicised and not to him being defrocked. Therefore Moscow's statement on the matter at this stage has no authority and is only an opinion or a claim. Therefore its description of things cannot have be allowed to have greater authority as a reputed fact in an encyclopedia article over the official statement on the matter. This would be inexcusable in an encyclopedia article - especially in an article on a living person. I have, however, added a comment ( with the reference ) to Moscow's statement about defrocked. I trust that you can accept this somewhat compromised revision - as I cannot and will not accept that "defrocked" is the appropriate word without any further *official* information. If you continue to insist on using "defrocked" in the way that you have been then your edits will continue to be reverted unless you can provide some substantial official information on the matter from the Ecumenical Patriarchiate. If you cannot accept this then I suggest you take the matter to mediation. Afterwriting (talk) 11:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Valid reasons for not using "defrocked" as an accurate fact are already given above. Moscow's statement isn't definitive - it only has the statement of an opinion, nothing more. It is your responsibility to prove otherwise and you have not done so. Afterwriting (talk) 11:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep calm here. You said you wanted to discuss the matter, so let's do so and try to reach consensus. I think there are four issues, which you've not taken into account in your reponse.

WP:NPOV states clearly that "a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". Now, to exclude/discount an official Moscow Patriarchate report on a matter of current Orthodox affairs is a clear violation of this.
You are incorrect in describing Abp Gabriel's letter as "the official statement". It is not. No official statement has been published. Such a statement could only be published by the Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. For it was they who made the decision, not Abp Gabriel. So far, the only statement we have issuing from a Patriarchate is the report of the Moscow Patriarchate.
Abp Gabriel's letter does not address the issue of whether Basil Osborne was defrocked. He does not deny that Abp Gabriel was defrocked. So his letter gives no grounds for denying that Basil Osborne was defrocked. In fact, in the report of the Moscow Patriarchate, we have a categorical report which states that he WAS defrocked.
It is not a question of EITHER laicised OR defrocked. They are not mutually exclusive, such that mention of one must exclude the other.

I am concerned by your earlier anti-Moscow Patriarchate comments, and in particular your dismissal of Moscow Patriarchate reports on the (biased, POV-slanted) grounds that "they would say that, wouldn't they". For this reason, I would appreciate your assurance that you are in fact not running an anti-Russian Orthodox POV, and that you do desire the article to correspond to Wikipedia guidelines.

I think that if you wish to exclude the Moscow Patriarchate report as a valid source of information for this wikipedia article, you need to give good reasons for doing so.

83.212.127.130 (talk) 11:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. You do not seem to be attempting to reach consensus. On the contrary, you seem to be insisting the Moscow Patriachate statement including "derocked" ( as well as laicised ) has some sort of greater authority as a reference than the Abp Gabriel's statement which *only* refers to "laicised". The Moscow statement does *not* have greater authority than his announcement. There cannot be any valid argument against this fact and you haven't provided one. You seem to be twisting the policies to suit your personal bias.

2. The statement of Abp Gabriel *is* an "official statement" and so far it is the only one coming from within the EP. That there might be a more official statement from the EP is irrelevant.

3. My comment about "they would say that, wouldn't they" was clearly stated as what some other people might say - there was no suggestion that it represented my own thoughts. I have absolutely no "anti-Moscow" bias in this issue as I have absolutely no connection to any of it. My edits are solely in terms of neutrality and other policies. What assurances can you give that you aren't coming from from a pro-Moscow and anti-Osborne POV? Afterwriting (talk) 11:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you are interested in reaching consensus, that's good. I can assure you that it is with neutrality that I am concerned as well.

It is because WP:NPOV says that "all significant views that have been published on the subject" should be represented. Can we therefore agree that the Moscow Patriarchate report should be included in the article?
I agree that the Abp Gabriel statement comes from EP. But it does not claim to be exhaustive, so cannot be taken as authoritative on things it does not mention, including the issue of defrocking. Can we agree on this too?

83.212.127.130 (talk) 11:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For God's sake - I had ALREADY included the Moscow statement in the article!!! But you are constantly INSISTING that this is the correct one to use instead of the much more official statement. You are abusing the policies by this insistence and it is unacceptable. I will return the article to the version that includes the Moscow reference to derocked and I hope that you will have the integrity to leave it alone until others have had a chance to look at it. Afterwriting (talk) 12:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find your tone incivil please refrain from such language in future.

83.212.127.130 (talk) 12:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since when have you been in any position to give others lessons in civility? Allow me to remind you that you have been making false allegations about my comments and insisting on contentious terminology as being correct even though it doesn't appear in the most authoritive source. When you have ceased your contentious and disruptive editing then you can come back here and scold others for incivility. Take the beam out of your own eye before removing the specks in others. Afterwriting (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Administrators' Comments

In view of the ongoing conflict and edit-warring with this article - and the inclusion of the connotation-laden word "defrocked" as a statement of fact rather than opinion - I will appreciate some administrators looking at these issues and making comments and suggestions related to the relevant policies. Thank you. Afterwriting (talk) 12:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how Wikipedia works. Administrators have certain extra powers to deal with particular situations (such as blocking vandals, deleting articles, etc), but they have no more authority than any other editor when it comes to assessing content disputes. However, if you would like the opinion of an uninvolved outsider I can give you one. The dispute concerns a former priest who had his status as a priest removed. The word "defrocked" has this meaning. There is a disagreement as to whether it is appropriate to use this word in the article, or whether it has unacceptable connotations. My assessment is that the editors concerned would do well to step back and ask themselves whether the exact choice of words matters enough to fight and quarrel about. I suggest that all concerned could make better contributions to Wikipedia if they dropped this issue. I doubt whether the exact choice of words will make the remotest difference to the way the article reads to most outsiders: what will come across is that the man used to be a priest, but that status has been revoked, whichever words you use. I hope my comments have been some help. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You really don't understand the issue. The word "defrocked" in common English useage nearly always refers to the forced laicisation of a priest or some other ordained person due to some major moral scandal. A person who is granted laicisation at their own request should not be described as "defrocked". To do so is immoral itself. The fact that one source - and an arguably prejudiced source - uses the word is no justification for its inclusion in the article without any further evidence to support its use. Afterwriting (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are clearly very emotionally involved in this edit. But I - and not only I - just don't see your position as justified. The connotations which you personally see in the word 'defrocked' are not generally recognised. The entry at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/defrock is a good guideline to what is established public usage. And it is public usage and not anyone's personal lexical idiosyncracies which provide the standards for wikipedia usage. I'm concerned about your hostile tone and POV. It follows directly from what you have said that you consider the Moscow Patriarchate (which said Basil Osborne had been defrocked) to be immoral. This is clearly an extreme POV, and perhaps a person should not edit articles about whose subject-matter he has such a strong POV conflict.

83.212.127.130 (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will appreciate it if you ceased your patronising and pathetic amateur psychotherapy. It is looking more obvious that you have a personal agenda in pushing for the inclusion of "defrocked" and are distorting Wikipedia's on neutrality to support this agenda. As you also hide behind an anonymous IP address instead of using an account it is difficult to respect the integrity of anything you have to say on this matter. The claims of the Moscow Patriarchiate about Osborne being defrocked have not been established as factual and cannot be treated as such. The claim's only status is exactly that - a claim - and yet you have obstinately insisted that it is a fact despite the only available official source not saying anything about defrocking. Your edits are seriously irresponsible and immoral - and if the Moscow Patriarchate is claiming that Osborne has been defrocked without any evidence for this then, yes, they are also being immoral ( but this is not what I originally said and you have intentionally distorted my words to suit yourself ). Afterwriting (talk) 12:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Factual Accuracy

Afterwriting, precisely what is it that you dispute the factual accuracy of? The article says that the Moscow Patriarchate reported Basil Osborne as having been defrocked. I don't see what you're disputing. Please maintain NPOV. 83.212.127.130 (talk) 01:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Basil Osborne. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080514133933/http://www.annunciation-oxford.org:80/news_archive.html to http://www.annunciation-oxford.org/news_archive.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Basil Osborne. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Basil Osborne. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Basil Osborne. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]