Our bias is clearly labelled in the website. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š (See the above link.)
I understand this, but I doubt that 95% of those who have engaged with this website are even aware of the existence of that page. I myself have read a number of articles on orthodoxwiki and was unaware of that disclaimer until you provided the link to it. I do not mean to imply that you are responsible on your part for whether or not users bother to investigate the nature of the overriding bias of that site, but only to observe what practically occurs: the average user sees an article on "orthodoxwiki" and just automatically assumes it to be representative of the unqualified "Orthodox Church".
we determined that we did not wish it to be exclusively Chalcedonian
I understand this. It's a similar project that the administrators of this website have attempted to undertake with this forum. Though I respect and appreciate the genuineness behind the motivation and purpose of this goal, I am disheartened by the practical outcome of it. The way I see it, such projects, and the way they are handled, often result in inadvertently casting a condascending light upon the OO Church as a second-class Church to the EO Church, whose doctrines and historical viewpoints need to be taken with extra caution.
In any event, the name is what it is. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š (One can hardly blame Rome for calling its own website "The Holy See.")
I don't think I would have the right to complain about how anyone chooses to name their own personal website, but wikipedia is supposed
to be a neutral
, and as such, that neutrality is to be reflected in the very name itself. I just don't think it's the appropriate forum for one to be promoting their self-understanding without proper qualification. I am only expressing my thoughts on the matter.
I think you will understand where i'm coming from, with a little empathy. I mean how would you feel if a non-Chalcedonian owner created an orthodoxywiki.com cautioning readers to be wary of the neutrality of an article by exclusive virtue of it being pro-Chalcedonian. I doubt you'd be very impressed, and I doubt that a disclaimer page similar to the one that exists on orthodoxwiki will make you feel any better about it.
We welcome your participation, however, and we have generally had a very good experience in working with the non-Chalcedonian contributors that we've had.
I've probably stepped on (more like stampeded upon) many toes on this forum in particular. I doubt you would appreciate my participation, nor do I desire to spark any fire over there as I have done here. My views on the whole Chalcedonian vs. non-Chalcedonian issue have evolved dramatically over the past couple of years, ultimately shaped by the perceived treatment of my Church, both intentional and unintentional, and the negative effects that such treatment potentially created.
Furthermore, my take on certain matters will undoubtedly incur the "watch out!" tag, and I don't want to have that stigma attached to what I believe to be genuine scholarship based on reason, facts and history.
Again, I stress that I am not imputing any intentions or agendas on behalf of the owners/contributors of orthodoxwikipedia.com, and if I am inclined to impute any, they would be of an honest, genuine, and respectful nature. So please do not interpret my take on this matter as an attack of any sort.