Talk:Bishop Karas

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

Oriental Orthodoxy

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on the Oriental Orthodox Church 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.Oriental OrthodoxyWikipedia:WikiProject Oriental OrthodoxyTemplate:WikiProject Oriental OrthodoxyOriental Orthodoxy articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

blanking a page to remove the neutrality dispute tag and then recreating it does not solve the neutrality dispute. Blanking the talk page at the same time is just bad form, is considered vandalism, and may lead to the deleting editor being blocked from editing. Gentgeen 02:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are several issues with this article, which I'll try to explain. First of all, Wikipedia's oldest and most important policy is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (NPOV). From the policy page, To whatever extent possible, encyclopedic writing should steer clear of taking any particular stance other than the stance of the neutral point of view. Examples of violations of the NPOV policy are:

The caption of the lead photograph (Here is a picture of our beloved father, Bishop Karas.) violates the NPOV policy by taking the point of view that his exelency is beloved by all the readers of the article.
Sorial was a child who was cherished by everybody. Obviously, he was cherished by his parents, and apparently by the unnamed RC brother as well, but that can hardly be extended to "everybody"
His love for everyone was great. Again, this should be attributed to someone, even if it is a quote from his excelency.

Other issues include the general tone of the article. From the Wikipedia:Manual of style, Wikipedia articles cannot be based on one person's opinions or experiences. Thus, 'I' or 'we' can never be used, except, of course, when they appear in a quotation. For similar reasons, avoid the use of "one," as in: "One should note that some critics have argued in favor of the proposal," as it sounds more personal than encyclopedic. Several examples of violations of this principal include:

I never had the opportunity to know him well
Truly, I admire Bishop Karas because he fought through his illness
We have all heard of his miracles in his childhood, when I read about saints and martyrs I was surprised at their courage and devotion they had.

This last quote is also troubling, as it assumes prior knowldge on the part of the reader. Personally, I've never heard of the miracles performed during his excelency's childhood.

Note, I don't think this article should be deleted. There is good information here on a topic that is important yet somewhat under-represented in the encyclopedia, namely eastern Christianity. I'd be happy to work with anyone involved to improve the article into a more encyclopedic tone, however, blanking the article and discussion page are tactics that have been used by others in the past who have refused to be cooperative. Gentgeen 06:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to make a start dePOVing this article. Please people, I know you love your bishops and popes and religious figures of all stripes, but copy pasting stories about hearing voices and "even at an early age he dedicated his life to Jesus Christ" do not a good encyclopedia article make. Stick to verifiable facts.

--Anymouse

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bishop Karas. 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: 18 January 2022).

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) 06:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]