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. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
...to save page for the dialog. - Irpen 05:59, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
OK, I changed the text making it "viewed "uncanonical" by the Eastern Orthodox communion" instead of a softer "not in communion" because the latter may be simply mean some doctrinal differences (in fact there are none). The issue here is the church being viewed "schismatic", so "uncanocial" seems appropriate here. I also added some info about the events related to the creation and the first years of UOC-KP. I think that, while the detailed report belongs to the UOC-KP article itself, a brief summary is relevant for Filaret's article because he is often blamed for this mess (justly or not is a separate issue). Regards, - Irpen 00:03, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
His title in ROC was "M. of K and All UA". Why was it changed in the article to "M. of K." only? Thanks, -- Irpen 17:33, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
While the new edit adds/corrects useful info, we should keep in the article that UOC was created with the help of ROC as it was there initally. I will think how to say it but anyone is welcome
If the POV of Russian Orthodox Church (that presently has nothing to do with Patriarch Filaret) is presented, it would be very strange if the POV of Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Kyivan Patriarchy (that is headed by Patriarch Filaret) would not be there. This woul violate the NPOV policy therefore I placed the POV tag on the top of one-side-view version.-- AndriyK 10:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Explain how this relevant info violates NPOV. Being a canonical church or not is relevant for an organization that calls itself an "orthodox church". Also, it is not the POV of ROC but it is uncanonical in the eyes of the entire Eastern Orthodox Communion the only body that has final authority in the canon law. Until the ecumenical patriarch or any other canonical church recognizes the UOC-KP, there is no doubt that it is uncanonical. Until you provide an explanation that disputes the lack of canonicity or its relevance to the article about the leader of the church itself, you cannot have an NPOV tag. You are welcome to list this at article's RfC to check for more eyes. -- Irpen 15:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
As soon as you list your objections clearly and orderly, I will stop removing the tag. Simply your "not liking" of something does not justify the tag. -- Irpen 15:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Every point of your objections is answered. Do you have anything more to say? -- Irpen 04:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, you finally listed the objections in order. Fine, I will answer the sensible objections. Until they are answered here by myself, or someone else, I have no objection to keep the tag. It only took you to write them down point by point. I only objected to the tag when you placed it without formulating your objections clearly. -- Irpen 20:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Filaret did not belong to the churche that deforked and excomuniaated him
In spite of the fact that Patriarch Filaret is a controversial figure, writing unverified information about him and rumours is not necessary. Filaret of course - not John Seigenthaler Sr, but Wikipedia is not Encyclopedia of Rumour. In Soviet Unions practically all influential hierarchs of church were under surveillance of KGB. -- Yakudza 18:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Тогда может создать подраздел Controversy, как это сделано в большинстве подобных случаев, и слухи туда внести вместе с упоминанием о крайне негативном отношении к нему РПЦ, возможно подтвердив это цитатой. Написать этот абзац с точки зрения независимого наблюдателя, или попросить стороннего человека об этом. Но убрать все противоречия с первых строчек текста, это обычная практика в Википедии. А обсуждение каноничности и неканоничности перенести в Историю Христианства. И на этом закрыть тему Филарета. Но конечно, если вам нравится сам процесс... -- Yakudza 13:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I have no objection to a separate article about Filaret's defrocking. The article would go into details about how things were going before the event, the Kharkiv congress and what events followed. However, in no way that prevents the very mention of Filaret's defrocking from his article. Check how it was done is the St. Volodymyr's cathedral. Mikka created the new article, moved most of the info there and substituted it by a brief info in the main cathedral's article.
Which means I would 'support a new WP article. I would oppose removing of the info from this article because it, currently, does not go into excessive detail anyway. It just says that he was excommunicated and on what charge (schizm). This should stay. -- Irpen 01:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
It mixes facts with rumors. It does not follow WP:NPOV giving preference to the POV of Russian Orthodox Church.-- AndriyK 18:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes I did, because you violated the article's normal flow by trying to hide the facts not to your liking. Every statement in the article is well discussed at talk. But fine, I will ask for more eyes to this article. -- Irpen 18:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you for asking for my involvement, I do hope this can help things. I've r place the {{ POV}} tag in the article; I feel that while we're trying to resolve the issue, it's fair to let readers know that there is a dispute. I think, however, that the {{ POV-because}} template is making things worse, and probably not in the interests of readers.
In cases like this, I think the most important thing is to go back to the core wikipedia content policies. The one that is most neglected here, in my opinion, is not WP:NPOV but WP:V. Let's start there. The only reference this article makes is to an online chat not in English; I can't read it so I can't evaluate it, but it is only backing up a very narrow claim. Comparing the current version (18:18 July 7 by Irpen) to the one linked by Andriy above, the difference I see is that the controversial stuff has been put in a section called "controversies," which in some cases takes it out of context. Does that summarize the difference adequately? (BTW, I may not be quick to respond to further talk, but I will get back to this.) Mango juice talk 20:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Mangojuice, you placed "unreferenced". Fine with me. Why are you reinserting POV. Could you please elaborate what are the article's POV problems? -- Irpen 04:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I find this article very confusing. It's badly written, and I really do think there's a POV problem here. Here are the specific problems I see.
I'd like to add that one of the reasons revert wars are unproductive is that by changing back to a previous version over and over again, the article cannot possibly move forward. For instance, Andriy, it might have been better, rather than removing the "uncanonical" bit, to try including that information written in a different way. Instead of the current phrase, for instance, the article could say "... one of two major orthodox churches in Ukraine, though one officially distanced from the Eastern Orthodox communion," or something. Even if the others don't like it, it's at least moving away from old versions towards new versions, and therefore in theory, may be making progress. Mango juice talk 04:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Mango, thanks for your opinion. Now that the objections are formulated, it is possible to discuss them. First of all, let's separate the POV problems from the factual problems. Yes, the article lacks references and they need to be added but even AndriyK didn't dispute that it is correct on the facts. Lack of refs, however, is still an important drawback and I agree with an unreferenced tag. As for the claim that the article is POV, let's discuss them point by point.
It is not "distanced" but unrecognized. These are not one and the same thing. And lack of recognition is a fact and not a POV. Fine, let's move forward but let's stick to facts and not to what someone likes and what doesn't. I accept the lack of refs as an article flaw. I will add them. In the meanwhile, I would be happy to see Mango's continuing this dialog. Best regards, -- Irpen 05:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
To conclude, the article is about the leader of an organization which calls itself an "Orthodox Church". This makes the controversy about its standing extremely important. --
Irpen
18:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Mango, please find any unreferenced fact by comparing the article to the sources listed and mark it with "fact". Otherwise, remove the unreferenced tag. I will respond to AndriyK's pesrtisting with POV claim in a separate entry. -- Irpen 16:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, I will find the ref for both. Now, as for the rumors, you've heard them too as you have said above at #Rumours about Filaret section. It is entirely proper to mention them in the article if they are called as such, rumors. They received plenty of press and were notable. Moreover, you've said yourself that they were likely true. But fine, I will add refs for both info. Any other info anyone disputed in good faith should be marked with "fact" but the article is not unreferenced. -- Irpen 18:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Done. Interesting thing is that AndriyK knew that all facts in the article are on the mark all along. I kept his POV tag, one of many he spread to various article that do not fit his POV. Let's see how long will this be required. Also, just for Mango, but for others too, I translated the quotes of some of the non-English refs so that others can see what exactly they say. I don't have time to tranlsate full texts of non-English references. Neither it is reasonable. -- Irpen 21:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Then one year later:
As everybody can see, the true cronological order is quite different from that in the present version of the article. The most essential difference is that Patriarch elections of June 1990 was not a "turn point", as is stated the in present version of the article. During one and a half years after it no disagreement between Alexius and Filaret was seen. The turn point was autocephaly request in Nov. 1991 and its refusal in March-Apr. 1992.
Is there any reference confirming that "allegations of improper financial dealings and common-law wife" was the reason why Filaret lost elections? This is strange, because this was not an obstacle for Filaret to be granted the title of Metropolitan of Kiev and All Ukraine and remained a head of UOC for more than one and a half year.-- AndriyK 16:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I corrected the chronological order. Dubious statements marked by {{ fact}}.
Much has to be done yet to balance and NPOV the article.-- AndriyK 16:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
First of all, note that the article was written a year ago or more. At that time, citing sources in WIkipedia was more liberal. Had I been writing it now from scratch, I would be putting sources right in all the time.
Still, no matter how well sourced the article is, any number of "fact" tags may be added to any article at any time. Such tag-trolling would be a huge distraction. The common sense tells us to add a tag when one doubts the info and/or when it looks suspicious. If the article made a small error here and there, the basic facts there were right and AndriyK knew it all along. That was my message. By all means, I am all for adding more sources and be sure I will add more. However, tagging took place because of not fitting of the article to a particular POV, not because the tagger disagreed with the article's facts.
I will add exact refs to Ogonyok's articles with their author's names.
Antonov: There are plenty of references where this allegations are brought making those allegations notable. This is not established as fact, but such wide rumours need to be presented because they add to the picture of the public image of Filaret. They need to be presented as Rumors, not proven facts, to which I agree. However, this is exactly how it is done in the article. See my analogy with rumors and facts of the Orange Revolution made earlier at the #Rumours_about_Filaret section. If Rumors about other bishops are comparably wide and tarnished their image as significantly, by all means add them. If they only appear at the web-sites like Kompromat.ru, this would have been a different story. I will give the article a next run when I have time, probably later today.
Korchynsky: He was a direct witness of the events. Witness memoirs are a primary source. They are admissible. If you can show that his account is false, find a source which claims so. -- Irpen 17:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Please pay attention that Korchynskiy did not publish his memoirs in a peer-reviewed journal. His book is a self-published source:
Korchynskyi is neither "a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field" nor "well-known professional journalist". Therefore, his book cannot be consider as a reliable source, unless you want to violate the policy ;).-- AndriyK 17:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I do not object against mentioning rumors about "KGB agent Antonov", but how do you know this was an obstacle for Filaret becoming the formal leader of UOC-KP before 1996? Why it was not an obstacle anymore after 1996? Fact-tags are inserted properly. If you have info, please cite the sources. If not- then let me reformulate these sentences and remove the tags. Please do not revert.
Please stop talking about trolling, switch to a productive discussion instead. Please read my today's messages and answer them. Thank you.-- AndriyK 18:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
True, anyone can self-publish a book. Pay $200 for ISBN pay the typography and issue the book under your own name. You will have to distribute it yourself too. Start a web-site to sell it or put it on the web for free. This is self-ublishing. The ref then would than say:
For instance, the known Ukrainophobe, Polischuk, published his books himself. Korchynsky's book is not self-published. This makes the issue you raised about self-publishing moot. -- Irpen 18:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Or I can go to an old many years existing publisher, pay my money and get my book "Pears grow on the pussy-willow tree" published. The ref then would than say:
If you need an example, plese have a look: [9]. "Dnipro" also publishes books if the authors pay for it.-- AndriyK 19:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Unless the book is not self-published, you will need to show that a particular publisher only publishes crap. Not so easy if it published at least one decent book. Much easier would be for you to find the sources that states that UNA-UNSO were never helping Filaret, if this were true. However, this is true and there are plenty of sources that confirm UNA-UNSO/Filaret connection. I chose the book written by UNA-UNSO leader of them all for obvious reasons. Find the source that states the opposite and this would end this dispute. -- Irpen 19:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
My two cents: what is the correct translation "Митрополит Киевский и Галицкий"? "Metropolitan of Kiev and Galicia" correspods to "Митрополит Киевский и Галицийский", IMHO. Would not "Metropolitan of Kiev and Galich" be more precise?-- Mbuk 06:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, too much info flying around on here for me to get all the details right. However, I think this article is looking better. My two cents on the neutrality issue is that I think the business about the UOC-KP lacking canonical standing is too prominent in the lead; I think it should be removed: the text in the section on the creation of the UOC-KP makes it quite clear how bad the relationship is between the UOC-KP and the EO communion. Also, a minor point: the "sometimes violent" comment regarding the disputes -- is this really true? How "violent" did they get? Mango juice talk 20:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
The article pointed to by the linked phrase Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Kiev Patriarchy is actually called UOC - Kiev Patriarchate. There's a note there that this had been changed. Should the text here be changed to Patriarchate? 142.68.44.16 00:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
should this be 'dioceses' (or eparchies)? or only one parish each? 142.68.44.16 00:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
What about this? -- Ghirla -трёп- 10:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Is he a member of Our Ukraine? What is he doing on there convention? — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 11:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Filaret (Denysenko). 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
I am not sure it is useful for us to repeat inflammatory things said by Filaret and interpreted by The Independent. Yes, he made remarks about "becoming the new Cain" and "Satan entering into him". Filaret did not mention anyone by name. Perhaps it is abundantly clear who Filaret is targeting. But right now, we have the malicious interpretation of one source. I do not think it is worth inserting this inflammatory rhetoric into a WP:BLP, even via WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. 2600:8800:1880:188:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 ( talk) 15:05, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Filaret may or may not be the current patriarch of the Kiev Patriarchate, according to an article cited by Ukrainianorthodox ( talk · contribs). The source seems WP:RS, but I'm not well enough versed in Eastern Orthodox Church politics to understand how to proceed. How can the patriarchship of a bishop be in dispute? Is Filaret patriarch, or isn't he? Why is that article careful to state that it's only archbishop Job Getcha's opinion that Filaret is not patriarch? Psiĥedelisto ( talk) 09:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 14:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
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. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
...to save page for the dialog. - Irpen 05:59, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
OK, I changed the text making it "viewed "uncanonical" by the Eastern Orthodox communion" instead of a softer "not in communion" because the latter may be simply mean some doctrinal differences (in fact there are none). The issue here is the church being viewed "schismatic", so "uncanocial" seems appropriate here. I also added some info about the events related to the creation and the first years of UOC-KP. I think that, while the detailed report belongs to the UOC-KP article itself, a brief summary is relevant for Filaret's article because he is often blamed for this mess (justly or not is a separate issue). Regards, - Irpen 00:03, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
His title in ROC was "M. of K and All UA". Why was it changed in the article to "M. of K." only? Thanks, -- Irpen 17:33, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
While the new edit adds/corrects useful info, we should keep in the article that UOC was created with the help of ROC as it was there initally. I will think how to say it but anyone is welcome
If the POV of Russian Orthodox Church (that presently has nothing to do with Patriarch Filaret) is presented, it would be very strange if the POV of Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Kyivan Patriarchy (that is headed by Patriarch Filaret) would not be there. This woul violate the NPOV policy therefore I placed the POV tag on the top of one-side-view version.-- AndriyK 10:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Explain how this relevant info violates NPOV. Being a canonical church or not is relevant for an organization that calls itself an "orthodox church". Also, it is not the POV of ROC but it is uncanonical in the eyes of the entire Eastern Orthodox Communion the only body that has final authority in the canon law. Until the ecumenical patriarch or any other canonical church recognizes the UOC-KP, there is no doubt that it is uncanonical. Until you provide an explanation that disputes the lack of canonicity or its relevance to the article about the leader of the church itself, you cannot have an NPOV tag. You are welcome to list this at article's RfC to check for more eyes. -- Irpen 15:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
As soon as you list your objections clearly and orderly, I will stop removing the tag. Simply your "not liking" of something does not justify the tag. -- Irpen 15:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Every point of your objections is answered. Do you have anything more to say? -- Irpen 04:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, you finally listed the objections in order. Fine, I will answer the sensible objections. Until they are answered here by myself, or someone else, I have no objection to keep the tag. It only took you to write them down point by point. I only objected to the tag when you placed it without formulating your objections clearly. -- Irpen 20:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Filaret did not belong to the churche that deforked and excomuniaated him
In spite of the fact that Patriarch Filaret is a controversial figure, writing unverified information about him and rumours is not necessary. Filaret of course - not John Seigenthaler Sr, but Wikipedia is not Encyclopedia of Rumour. In Soviet Unions practically all influential hierarchs of church were under surveillance of KGB. -- Yakudza 18:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Тогда может создать подраздел Controversy, как это сделано в большинстве подобных случаев, и слухи туда внести вместе с упоминанием о крайне негативном отношении к нему РПЦ, возможно подтвердив это цитатой. Написать этот абзац с точки зрения независимого наблюдателя, или попросить стороннего человека об этом. Но убрать все противоречия с первых строчек текста, это обычная практика в Википедии. А обсуждение каноничности и неканоничности перенести в Историю Христианства. И на этом закрыть тему Филарета. Но конечно, если вам нравится сам процесс... -- Yakudza 13:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I have no objection to a separate article about Filaret's defrocking. The article would go into details about how things were going before the event, the Kharkiv congress and what events followed. However, in no way that prevents the very mention of Filaret's defrocking from his article. Check how it was done is the St. Volodymyr's cathedral. Mikka created the new article, moved most of the info there and substituted it by a brief info in the main cathedral's article.
Which means I would 'support a new WP article. I would oppose removing of the info from this article because it, currently, does not go into excessive detail anyway. It just says that he was excommunicated and on what charge (schizm). This should stay. -- Irpen 01:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
It mixes facts with rumors. It does not follow WP:NPOV giving preference to the POV of Russian Orthodox Church.-- AndriyK 18:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes I did, because you violated the article's normal flow by trying to hide the facts not to your liking. Every statement in the article is well discussed at talk. But fine, I will ask for more eyes to this article. -- Irpen 18:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you for asking for my involvement, I do hope this can help things. I've r place the {{ POV}} tag in the article; I feel that while we're trying to resolve the issue, it's fair to let readers know that there is a dispute. I think, however, that the {{ POV-because}} template is making things worse, and probably not in the interests of readers.
In cases like this, I think the most important thing is to go back to the core wikipedia content policies. The one that is most neglected here, in my opinion, is not WP:NPOV but WP:V. Let's start there. The only reference this article makes is to an online chat not in English; I can't read it so I can't evaluate it, but it is only backing up a very narrow claim. Comparing the current version (18:18 July 7 by Irpen) to the one linked by Andriy above, the difference I see is that the controversial stuff has been put in a section called "controversies," which in some cases takes it out of context. Does that summarize the difference adequately? (BTW, I may not be quick to respond to further talk, but I will get back to this.) Mango juice talk 20:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Mangojuice, you placed "unreferenced". Fine with me. Why are you reinserting POV. Could you please elaborate what are the article's POV problems? -- Irpen 04:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I find this article very confusing. It's badly written, and I really do think there's a POV problem here. Here are the specific problems I see.
I'd like to add that one of the reasons revert wars are unproductive is that by changing back to a previous version over and over again, the article cannot possibly move forward. For instance, Andriy, it might have been better, rather than removing the "uncanonical" bit, to try including that information written in a different way. Instead of the current phrase, for instance, the article could say "... one of two major orthodox churches in Ukraine, though one officially distanced from the Eastern Orthodox communion," or something. Even if the others don't like it, it's at least moving away from old versions towards new versions, and therefore in theory, may be making progress. Mango juice talk 04:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Mango, thanks for your opinion. Now that the objections are formulated, it is possible to discuss them. First of all, let's separate the POV problems from the factual problems. Yes, the article lacks references and they need to be added but even AndriyK didn't dispute that it is correct on the facts. Lack of refs, however, is still an important drawback and I agree with an unreferenced tag. As for the claim that the article is POV, let's discuss them point by point.
It is not "distanced" but unrecognized. These are not one and the same thing. And lack of recognition is a fact and not a POV. Fine, let's move forward but let's stick to facts and not to what someone likes and what doesn't. I accept the lack of refs as an article flaw. I will add them. In the meanwhile, I would be happy to see Mango's continuing this dialog. Best regards, -- Irpen 05:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
To conclude, the article is about the leader of an organization which calls itself an "Orthodox Church". This makes the controversy about its standing extremely important. --
Irpen
18:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Mango, please find any unreferenced fact by comparing the article to the sources listed and mark it with "fact". Otherwise, remove the unreferenced tag. I will respond to AndriyK's pesrtisting with POV claim in a separate entry. -- Irpen 16:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, I will find the ref for both. Now, as for the rumors, you've heard them too as you have said above at #Rumours about Filaret section. It is entirely proper to mention them in the article if they are called as such, rumors. They received plenty of press and were notable. Moreover, you've said yourself that they were likely true. But fine, I will add refs for both info. Any other info anyone disputed in good faith should be marked with "fact" but the article is not unreferenced. -- Irpen 18:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Done. Interesting thing is that AndriyK knew that all facts in the article are on the mark all along. I kept his POV tag, one of many he spread to various article that do not fit his POV. Let's see how long will this be required. Also, just for Mango, but for others too, I translated the quotes of some of the non-English refs so that others can see what exactly they say. I don't have time to tranlsate full texts of non-English references. Neither it is reasonable. -- Irpen 21:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Then one year later:
As everybody can see, the true cronological order is quite different from that in the present version of the article. The most essential difference is that Patriarch elections of June 1990 was not a "turn point", as is stated the in present version of the article. During one and a half years after it no disagreement between Alexius and Filaret was seen. The turn point was autocephaly request in Nov. 1991 and its refusal in March-Apr. 1992.
Is there any reference confirming that "allegations of improper financial dealings and common-law wife" was the reason why Filaret lost elections? This is strange, because this was not an obstacle for Filaret to be granted the title of Metropolitan of Kiev and All Ukraine and remained a head of UOC for more than one and a half year.-- AndriyK 16:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I corrected the chronological order. Dubious statements marked by {{ fact}}.
Much has to be done yet to balance and NPOV the article.-- AndriyK 16:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
First of all, note that the article was written a year ago or more. At that time, citing sources in WIkipedia was more liberal. Had I been writing it now from scratch, I would be putting sources right in all the time.
Still, no matter how well sourced the article is, any number of "fact" tags may be added to any article at any time. Such tag-trolling would be a huge distraction. The common sense tells us to add a tag when one doubts the info and/or when it looks suspicious. If the article made a small error here and there, the basic facts there were right and AndriyK knew it all along. That was my message. By all means, I am all for adding more sources and be sure I will add more. However, tagging took place because of not fitting of the article to a particular POV, not because the tagger disagreed with the article's facts.
I will add exact refs to Ogonyok's articles with their author's names.
Antonov: There are plenty of references where this allegations are brought making those allegations notable. This is not established as fact, but such wide rumours need to be presented because they add to the picture of the public image of Filaret. They need to be presented as Rumors, not proven facts, to which I agree. However, this is exactly how it is done in the article. See my analogy with rumors and facts of the Orange Revolution made earlier at the #Rumours_about_Filaret section. If Rumors about other bishops are comparably wide and tarnished their image as significantly, by all means add them. If they only appear at the web-sites like Kompromat.ru, this would have been a different story. I will give the article a next run when I have time, probably later today.
Korchynsky: He was a direct witness of the events. Witness memoirs are a primary source. They are admissible. If you can show that his account is false, find a source which claims so. -- Irpen 17:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Please pay attention that Korchynskiy did not publish his memoirs in a peer-reviewed journal. His book is a self-published source:
Korchynskyi is neither "a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field" nor "well-known professional journalist". Therefore, his book cannot be consider as a reliable source, unless you want to violate the policy ;).-- AndriyK 17:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I do not object against mentioning rumors about "KGB agent Antonov", but how do you know this was an obstacle for Filaret becoming the formal leader of UOC-KP before 1996? Why it was not an obstacle anymore after 1996? Fact-tags are inserted properly. If you have info, please cite the sources. If not- then let me reformulate these sentences and remove the tags. Please do not revert.
Please stop talking about trolling, switch to a productive discussion instead. Please read my today's messages and answer them. Thank you.-- AndriyK 18:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
True, anyone can self-publish a book. Pay $200 for ISBN pay the typography and issue the book under your own name. You will have to distribute it yourself too. Start a web-site to sell it or put it on the web for free. This is self-ublishing. The ref then would than say:
For instance, the known Ukrainophobe, Polischuk, published his books himself. Korchynsky's book is not self-published. This makes the issue you raised about self-publishing moot. -- Irpen 18:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Or I can go to an old many years existing publisher, pay my money and get my book "Pears grow on the pussy-willow tree" published. The ref then would than say:
If you need an example, plese have a look: [9]. "Dnipro" also publishes books if the authors pay for it.-- AndriyK 19:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Unless the book is not self-published, you will need to show that a particular publisher only publishes crap. Not so easy if it published at least one decent book. Much easier would be for you to find the sources that states that UNA-UNSO were never helping Filaret, if this were true. However, this is true and there are plenty of sources that confirm UNA-UNSO/Filaret connection. I chose the book written by UNA-UNSO leader of them all for obvious reasons. Find the source that states the opposite and this would end this dispute. -- Irpen 19:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
My two cents: what is the correct translation "Митрополит Киевский и Галицкий"? "Metropolitan of Kiev and Galicia" correspods to "Митрополит Киевский и Галицийский", IMHO. Would not "Metropolitan of Kiev and Galich" be more precise?-- Mbuk 06:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, too much info flying around on here for me to get all the details right. However, I think this article is looking better. My two cents on the neutrality issue is that I think the business about the UOC-KP lacking canonical standing is too prominent in the lead; I think it should be removed: the text in the section on the creation of the UOC-KP makes it quite clear how bad the relationship is between the UOC-KP and the EO communion. Also, a minor point: the "sometimes violent" comment regarding the disputes -- is this really true? How "violent" did they get? Mango juice talk 20:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
The article pointed to by the linked phrase Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Kiev Patriarchy is actually called UOC - Kiev Patriarchate. There's a note there that this had been changed. Should the text here be changed to Patriarchate? 142.68.44.16 00:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
should this be 'dioceses' (or eparchies)? or only one parish each? 142.68.44.16 00:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
What about this? -- Ghirla -трёп- 10:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Is he a member of Our Ukraine? What is he doing on there convention? — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 11:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Filaret (Denysenko). 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
I am not sure it is useful for us to repeat inflammatory things said by Filaret and interpreted by The Independent. Yes, he made remarks about "becoming the new Cain" and "Satan entering into him". Filaret did not mention anyone by name. Perhaps it is abundantly clear who Filaret is targeting. But right now, we have the malicious interpretation of one source. I do not think it is worth inserting this inflammatory rhetoric into a WP:BLP, even via WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. 2600:8800:1880:188:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 ( talk) 15:05, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Filaret may or may not be the current patriarch of the Kiev Patriarchate, according to an article cited by Ukrainianorthodox ( talk · contribs). The source seems WP:RS, but I'm not well enough versed in Eastern Orthodox Church politics to understand how to proceed. How can the patriarchship of a bishop be in dispute? Is Filaret patriarch, or isn't he? Why is that article careful to state that it's only archbishop Job Getcha's opinion that Filaret is not patriarch? Psiĥedelisto ( talk) 09:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 14:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)