![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
My apologies for being off line while discussion here continued. In this edit Diff I asked for a second opinion and DGG has looked in. I believe that at the very least User:Biophys and User:Frjohnwhiteford are both interested in building towards a workable solution, and I suspect that WP:AGF can be applied to all the editors here. Because there are number of potential editors to this article I would like to suggest the following -
Proposed by Jeepday ( talk) 04:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I would agree, with the caveat that Biophys is not the only expert in Russian who has been participating in this discussion. I would also ask that as a starting point, the article be rolled back to the last edit by Jeepday. A good bit of content has been removed that should not have been, and a good bit added back or inserted that should not have been. Frjohnwhiteford ( talk) 12:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
-- Miyokan ( talk) 03:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I have been asked for input so he I am. I would also agree, but I must say that Frjohnwhiteford may not be the best person to rely on solely for the church view. While I don't want to engage in personal attacks, I must say that having seen his edits on four separate articles, I have yet to see an NPOV approach taken, and adherence to the spirit of Wikipedia is commonly absent. For instance: regarding an unreliable ref (that included factually incorrect material) in Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, he consistently avoided finding compromises, preferring to revert edits that were sensible. Another instance of his standards: when I pointed out massive copyvio in Jonah of Manchuria which he wrote, he responded by removing a little of it and putting quotation marks round the rest, claiming it was fair use (after having also claimed that the writer of it had no claim to copyright at all).
Hence, I have reservations. More input on the side of the church is required I feel. Malick78 ( talk) 14:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Agree if points 1 and 3 excluded (see my alternative version below). Biophys ( talk) 21:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
(unindent} The edit wars are in the past, we are looking forward to a bright future of consensus building. Jeepday ( talk) 14:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
1. The article is not protected. 2. Any sourced and relevant content can not be removed from the present or future versions of this article, unless there is a general consensus to remove (although it can be edited to be more consistent with sources; reduced in size, NPOVed, etc.). 3. If any disagreement is not resolved, we ask opinion of Jeepday with explanation (as he suggested). 4. Jeepday authority is accepted. 5. If two or more people disagree with Jeepday, they can ask DGG. Biophys ( talk) 18:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I do not agree with point 1 (protection). During last few weeks we had many edits of this article by users with different political views and perspectives, including Muscovite99, Malick, Martintg, ellol, and me. All these users had no problems negotiating the text. The dispute exists between Frjohnwhiteford and all others. Frjohnwhiteford considers Alexius to be his personal "spiritual leader", which potentially leads to a conflict of interest. By protecting this page, we remove it from a wider WP community, which is hardly warranted at this moment. Saying that, I would be glad to help with translations of Russian texts or go along with any consensus decisions. Biophys ( talk) 18:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think page protection is warranted at this stage, as it doesn't appear to be a case of one group of editors conflicting with another group. Martintg ( talk) 00:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Frankly speaking, I do not see an editorial conflict here, which would be serious enough to adopt such measures. At least not yet. There are many articles in WP that are subject of much stronger disputes. I suggest to wait a little and see how it goes. If it goes bad, then this suggestion is great and worth a serious consideration. "Bad" means "sterile" RR warring, when the article is not improving over the time. However if article improves as a result of competitive editing, then everything is fine from WP perspective. Biophys ( talk) 04:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
There are a number of problems with this section as it stands:
1. It contains a very bad translation of Metropolitan Sergius' declaration. This is a very famous quote, which has often been translated, but never translated such as it is here:
"We wish to be Christian Orthodox and in the same time to consider Soviet Union our civilian homeland, whose joys and successes are our joys and successes, and whose failures are our failures. We consider every strike aimed at the Union, be it a war, boycott, any societal calamity or just a murder from behind... as the strike aimed at us."
2. Aside from the poor English usage reflected here, there are substantive inaccuracies.
Just to cite one example of more common way it has been translated:
"we want to be Orthodox and we want to realize the Soviet Union as our motherland, whose joys are our joys and whose sorrows are our sorrows." (from PDS Russia Religion News)
There are a couple of significant differences here. It is joys and sorrows, not joys and successes. Secondly, the word "Motherland" is very significant, and is not at all done justice by "civilian homeland".
3. The block quote from Patriarch Alexei's interview is also a poor translation, and furthermore is too long for this article.
4. Also, if we are to give a full treatment of this subject, there should be a good bit of discussion about the Social Concept Document, which was approved by the ROC in 2000, and deals extensively with this issue (who can see the most important excerpts from that document at the bottom of this page).
It would be better to put such material into a section of the article on the Russian Orthodox Church, or in a separate article all together, that was referenced in this article. As it is, this is a huge bunny trail, that only relates to Patriarch Alexei tangentially. It would be best to cut it down to a paragraph, and tie it into the discussion about collaboration with the Soviet government. Frjohnwhiteford ( talk) 02:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
There is no reason why the first sentence needs to distinguish between civil and ecclesiatical wedlock.
I would suggest that it simply read:
"He married Vera Alekseesva, the daughter of a priest from Tallinn Georgi Alekseev, on April 11, 1950." [1].
What follows is typical of the tabloid journalism found in Moscow News:
"...on Tuesday of the Bright Week when the mystery of matrimony is canonically forbidden. Moskovskie Novosti has alleged that according to an official report written by a priest-inspector Pariysky to the Leningrad Department for the Affairs of the ROC, the marriage had been unlawfully expedited in order for Ridiger to become a deacon and avoid military service (marriage is impossible after ordination in Orthodoxy). [1]"
I have already commented on the problems here. I don't believe it is correct to say that there is a canon that forbids marriage during bright week (though there is one that forbids it during lent). However, for reasons of economia, marriages are often permitted at times when the typikon would say they should not be performed. Certainly, it is contrary to normal practice to perform a marriage during bright week, but weddings are sometimes performed during lent or any other time, if there is a need that is deemed sufficient by the bishop. This material is irrelevant, and implies things that are not proven by the known facts. If it was left in the article, a discussion of economia would be necessary... which is a long bunny trial that is not warranted.
I would leave only the final statement:
"They divorced less than a year later."
Frjohnwhiteford ( talk) 12:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
More applicable Policy here, from WP:BLP:
"Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly."
"In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out."
We do not have well documented reliable sources here. We have one tabloid, repeating gossip, and making unprovable assertions. According to Jeepday's instructions, when a contentious assertion is made, at least two reliable sources are necessary. I would argue that we do not even have one here... but we certainly do not have two. Frjohnwhiteford ( talk) 13:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Can we get a ruling here from Jeepday and DGG? Frjohnwhiteford ( talk) 13:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Assuming that this material is going to be left in the article, here is my proposed revision, which is more faithful to what is actually stated in the article, and provides more pertinent details:
Frjohnwhiteford ( talk) 13:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
This section begins:
"The Patriarch's private residence is located in the village of Lukino (near Peredelkino) (originally it was meant as Patriarch Alexius I's dacha), now a western suburb of Moscow; it includes a 17th century church, a museum, and a spacious three-storey house built in the late 1990s."
No source is given to substantiate the comment about a dacha. The use of "dacha" has implications of extravagance which are not warranted.
The text continues:
"On the residence compound there is a de-facto rotating women's monastery, according to the Patriarch's interview; [3]"
The source says nothing about a "de-facto rotating women's monastery." I think the whole thing is irrelevant, but if it is left in at all it should simply state "In the residence compound, there are a group of nuns who are in charge of household chores and duties."
Frjohnwhiteford ( talk) 12:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
This section is entirely one sided, and is unnecessary... that's what footnotes are for. Frjohnwhiteford ( talk) 01:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Just for reference here's the relevant section excerpted from the June, 2007, edition of the Russiam WP article, when the issue of his health was a hot issue.(it was subsequently removed, perhaps, unduly).
References
Cамый серьёзный инцидент, связанный со здоровьем, имел место в октябре 2002 в Астрахани, где Патриарх находился с визитом. После перенесённого тогда Патриархом тяжёлого инсульта, на Украине и в среде Русской Зарубежной Церковью стали распространятся слухи о некоем явлении ему в алтаре астраханского собора прп. Феодосия Печерского, который якобы сказал: «Отпали от Бога - ты и многие братья твои, и к диаволу припали, - произнес святой. - И правители Руси не правители уж суть, а кривители. И церковь потворствует им. И не стоять вам по правую руку от Христа. И ждет вас мука огненная, скрежет зубовный, страдания бесконечные, аще не опомнитесь, окаянные. Милость Господа нашего безгранична, но слишком долог для вас путь к спасению через искупление бесчисленных грехов ваших, а час ответа близок» [7]. Тогда пресс-служба ОВЦС Патриархии выступила с официальным опровержением, заявив, что «слухи злонамеренно распространяются противниками Церкви, заинтересованными во внесении смуты в умы верующих людей» [8].
27 апреля 2007 российские СМИ распространили информацию о резком ухудшении здоровья Патриарха, находящегося в Швейцарии [9] [10] [11] [12].
Руководитель пресс-службы Патриархии о. Владимир Вигилянский заявил РИА Новости, что волна безосновательных слухов о тяжелом состоянии здоровья Патриарха, поднятая и распространяемая в Интернете в последние дни, «просто возмутительна» [13]. Отец Владимир предположил, что в информационной кампании о якобы имевшей место смерти Патриарха можно усмотреть и злой умысел, направленный на срыв подписания Акта о каноническом общении между Русской Зарубежной Церковью и Московским Патриархатом, намеченого на 17 мая 2007.
Уторм 2 мая 2007 Патриарх Алексий совершил литургию [1] в Воскресенском храме Покровского монастыря у Покровской Заставы в Москве и после богослужения заявил следующее: «Кому-то, видимо, хотелось испортить и отпуск, и лечение, а, может быть, кто-то распускал эти слухи в преддверии подписания акта о воссоединении Зарубежной церкви с матерью-Церковью, с Московским Патриархатом, в надежде, что они отразятся на его подписании»; «никакого аортошунтирования у меня никогда не было, и не было никакой клинической смерти, иначе бы я сегодня не служил здесь, как и было намечено до отпуска» [2]
3 мая 2007 Владимир Вигилянский заявил, что главный редактор радио «Эхо Москвы» Алексей Венедиктов и главный редактор газеты «Московский комсомолец» Павел Гусев, распространявшие слухи о смерти или тяжкой болезни Патриарха, должны уйти в отставку:
Это не какая-то нелепая ошибка интерпретации, как мы поначалу думали; теперь в произошедшем твердо видны злые намерения. Одной из целей клеветы могло быть желание посеять смуту в отношении подписания Акта о Воссоединении Русской Православной Церкви заграницей с матерью-Русской Православной Церковью. С другой стороны, целью клеветнической пиар-кампании могло быть желание проверить, как будет себя вести Церковь и архиереи, лишившись архипастыря.<...> Я не виню даже сами издания в целом, а виню конкретных людей, стоящих за газетой «Московский комсомолец» и за радио «Эхо Москвы». Это их затея, и, как сказал сегодня сам Святейший Патриарх, это не что иное, как «злая воля людей». Поэтому я считаю, что Алексей Венедиктов, главный редактор «Эха Москвы», и Павел Гусев, главный редактор «Московского комсомольцы» должны подать в отставку. В суд на них мы подавать не будем, но о том, что они нечестные люди и что они поддержали самые гнусные слухи, я заявить не боюсь. В том, что они вообще когда-нибудь извинятся, я сильно сомневаюсь, так как подобные люди считают извинения проявлением слабости. [3]
И г-н Венедиктов, и г-н Гусев отвергли требования о. Владимира Вигилянского. Г-н Венедиктов, в частности, заявил: «в эфире сообщение о Патриархе звучало так: "Как сообщают источники Эхо Москвы, Патриарх находится на лечении в Швейцарии. Наши источники сообщают, что его состояние довольно сложное. Однако источники в Патриархии говорят, что они разговаривали с Патриархом в 13:00 по местному времени и все в порядке»; «пресс-служба Патриархии, которая должна была объяснить это [отсутствие Патриарха] верующим, гражданам, этого не сделала, а теперь пытается переложить свою плохую работу на журналистов, которые искали информацию и получали ее ото всюду, кроме пресс-службы Патриархии» [14]
Г-н Гусев назвал претензии Патриархии "абсолютно безосновательными", добавив: «Прежде всего хочу отметить, что у нас светское государство. И хотя, конечно, у нас свобода слова, и каждый может говорить все, что угодно, негоже официальному представителю церкви заниматься такими вопросами»; «когда эти слухи про Патриарха распространялись по Москве, Патриархия их не опровергала, а просто молчала, тем самым только усугубляя ситуацию. Поэтому ее пресс-секретарь в таком случае сам должен уйти в отставку» [4].
Высказываются предположения, что ложный слух мог быть санкционирован в Кремле [5]; или спровоцирован недовольными процессом воссоединения б. подполковником КГБ Константином Преображенским, Евгением Магеровским и М. Назаровым [6].
3 мая представитель пресс-службы Московской патриархии сообщил, что Патриарх Алексий не будет подавать в суд на СМИ, распространявшие ложные сведения о его болезни и даже смерти [7] Muscovite99 ( talk) 19:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Muscovite99's edit summary for the inserted text that I just undid reads as follows: "Recovered the bit about the dish - it may appear trivial, but quite revealing in many ways (a Sov citizen being allowed to explore parisian resrants on HIS OWN is sth else".
This shows that Muscovite99 is attempting to make a point that goes beyond the source he is citing, which is original research and POV pushing. Frjohnwhiteford ( talk) 05:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I am going to ask Jeepday for a ruling on this point, but want to give everyone a final chance to cite the policies that support their position. I am opposed to the inclusion of this text because it involved original research ( WP:OR), since Muscovite99 is clearly attempting to make a point that is not supported by the source, as is clear from his edit summary when he re-inserted the text in question. It also is contrary to WP:Handling trivia#Stand-alone trivia, which cites as an example of information that is too unimportant to warrant inclusion the following:
I think there is a very clear parallel between Alan Smithee's favorite color, and Patriarch Alexei having a taste for French Onion Soup. Frjohnwhiteford ( talk) 00:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
To address the question of the soup. While only Frjohnwhiteford has posted policies to support their side of the argument, I have looked through the talk above. What I see is an argument that there is not a reference that says "French Onion Soup is his favorite dish... only that he likes it" and a good argument not to include it per WP:Handling trivia#Stand-alone trivia. All parties involved in the discussion have valid perspectives to include or not include the piece, but only policy to not include was offered, the rest was tends to fall under WP:ILIKEIT which is recognized as not a valid argument in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. The edit summary provided when the piece in question was added does not appear to meet the expectations of Use of edit summaries in disputes Editors should beware of what they are communicating in their edit summaries and review Help:Edit summary#Recommendations as appropriate. Jeepday ( talk) 14:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
which you may or may not follow. I find it inconceivable that anyone who knows the soviet system could think that Alexius II was not considerably involved with the KGB, and the question is only to what extent he was, how honest his claims of trying to ameliorate it are, & the degree of moral culpability involved. But this is not provable, and short of events like those in East German is not likely to be. As people can have very strong reasons for thinking one way or the other, they resort to discussions of other aspects of his character, which are at most trivial compared to the essential matters. But I appreciate the cleverness -- however unconstructive -- with which one or another position has been argued here.
I think insinuation raises questions of BLP, and the present version approved by my colleague here is not acceptable. I respect his judgment in these matters at least as much as my own, but we disagree; as I see it he's going by the rules literally, and I by their intentions, and we each think that our method of looking at it is right. I hold to my own position. I think none the worse of him for his. DGG ( talk) 04:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
A few interesting things in this article. Could be interesting. Malick78 ( talk) 09:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
At this point, I would be in favor of removing the NPOV flag from the article. There is more we need to do with the article, but as it stands right now, I think it is about as close to being NPOV as it is likely to get. Frjohnwhiteford ( talk) 23:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Given that awhile back, even Muscovite99 conceded that this controversy was over blown:
And given that what we have in this section has a lot to to do with Sotnikova, and little to do with Patriarch Alexei, I would argue that it should be removed, or moved to an article on Sotnikova. As it currently stands, I think this section gives far too much weight to the controversy, and is contrary to WP:UNDUE. Frjohnwhiteford ( talk) 12:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I would argue that this quote is also given undue weight, and violates WP:UNDUE:
My reasons for taking this position are:
1. The book has been "forthcoming" for nearly a year now. As it is, it is not published, and we don't know what the final form will be.
2. We have Preobrazhensky's characterization of a conversation that was related to him by Oleg Kalugin... and so it is hearsay upon hearsay, and unless it was corroborated by an independent source (i.e., some source other than Preobrazhensky or Kalugin who claimed to have heard similar statements from Patriarch Alexei), it is highly questionable, and poorly sourced. In accordance with WP:Verifiability#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, either better sources are needed, or it should be removed. Frjohnwhiteford ( talk) 12:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I waited a week for a response, and then took the actions I mentioned above. I still have no reply, but Biophys has reverted my edits with only the following edit summary "Restoring perfectly sourced texts. No any reasonable justification to remove these sourced texts was provided at talk page." I would point out that I provided reasons, and so far he has provided no counter arguments. I will ask Jeepday for a ruling, but will give him and anyone else one more chance to actually state a counter argument before I do so. Frjohnwhiteford ( talk) 03:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
It is absolutely essential to present not only the view of those who support homosexual behavior and lifestyles, but the actual views of the Patriarch and Orthodox Church - what happened in the previous versions amounted to an attack on his views without seeking to understand what they actually are. Without an understanding of the historical and current views of traditional Christianity, at the very least the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, one presents an unbalanced straw man that will discredit the view as soon as the inquirer actually comes into contact with what the Orthodox Church's teachings are. Surely even a liberal committed to gay rights can see this. In my edit I left the hostile claims in place and merely added the view of the Orthodox Church, which of course Alexei (Alexius) shares. http://www.oca.org/DOCmarriage.asp?SID=12&ID=26 It is NPOV to stress that there is not a plurality of views on homosexuality in the Orthodox Church; that it has always been the teaching of the Church and has of necessity been supported by all Church leaders at all times and that a Church leader cannot oppose Orthodox Tradition and remain Church leader (it mayy be a shocking revelation to some, but there is no room for personal opinion on doctrine. Attempting to present the opinion as one merely held by Alexius is in fact a partisan point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rusmeister ( talk • contribs) 18:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
The Church's position, which corresponds with Alexius's, is already on the external links page. Here is the appropriate link from an official site in English (the Orthodox Church of America): http://www.oca.org/DOCmarriage.asp?SID=12&ID=26
It is your (incorrect) assumption that his position is one based on bigotry. Insisting on presenting his position as merely an individual view is like insisting that the view of the President of the United States on anarchy must be presented in a like manner - it is absurd and contradicts a fundamental position of the Church. No President can be President if he subscribes to a position contrary to the American Constitution, and no Church leader can be a Church leader if he subscribes to a position that contradicts the Church. If his (personal) position - which for believers makes no difference from the corporate position on dogmatic stands - were somehow different from the dogmatic stand, it would be reasonable to point out the discrepancy, but such a discrepancy does not exist. Conversely, presenting the position as merely the patriarch's personal position is actively false and implies that a Church leader can be a Church leader and disagree on dogmatic issues. If they do disagree on dogmatic issues, they become schismatic and break with the Church. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schism_(religion). Rusmeister ( talk) 18:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Malik. Long time, no see. I gave the reference. there is no requirement from wikipedia that I satisfy every personal request. It is a fact that a Patriarch or Pope may not hold views contrary to the position of his Church and remain Pope or Patriarch. The fact is that in Orthodoxy, a believer MUST conform any personal opinions to accept Church dogma. ( Rusmeister ( talk) 19:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rusmeister ( talk • contribs) 19:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Mali, this is a misunderstanding of the structure of the Orthodox Church. You assume that it is the same as the catholic Church. This is not the case. One of the prime issues that split the two Churches in 1054 was Papal authority, which the 4 Eastern Church Sees (aside from Rome) - Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem - insisted on the collegial nature of Church leadership, which means precisely that one man cannot alter the course of the entire Church. Rome broke with the other Churches and insisted on Papal authority, and thus the Roman Church became capable of this. The other Churches (which remained in communion collectively) did not. The Patriarch of the Russian Church could go bonkers and against the 2,000 year tradition of the Church, but that would not force any other Church leader to follow suit. In such a case he would likely be deposed by the Synod. But the whole scenario is highly improbable. Your references to abuse of power by Catholic Popes are thus irrelevant to the Orthodox Church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rusmeister ( talk • contribs) 06:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
No, the real point is that you are trying to paint it as MERELY his personal opinion. It is a very important point that it is not and that personal opinions within the Orthodox Church may not contradict orthodox doctrine - if a person disagrees, then he rejects the authority of the Church and excludes himself from it. It would be noteworthy if his opinion conflicted with the Church (it would even be newsworthy - but the fact remains that he is required to uphold Orthodox doctrine and is not free to express opinions to the contrary and remain a leader in the Orthodox Church and this is something that MUST be published for any fair understanding of the facts, rather than mere partisan manipulation of them. Rusmeister ( talk) 16:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
No, it is NOT noteworthy, because the Orthodox Church has always condemned homosexual behavior. Your refusal to understand what it means to be Orthodox doesn't make it appropriate to hide this fact from the public. It is indicative of a partial effort on your part to condemn the Patriarch's position rather than attempt to explain or understand it. FTR, I'll get additional references to Church canons stating that no one may be Orthodox and hold dissenting opinions on dogmatic issues - and that includes Alexius. Your insistence that the Church canon laws specifically name him is silly. Might as well publish a law saying that Malik may not exceed the speed limit. We don't have to name every citizen in the law to apply the law to him. Rusmeister ( talk) 06:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, Sotnik. The problem is that some people evidently want to paint the Patriarch as having merely a personal opinion and to be an unreasonable bigot, and are working to erase any evidence that this is and always has been the stand of the Orthodox Church and that no one can possibly be a Church leader and hold a dissenting view.
References have been provided, in English where possible (thus the OCA references - they are part of the same Church). It is NOT original research, please stop calling it that. Rusmeister ( talk) 19:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I've added this tag to this section because half the section is from a site that doesn't even mention the patriarch's views - it is there just because an editor thinks it is relevant - yet there is no direct link from it to this article's topic. As the tag says: "Please help Wikipedia by adding sources whose main topic is "Patriarch Alexius II of Russia"." Quite clearly the vague description of the Church's views is off topic. Malick78 ( talk) 10:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
The fact that you have personally expressed the idea that a) the Patriarch may hold a view that contradicts the Orthodox Church and somehow remain Patriarch b) that you personally need proof to the contrary (which is provided via Church canon, which is Church law, but you deny it because it does not mention the Patriarch by name c) you want it in English on a country, language and culture far removed from your own understandings
does not change what IS. What is available in English concerning a non-English person has been provided. If necessary. I'll provide more sources in any language (most likely Russian. But the position that Alexeius must conform to Church canon law is NPOV, not OR and is from existing websites. You have ignored this again and again and this is proof of a partisan POV effort on your part to paint the Patriarch as a bigot on a personal level while denying him the support of the Church from which he derives his beliefs. The position of the Church is 100% relevant.
You refuse to understand that on matters of church dogma the position of the Orthodox Church IS the position of the individual believer - or he is not Orthodox. You don't understand Orthodoxy and you don't want to. You seem to just want Orthodox Christians to be presented as unreasoning bigots. Please stop. I have followed wikipedia rules and your extensive efforts to paint it otherwise don't change that. Rusmeister ( talk) 19:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
If all truth is relative and in the eye of the beholder, there's no way we can post anything on wikipedia - it's all relative. Fortunately, that is not actually the case. As I said earlier, Malick (and noticed that you did not respond to it) the President of the US may not be president and subscribe to anarchy. You have insisted that proof be provided that the Patriarch's view IS the view of the Church. I have provided such references. You rejected them bcause they don't cite the Patriarch by name. I pointed out that they don't have to and you go back to your original insistence - arguing in a circle. The fact that you see the Patriarch's view as "a stain" reveals POV on your part, and your use of the word "homophobia" - a highly debatable term that assumes fear on the part of the people who oppose it (see criticism of the term on the homophobia page - one might as well say 'alcophobe' to refer to opposition to alcoholism.) - as deeply misunderstanding the Church's position. Since it has been posted here I can only conclude that you do NOT wish to understand it, but see it through the fog of your own POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rusmeister ( talk•
How come this issue isn't addressed? It was very controversial at the time and Alexey was one of the driving forces behind the opposition. Deserves at least a mention. Malick78 ( talk) 14:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Was his father more often referred to as von Rüdiger (German variant) or Ridiger (Russified version)? Did Alexey initially use Latinization Rüdiger or Ridiger when in Estonia? Rüdiger seems to give more google hits, and I've also encountered this version more often, so I presume He was born as Aleksey Rüdiger would be historically more accurate. -- Miacek ( talk) 19:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
The criticism section is currently one third of the article. While criticism is, of course, valid, it is hardly one-third of the reason that makes Alexey notable. The Russian article, while mentioning the criticisms mentioned in the English one (though giving less space to the homosexual critism section - and yes, in Russian it also seems that the controversy was limited to the West), also goes in far more detail about his life. Esn ( talk) 02:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
"Формально владыка Алексий Ридигер стоял у кормила правления Церковью 45 лет. Тогда его и еще нескольких молодых (по церковным меркам) монахов неожиданно расставили на ключевые епископские посты. Расставили досрочно: видимо, Хрущев был недоволен тем, как идет борьба с религией, и поставил тех, кого считал более способными ликвидировать Церковь.
Трагедия жизни владыки Алексия Ридигера в том, что он всегда колебался вместе с линией партии. Приказывали – отлучал отца Глеба Якунина, приказывали – возвращал в Церковь, потом опять приказали – он опять отлучил. "Партия" здесь – прежде всего Лубянка, "орден меченосцев". Именно КГБ с середины 1970-х годов начал активно реализовывать проект "Православие на место коммунизма". Став патриархом в 1990 году, владыка Алексий Ридигер активнейшим образом этот проект довершал. Как и КГБ и Министерство обороны, Московская патриархия при полной поддержке Ельцина собрала силы после кратковременной горбачевской оттепели и перешла в атаку на свободу. Патриарх Алексий II всегда был на шаг впереди Ельцина по дороге к реставрации деспотизма." Biophys ( talk) 05:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Russavia, stop removing forced image sizing throughout Wikipedia. Maybe under your particular settings this doesn't look ugly, but with default settings the pictures now look tiny. Colchicum ( talk) 07:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Who is likely to succeed Alexy? Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad, or Metropolitan Kliment of Kaluga and Borovsk, the latter believed to be the Kremlin's preferred successor? -- Hapsala ( talk) 12:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
This seems very wrong to me. Sure, many uneducated westerners pronounce the Russian name Alek-SEY as "a-LEK-sy", but that's no reason to actually spell it as if this were the correct pronunciation. "Alexy" is completely contrary to any notion of standard transliteration practices. I'm surprised there's been no prior discussion of this, so I won't move it until comments are received. -- JackofOz ( talk) 20:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
This is not a serious discussion since Wikipedia doesn't rely on how different editors might feel about anything but on WP:Reliable sources and WP:Verifiability. Alexy II is the way how it's spelled in mainstream media like BBC, CNN, how it's spelled in press releases by the President of Russia, it's the way it's spelled by the U.S. Ambassador to Russia John Beyrle. and last but not least, the same aplies to Russian Orthodox Church Representation to the European Institutions etc. etc. So there is no need for a discussion about it, Alexy II is the official spelling in English.-- Termer ( talk) 23:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Good night sweet prince..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.126.83.61 ( talk) 07:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
So, he was KGB agent? Had he killed any people? How can a spy become a "Holy Man"? Can we put some more clarification to these seemingly credible allegations confirmed by multiple sources. Bosniak ( talk) 09:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
During the Soviet Union, it was a requirement to at least get some sort of approval from the State to be a bishop. Therefore, collaboration was necessary. This means the KGB probably kept files on him, possibly Alexei was in the KGB, but it doesn't mean he was very active. Most likely, he was KGB on paper, but not in practice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.167.31 ( talk) 03:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
It's totally unremarkable that Alexy held to the doctrines of his church; there's no reason to make a point of this with respect to homosexuality. I've removed the whole passage. Mangoe ( talk) 14:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey Mangoe, I agree with you, but until it is established as undue weight, it's important to demonstrate according to Wikipedia rules that it IS unremarkable; thus, the sourced evidence that it IS and always has been a teaching of the Church and that its basis is not hatred or fear, but on understandings that differ with the ones presented in modern culture today. Misunderstandings can only be corrected by providing true and verifiable information. Failing to do so just leads to the false idea that one can be a member of the Orthodox Church in good standing and disagree with Church dogma (and so some may have tried to incorrectly paint the Patriarch as a fearful, hateful and unreasonable bigot and his view as a merely personal one, which is simply not the case). Rusmeister ( talk) 18:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Mangoe is right. As I indicated in the creating controversy section, you cannot have a leader of an organization who opposes the fundamental principles of his organization. Attempts to accent them here are decidely POV attempts by people who object to the beliefs of the Orthodox Church and cast them as merely a personal stand. Discussion of all of those things really belongs, if anywhere, in the entry on the Orthodox Church. Next we'll have to duplicate all of these stands under every single major Orthodox figure: Patriarch Tikhon condemned homosexual behavior. Patriarch Nikon condemned homosexual behavior. Tsar Nicholas II condemned homosexual behavior. Etc. And the point that the Church condemns the act but NOT the person is deliberately whitewashed as part of a propaganda war. In the meantime, (until the undue weight is confirmed) the only way to stop that is to provide NPOV info on the stand of the Orthodox Church, revealing both that it is not a matter of personal opinion and that the act is clearly distinguished from the person. And the same principle applies to everything else that is not personal opinion on the part of the Patriarch (stand on the Catholic Church, religious oppression, etc). But that whole section should ultimately be removed. Rusmeister ( talk) 01:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Rest in Peace Man. Respect. -- Whatayunoe ( talk) 03:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
My problem with this isn't so much that it is mentioned at all, but that it is is being made out as a major controversy about Alexy. Perhaps the best solution is a much more abbreviated mention of his opposition under " Career". Mangoe ( talk) 16:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Also, the entire section is essentially one long quote, perhaps we should have a quote from a gay-rights activist, or at least anyone with a different view than him on the matter. It's not very balanced right now. 205.155.5.168 ( talk) 19:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
It's a lot better now, thank you 205.155.5.63 ( talk) 19:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to say every single english spelling of the man's name? If we're calling him Alexy then why is it at all relevant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.155.5.168 ( talk) 19:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree, but is it really neccesary for them to be in the first paragraph? No. 205.155.5.63 ( talk) 19:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I noted the date format inconsistency here.
Some of it uses:
MM DD, YYYY
DDth MM YYYY
DD MM YYYY
I don't know the date format that is being used in Russia, so I leave this for russians to decide.
w_tanoto (
talk)
16:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
This article is about Patriarch Alexei, not about Metropolitan Kyrill. Frjohnwhiteford ( talk) 01:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Another objectionable example of POV pushing is the following:
"The Moscow Patriarchate is known to have at least once officially and explicitly denied that Patriarch Alexy was a recruited KGB agent[48], to which Keston Institute responded: "Keston News Service has reviewed all the available documentary evidence from the various archives of the KGB, and concluded that long- standing allegations that the Patriarch and other senior bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church collaborated with the KGB are based on fact."
This follows a section in which all the accusations were given full vent, and this began the section that had bee providing the other side of the story, and yet now we have Muscovite99 coopting this section too. Keston's opinions were already noted. By inserting this reply, and changing the introductory statement to erroneously suggest that the MP had only denied the accusations once, when three citations are noted is POV pushing. Frjohnwhiteford ( talk) 02:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
There are thousands of comments in the press in the wake of Patriarch Alexei's repose. There is no reason why this particular quote from the BBC should be put in the article summary, other than that it suits the POV of the editor who inserted it:
This quote adds no new information that was not already in the article, and including in the summary gives it undue weight, thus violating WP:UNDUE. This BBC article offers no documentation to substantiate its assertions, and in fact lifted a quote from this article on Wikipedia. Frjohnwhiteford ( talk) 02:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the entire section as follows:
On the day of his death the BBC said: "Patriarch Alexiy II had an extraordinary career, in which he switched from suppressing the Russian Orthodox Church to being its champion. A favourite of the KGB, he was promoted rapidly through the Church hierarchy, doing the Kremlin's bidding at a time when dissident priests were thrown into jail. As the Church's effective foreign minister, he helped cover up the repression of Russian Christians, defending the Soviet system to the outside world. He rose quickly through the ranks, being elected head of the Russian Orthodox Church at a crucial time, in 1990, with the Soviet Union on the path to collapse. Surprisingly, perhaps, he seized the moment, and went on to oversee the revival and flowering of the Church." [8]
People need to read WP:LEAD before getting involved in articles. The lead is supposed to give a very brief overview of the article, it isn't supposed to paint a certain POV. Apart from being a rip-off of BBC materials, simply pasting quotes of this and that is NOT how an encyclopaedia works. The lack of ability to write coherrent prose is not an excuse plastering quotes all over the place, particularly when they are POV quotes right in the lead of the article. -- Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 11:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I think the easiest path is to stick to facts and avoid judgements and opinions in the article. Dpktnyfzgjkjcf ( talk) 22:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I have moved the following quote from the article lead to here, as it does not belong in the lead to the article.
Russia's Prime-minister Vladimir Putin said Patriarch Alexy II had been a prominent figure in the history of the Russian Orthodox Church, as well as a great statesman. [9]
They may belong in the article, but they most certainly do not belong in the lead. -- Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 19:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
My apologies for being off line while discussion here continued. In this edit Diff I asked for a second opinion and DGG has looked in. I believe that at the very least User:Biophys and User:Frjohnwhiteford are both interested in building towards a workable solution, and I suspect that WP:AGF can be applied to all the editors here. Because there are number of potential editors to this article I would like to suggest the following -
Proposed by Jeepday ( talk) 04:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I would agree, with the caveat that Biophys is not the only expert in Russian who has been participating in this discussion. I would also ask that as a starting point, the article be rolled back to the last edit by Jeepday. A good bit of content has been removed that should not have been, and a good bit added back or inserted that should not have been. Frjohnwhiteford ( talk) 12:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
-- Miyokan ( talk) 03:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I have been asked for input so he I am. I would also agree, but I must say that Frjohnwhiteford may not be the best person to rely on solely for the church view. While I don't want to engage in personal attacks, I must say that having seen his edits on four separate articles, I have yet to see an NPOV approach taken, and adherence to the spirit of Wikipedia is commonly absent. For instance: regarding an unreliable ref (that included factually incorrect material) in Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, he consistently avoided finding compromises, preferring to revert edits that were sensible. Another instance of his standards: when I pointed out massive copyvio in Jonah of Manchuria which he wrote, he responded by removing a little of it and putting quotation marks round the rest, claiming it was fair use (after having also claimed that the writer of it had no claim to copyright at all).
Hence, I have reservations. More input on the side of the church is required I feel. Malick78 ( talk) 14:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Agree if points 1 and 3 excluded (see my alternative version below). Biophys ( talk) 21:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
(unindent} The edit wars are in the past, we are looking forward to a bright future of consensus building. Jeepday ( talk) 14:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
1. The article is not protected. 2. Any sourced and relevant content can not be removed from the present or future versions of this article, unless there is a general consensus to remove (although it can be edited to be more consistent with sources; reduced in size, NPOVed, etc.). 3. If any disagreement is not resolved, we ask opinion of Jeepday with explanation (as he suggested). 4. Jeepday authority is accepted. 5. If two or more people disagree with Jeepday, they can ask DGG. Biophys ( talk) 18:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I do not agree with point 1 (protection). During last few weeks we had many edits of this article by users with different political views and perspectives, including Muscovite99, Malick, Martintg, ellol, and me. All these users had no problems negotiating the text. The dispute exists between Frjohnwhiteford and all others. Frjohnwhiteford considers Alexius to be his personal "spiritual leader", which potentially leads to a conflict of interest. By protecting this page, we remove it from a wider WP community, which is hardly warranted at this moment. Saying that, I would be glad to help with translations of Russian texts or go along with any consensus decisions. Biophys ( talk) 18:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think page protection is warranted at this stage, as it doesn't appear to be a case of one group of editors conflicting with another group. Martintg ( talk) 00:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Frankly speaking, I do not see an editorial conflict here, which would be serious enough to adopt such measures. At least not yet. There are many articles in WP that are subject of much stronger disputes. I suggest to wait a little and see how it goes. If it goes bad, then this suggestion is great and worth a serious consideration. "Bad" means "sterile" RR warring, when the article is not improving over the time. However if article improves as a result of competitive editing, then everything is fine from WP perspective. Biophys ( talk) 04:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
There are a number of problems with this section as it stands:
1. It contains a very bad translation of Metropolitan Sergius' declaration. This is a very famous quote, which has often been translated, but never translated such as it is here:
"We wish to be Christian Orthodox and in the same time to consider Soviet Union our civilian homeland, whose joys and successes are our joys and successes, and whose failures are our failures. We consider every strike aimed at the Union, be it a war, boycott, any societal calamity or just a murder from behind... as the strike aimed at us."
2. Aside from the poor English usage reflected here, there are substantive inaccuracies.
Just to cite one example of more common way it has been translated:
"we want to be Orthodox and we want to realize the Soviet Union as our motherland, whose joys are our joys and whose sorrows are our sorrows." (from PDS Russia Religion News)
There are a couple of significant differences here. It is joys and sorrows, not joys and successes. Secondly, the word "Motherland" is very significant, and is not at all done justice by "civilian homeland".
3. The block quote from Patriarch Alexei's interview is also a poor translation, and furthermore is too long for this article.
4. Also, if we are to give a full treatment of this subject, there should be a good bit of discussion about the Social Concept Document, which was approved by the ROC in 2000, and deals extensively with this issue (who can see the most important excerpts from that document at the bottom of this page).
It would be better to put such material into a section of the article on the Russian Orthodox Church, or in a separate article all together, that was referenced in this article. As it is, this is a huge bunny trail, that only relates to Patriarch Alexei tangentially. It would be best to cut it down to a paragraph, and tie it into the discussion about collaboration with the Soviet government. Frjohnwhiteford ( talk) 02:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
There is no reason why the first sentence needs to distinguish between civil and ecclesiatical wedlock.
I would suggest that it simply read:
"He married Vera Alekseesva, the daughter of a priest from Tallinn Georgi Alekseev, on April 11, 1950." [1].
What follows is typical of the tabloid journalism found in Moscow News:
"...on Tuesday of the Bright Week when the mystery of matrimony is canonically forbidden. Moskovskie Novosti has alleged that according to an official report written by a priest-inspector Pariysky to the Leningrad Department for the Affairs of the ROC, the marriage had been unlawfully expedited in order for Ridiger to become a deacon and avoid military service (marriage is impossible after ordination in Orthodoxy). [1]"
I have already commented on the problems here. I don't believe it is correct to say that there is a canon that forbids marriage during bright week (though there is one that forbids it during lent). However, for reasons of economia, marriages are often permitted at times when the typikon would say they should not be performed. Certainly, it is contrary to normal practice to perform a marriage during bright week, but weddings are sometimes performed during lent or any other time, if there is a need that is deemed sufficient by the bishop. This material is irrelevant, and implies things that are not proven by the known facts. If it was left in the article, a discussion of economia would be necessary... which is a long bunny trial that is not warranted.
I would leave only the final statement:
"They divorced less than a year later."
Frjohnwhiteford ( talk) 12:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
More applicable Policy here, from WP:BLP:
"Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly."
"In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out."
We do not have well documented reliable sources here. We have one tabloid, repeating gossip, and making unprovable assertions. According to Jeepday's instructions, when a contentious assertion is made, at least two reliable sources are necessary. I would argue that we do not even have one here... but we certainly do not have two. Frjohnwhiteford ( talk) 13:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Can we get a ruling here from Jeepday and DGG? Frjohnwhiteford ( talk) 13:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Assuming that this material is going to be left in the article, here is my proposed revision, which is more faithful to what is actually stated in the article, and provides more pertinent details:
Frjohnwhiteford ( talk) 13:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
This section begins:
"The Patriarch's private residence is located in the village of Lukino (near Peredelkino) (originally it was meant as Patriarch Alexius I's dacha), now a western suburb of Moscow; it includes a 17th century church, a museum, and a spacious three-storey house built in the late 1990s."
No source is given to substantiate the comment about a dacha. The use of "dacha" has implications of extravagance which are not warranted.
The text continues:
"On the residence compound there is a de-facto rotating women's monastery, according to the Patriarch's interview; [3]"
The source says nothing about a "de-facto rotating women's monastery." I think the whole thing is irrelevant, but if it is left in at all it should simply state "In the residence compound, there are a group of nuns who are in charge of household chores and duties."
Frjohnwhiteford ( talk) 12:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
This section is entirely one sided, and is unnecessary... that's what footnotes are for. Frjohnwhiteford ( talk) 01:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Just for reference here's the relevant section excerpted from the June, 2007, edition of the Russiam WP article, when the issue of his health was a hot issue.(it was subsequently removed, perhaps, unduly).
References
Cамый серьёзный инцидент, связанный со здоровьем, имел место в октябре 2002 в Астрахани, где Патриарх находился с визитом. После перенесённого тогда Патриархом тяжёлого инсульта, на Украине и в среде Русской Зарубежной Церковью стали распространятся слухи о некоем явлении ему в алтаре астраханского собора прп. Феодосия Печерского, который якобы сказал: «Отпали от Бога - ты и многие братья твои, и к диаволу припали, - произнес святой. - И правители Руси не правители уж суть, а кривители. И церковь потворствует им. И не стоять вам по правую руку от Христа. И ждет вас мука огненная, скрежет зубовный, страдания бесконечные, аще не опомнитесь, окаянные. Милость Господа нашего безгранична, но слишком долог для вас путь к спасению через искупление бесчисленных грехов ваших, а час ответа близок» [7]. Тогда пресс-служба ОВЦС Патриархии выступила с официальным опровержением, заявив, что «слухи злонамеренно распространяются противниками Церкви, заинтересованными во внесении смуты в умы верующих людей» [8].
27 апреля 2007 российские СМИ распространили информацию о резком ухудшении здоровья Патриарха, находящегося в Швейцарии [9] [10] [11] [12].
Руководитель пресс-службы Патриархии о. Владимир Вигилянский заявил РИА Новости, что волна безосновательных слухов о тяжелом состоянии здоровья Патриарха, поднятая и распространяемая в Интернете в последние дни, «просто возмутительна» [13]. Отец Владимир предположил, что в информационной кампании о якобы имевшей место смерти Патриарха можно усмотреть и злой умысел, направленный на срыв подписания Акта о каноническом общении между Русской Зарубежной Церковью и Московским Патриархатом, намеченого на 17 мая 2007.
Уторм 2 мая 2007 Патриарх Алексий совершил литургию [1] в Воскресенском храме Покровского монастыря у Покровской Заставы в Москве и после богослужения заявил следующее: «Кому-то, видимо, хотелось испортить и отпуск, и лечение, а, может быть, кто-то распускал эти слухи в преддверии подписания акта о воссоединении Зарубежной церкви с матерью-Церковью, с Московским Патриархатом, в надежде, что они отразятся на его подписании»; «никакого аортошунтирования у меня никогда не было, и не было никакой клинической смерти, иначе бы я сегодня не служил здесь, как и было намечено до отпуска» [2]
3 мая 2007 Владимир Вигилянский заявил, что главный редактор радио «Эхо Москвы» Алексей Венедиктов и главный редактор газеты «Московский комсомолец» Павел Гусев, распространявшие слухи о смерти или тяжкой болезни Патриарха, должны уйти в отставку:
Это не какая-то нелепая ошибка интерпретации, как мы поначалу думали; теперь в произошедшем твердо видны злые намерения. Одной из целей клеветы могло быть желание посеять смуту в отношении подписания Акта о Воссоединении Русской Православной Церкви заграницей с матерью-Русской Православной Церковью. С другой стороны, целью клеветнической пиар-кампании могло быть желание проверить, как будет себя вести Церковь и архиереи, лишившись архипастыря.<...> Я не виню даже сами издания в целом, а виню конкретных людей, стоящих за газетой «Московский комсомолец» и за радио «Эхо Москвы». Это их затея, и, как сказал сегодня сам Святейший Патриарх, это не что иное, как «злая воля людей». Поэтому я считаю, что Алексей Венедиктов, главный редактор «Эха Москвы», и Павел Гусев, главный редактор «Московского комсомольцы» должны подать в отставку. В суд на них мы подавать не будем, но о том, что они нечестные люди и что они поддержали самые гнусные слухи, я заявить не боюсь. В том, что они вообще когда-нибудь извинятся, я сильно сомневаюсь, так как подобные люди считают извинения проявлением слабости. [3]
И г-н Венедиктов, и г-н Гусев отвергли требования о. Владимира Вигилянского. Г-н Венедиктов, в частности, заявил: «в эфире сообщение о Патриархе звучало так: "Как сообщают источники Эхо Москвы, Патриарх находится на лечении в Швейцарии. Наши источники сообщают, что его состояние довольно сложное. Однако источники в Патриархии говорят, что они разговаривали с Патриархом в 13:00 по местному времени и все в порядке»; «пресс-служба Патриархии, которая должна была объяснить это [отсутствие Патриарха] верующим, гражданам, этого не сделала, а теперь пытается переложить свою плохую работу на журналистов, которые искали информацию и получали ее ото всюду, кроме пресс-службы Патриархии» [14]
Г-н Гусев назвал претензии Патриархии "абсолютно безосновательными", добавив: «Прежде всего хочу отметить, что у нас светское государство. И хотя, конечно, у нас свобода слова, и каждый может говорить все, что угодно, негоже официальному представителю церкви заниматься такими вопросами»; «когда эти слухи про Патриарха распространялись по Москве, Патриархия их не опровергала, а просто молчала, тем самым только усугубляя ситуацию. Поэтому ее пресс-секретарь в таком случае сам должен уйти в отставку» [4].
Высказываются предположения, что ложный слух мог быть санкционирован в Кремле [5]; или спровоцирован недовольными процессом воссоединения б. подполковником КГБ Константином Преображенским, Евгением Магеровским и М. Назаровым [6].
3 мая представитель пресс-службы Московской патриархии сообщил, что Патриарх Алексий не будет подавать в суд на СМИ, распространявшие ложные сведения о его болезни и даже смерти [7] Muscovite99 ( talk) 19:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Muscovite99's edit summary for the inserted text that I just undid reads as follows: "Recovered the bit about the dish - it may appear trivial, but quite revealing in many ways (a Sov citizen being allowed to explore parisian resrants on HIS OWN is sth else".
This shows that Muscovite99 is attempting to make a point that goes beyond the source he is citing, which is original research and POV pushing. Frjohnwhiteford ( talk) 05:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I am going to ask Jeepday for a ruling on this point, but want to give everyone a final chance to cite the policies that support their position. I am opposed to the inclusion of this text because it involved original research ( WP:OR), since Muscovite99 is clearly attempting to make a point that is not supported by the source, as is clear from his edit summary when he re-inserted the text in question. It also is contrary to WP:Handling trivia#Stand-alone trivia, which cites as an example of information that is too unimportant to warrant inclusion the following:
I think there is a very clear parallel between Alan Smithee's favorite color, and Patriarch Alexei having a taste for French Onion Soup. Frjohnwhiteford ( talk) 00:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
To address the question of the soup. While only Frjohnwhiteford has posted policies to support their side of the argument, I have looked through the talk above. What I see is an argument that there is not a reference that says "French Onion Soup is his favorite dish... only that he likes it" and a good argument not to include it per WP:Handling trivia#Stand-alone trivia. All parties involved in the discussion have valid perspectives to include or not include the piece, but only policy to not include was offered, the rest was tends to fall under WP:ILIKEIT which is recognized as not a valid argument in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. The edit summary provided when the piece in question was added does not appear to meet the expectations of Use of edit summaries in disputes Editors should beware of what they are communicating in their edit summaries and review Help:Edit summary#Recommendations as appropriate. Jeepday ( talk) 14:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
which you may or may not follow. I find it inconceivable that anyone who knows the soviet system could think that Alexius II was not considerably involved with the KGB, and the question is only to what extent he was, how honest his claims of trying to ameliorate it are, & the degree of moral culpability involved. But this is not provable, and short of events like those in East German is not likely to be. As people can have very strong reasons for thinking one way or the other, they resort to discussions of other aspects of his character, which are at most trivial compared to the essential matters. But I appreciate the cleverness -- however unconstructive -- with which one or another position has been argued here.
I think insinuation raises questions of BLP, and the present version approved by my colleague here is not acceptable. I respect his judgment in these matters at least as much as my own, but we disagree; as I see it he's going by the rules literally, and I by their intentions, and we each think that our method of looking at it is right. I hold to my own position. I think none the worse of him for his. DGG ( talk) 04:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
A few interesting things in this article. Could be interesting. Malick78 ( talk) 09:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
At this point, I would be in favor of removing the NPOV flag from the article. There is more we need to do with the article, but as it stands right now, I think it is about as close to being NPOV as it is likely to get. Frjohnwhiteford ( talk) 23:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Given that awhile back, even Muscovite99 conceded that this controversy was over blown:
And given that what we have in this section has a lot to to do with Sotnikova, and little to do with Patriarch Alexei, I would argue that it should be removed, or moved to an article on Sotnikova. As it currently stands, I think this section gives far too much weight to the controversy, and is contrary to WP:UNDUE. Frjohnwhiteford ( talk) 12:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I would argue that this quote is also given undue weight, and violates WP:UNDUE:
My reasons for taking this position are:
1. The book has been "forthcoming" for nearly a year now. As it is, it is not published, and we don't know what the final form will be.
2. We have Preobrazhensky's characterization of a conversation that was related to him by Oleg Kalugin... and so it is hearsay upon hearsay, and unless it was corroborated by an independent source (i.e., some source other than Preobrazhensky or Kalugin who claimed to have heard similar statements from Patriarch Alexei), it is highly questionable, and poorly sourced. In accordance with WP:Verifiability#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, either better sources are needed, or it should be removed. Frjohnwhiteford ( talk) 12:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I waited a week for a response, and then took the actions I mentioned above. I still have no reply, but Biophys has reverted my edits with only the following edit summary "Restoring perfectly sourced texts. No any reasonable justification to remove these sourced texts was provided at talk page." I would point out that I provided reasons, and so far he has provided no counter arguments. I will ask Jeepday for a ruling, but will give him and anyone else one more chance to actually state a counter argument before I do so. Frjohnwhiteford ( talk) 03:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
It is absolutely essential to present not only the view of those who support homosexual behavior and lifestyles, but the actual views of the Patriarch and Orthodox Church - what happened in the previous versions amounted to an attack on his views without seeking to understand what they actually are. Without an understanding of the historical and current views of traditional Christianity, at the very least the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, one presents an unbalanced straw man that will discredit the view as soon as the inquirer actually comes into contact with what the Orthodox Church's teachings are. Surely even a liberal committed to gay rights can see this. In my edit I left the hostile claims in place and merely added the view of the Orthodox Church, which of course Alexei (Alexius) shares. http://www.oca.org/DOCmarriage.asp?SID=12&ID=26 It is NPOV to stress that there is not a plurality of views on homosexuality in the Orthodox Church; that it has always been the teaching of the Church and has of necessity been supported by all Church leaders at all times and that a Church leader cannot oppose Orthodox Tradition and remain Church leader (it mayy be a shocking revelation to some, but there is no room for personal opinion on doctrine. Attempting to present the opinion as one merely held by Alexius is in fact a partisan point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rusmeister ( talk • contribs) 18:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
The Church's position, which corresponds with Alexius's, is already on the external links page. Here is the appropriate link from an official site in English (the Orthodox Church of America): http://www.oca.org/DOCmarriage.asp?SID=12&ID=26
It is your (incorrect) assumption that his position is one based on bigotry. Insisting on presenting his position as merely an individual view is like insisting that the view of the President of the United States on anarchy must be presented in a like manner - it is absurd and contradicts a fundamental position of the Church. No President can be President if he subscribes to a position contrary to the American Constitution, and no Church leader can be a Church leader if he subscribes to a position that contradicts the Church. If his (personal) position - which for believers makes no difference from the corporate position on dogmatic stands - were somehow different from the dogmatic stand, it would be reasonable to point out the discrepancy, but such a discrepancy does not exist. Conversely, presenting the position as merely the patriarch's personal position is actively false and implies that a Church leader can be a Church leader and disagree on dogmatic issues. If they do disagree on dogmatic issues, they become schismatic and break with the Church. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schism_(religion). Rusmeister ( talk) 18:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Malik. Long time, no see. I gave the reference. there is no requirement from wikipedia that I satisfy every personal request. It is a fact that a Patriarch or Pope may not hold views contrary to the position of his Church and remain Pope or Patriarch. The fact is that in Orthodoxy, a believer MUST conform any personal opinions to accept Church dogma. ( Rusmeister ( talk) 19:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rusmeister ( talk • contribs) 19:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Mali, this is a misunderstanding of the structure of the Orthodox Church. You assume that it is the same as the catholic Church. This is not the case. One of the prime issues that split the two Churches in 1054 was Papal authority, which the 4 Eastern Church Sees (aside from Rome) - Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem - insisted on the collegial nature of Church leadership, which means precisely that one man cannot alter the course of the entire Church. Rome broke with the other Churches and insisted on Papal authority, and thus the Roman Church became capable of this. The other Churches (which remained in communion collectively) did not. The Patriarch of the Russian Church could go bonkers and against the 2,000 year tradition of the Church, but that would not force any other Church leader to follow suit. In such a case he would likely be deposed by the Synod. But the whole scenario is highly improbable. Your references to abuse of power by Catholic Popes are thus irrelevant to the Orthodox Church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rusmeister ( talk • contribs) 06:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
No, the real point is that you are trying to paint it as MERELY his personal opinion. It is a very important point that it is not and that personal opinions within the Orthodox Church may not contradict orthodox doctrine - if a person disagrees, then he rejects the authority of the Church and excludes himself from it. It would be noteworthy if his opinion conflicted with the Church (it would even be newsworthy - but the fact remains that he is required to uphold Orthodox doctrine and is not free to express opinions to the contrary and remain a leader in the Orthodox Church and this is something that MUST be published for any fair understanding of the facts, rather than mere partisan manipulation of them. Rusmeister ( talk) 16:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
No, it is NOT noteworthy, because the Orthodox Church has always condemned homosexual behavior. Your refusal to understand what it means to be Orthodox doesn't make it appropriate to hide this fact from the public. It is indicative of a partial effort on your part to condemn the Patriarch's position rather than attempt to explain or understand it. FTR, I'll get additional references to Church canons stating that no one may be Orthodox and hold dissenting opinions on dogmatic issues - and that includes Alexius. Your insistence that the Church canon laws specifically name him is silly. Might as well publish a law saying that Malik may not exceed the speed limit. We don't have to name every citizen in the law to apply the law to him. Rusmeister ( talk) 06:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, Sotnik. The problem is that some people evidently want to paint the Patriarch as having merely a personal opinion and to be an unreasonable bigot, and are working to erase any evidence that this is and always has been the stand of the Orthodox Church and that no one can possibly be a Church leader and hold a dissenting view.
References have been provided, in English where possible (thus the OCA references - they are part of the same Church). It is NOT original research, please stop calling it that. Rusmeister ( talk) 19:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I've added this tag to this section because half the section is from a site that doesn't even mention the patriarch's views - it is there just because an editor thinks it is relevant - yet there is no direct link from it to this article's topic. As the tag says: "Please help Wikipedia by adding sources whose main topic is "Patriarch Alexius II of Russia"." Quite clearly the vague description of the Church's views is off topic. Malick78 ( talk) 10:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
The fact that you have personally expressed the idea that a) the Patriarch may hold a view that contradicts the Orthodox Church and somehow remain Patriarch b) that you personally need proof to the contrary (which is provided via Church canon, which is Church law, but you deny it because it does not mention the Patriarch by name c) you want it in English on a country, language and culture far removed from your own understandings
does not change what IS. What is available in English concerning a non-English person has been provided. If necessary. I'll provide more sources in any language (most likely Russian. But the position that Alexeius must conform to Church canon law is NPOV, not OR and is from existing websites. You have ignored this again and again and this is proof of a partisan POV effort on your part to paint the Patriarch as a bigot on a personal level while denying him the support of the Church from which he derives his beliefs. The position of the Church is 100% relevant.
You refuse to understand that on matters of church dogma the position of the Orthodox Church IS the position of the individual believer - or he is not Orthodox. You don't understand Orthodoxy and you don't want to. You seem to just want Orthodox Christians to be presented as unreasoning bigots. Please stop. I have followed wikipedia rules and your extensive efforts to paint it otherwise don't change that. Rusmeister ( talk) 19:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
If all truth is relative and in the eye of the beholder, there's no way we can post anything on wikipedia - it's all relative. Fortunately, that is not actually the case. As I said earlier, Malick (and noticed that you did not respond to it) the President of the US may not be president and subscribe to anarchy. You have insisted that proof be provided that the Patriarch's view IS the view of the Church. I have provided such references. You rejected them bcause they don't cite the Patriarch by name. I pointed out that they don't have to and you go back to your original insistence - arguing in a circle. The fact that you see the Patriarch's view as "a stain" reveals POV on your part, and your use of the word "homophobia" - a highly debatable term that assumes fear on the part of the people who oppose it (see criticism of the term on the homophobia page - one might as well say 'alcophobe' to refer to opposition to alcoholism.) - as deeply misunderstanding the Church's position. Since it has been posted here I can only conclude that you do NOT wish to understand it, but see it through the fog of your own POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rusmeister ( talk•
How come this issue isn't addressed? It was very controversial at the time and Alexey was one of the driving forces behind the opposition. Deserves at least a mention. Malick78 ( talk) 14:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Was his father more often referred to as von Rüdiger (German variant) or Ridiger (Russified version)? Did Alexey initially use Latinization Rüdiger or Ridiger when in Estonia? Rüdiger seems to give more google hits, and I've also encountered this version more often, so I presume He was born as Aleksey Rüdiger would be historically more accurate. -- Miacek ( talk) 19:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
The criticism section is currently one third of the article. While criticism is, of course, valid, it is hardly one-third of the reason that makes Alexey notable. The Russian article, while mentioning the criticisms mentioned in the English one (though giving less space to the homosexual critism section - and yes, in Russian it also seems that the controversy was limited to the West), also goes in far more detail about his life. Esn ( talk) 02:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
"Формально владыка Алексий Ридигер стоял у кормила правления Церковью 45 лет. Тогда его и еще нескольких молодых (по церковным меркам) монахов неожиданно расставили на ключевые епископские посты. Расставили досрочно: видимо, Хрущев был недоволен тем, как идет борьба с религией, и поставил тех, кого считал более способными ликвидировать Церковь.
Трагедия жизни владыки Алексия Ридигера в том, что он всегда колебался вместе с линией партии. Приказывали – отлучал отца Глеба Якунина, приказывали – возвращал в Церковь, потом опять приказали – он опять отлучил. "Партия" здесь – прежде всего Лубянка, "орден меченосцев". Именно КГБ с середины 1970-х годов начал активно реализовывать проект "Православие на место коммунизма". Став патриархом в 1990 году, владыка Алексий Ридигер активнейшим образом этот проект довершал. Как и КГБ и Министерство обороны, Московская патриархия при полной поддержке Ельцина собрала силы после кратковременной горбачевской оттепели и перешла в атаку на свободу. Патриарх Алексий II всегда был на шаг впереди Ельцина по дороге к реставрации деспотизма." Biophys ( talk) 05:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Russavia, stop removing forced image sizing throughout Wikipedia. Maybe under your particular settings this doesn't look ugly, but with default settings the pictures now look tiny. Colchicum ( talk) 07:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Who is likely to succeed Alexy? Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad, or Metropolitan Kliment of Kaluga and Borovsk, the latter believed to be the Kremlin's preferred successor? -- Hapsala ( talk) 12:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
This seems very wrong to me. Sure, many uneducated westerners pronounce the Russian name Alek-SEY as "a-LEK-sy", but that's no reason to actually spell it as if this were the correct pronunciation. "Alexy" is completely contrary to any notion of standard transliteration practices. I'm surprised there's been no prior discussion of this, so I won't move it until comments are received. -- JackofOz ( talk) 20:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
This is not a serious discussion since Wikipedia doesn't rely on how different editors might feel about anything but on WP:Reliable sources and WP:Verifiability. Alexy II is the way how it's spelled in mainstream media like BBC, CNN, how it's spelled in press releases by the President of Russia, it's the way it's spelled by the U.S. Ambassador to Russia John Beyrle. and last but not least, the same aplies to Russian Orthodox Church Representation to the European Institutions etc. etc. So there is no need for a discussion about it, Alexy II is the official spelling in English.-- Termer ( talk) 23:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Good night sweet prince..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.126.83.61 ( talk) 07:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
So, he was KGB agent? Had he killed any people? How can a spy become a "Holy Man"? Can we put some more clarification to these seemingly credible allegations confirmed by multiple sources. Bosniak ( talk) 09:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
During the Soviet Union, it was a requirement to at least get some sort of approval from the State to be a bishop. Therefore, collaboration was necessary. This means the KGB probably kept files on him, possibly Alexei was in the KGB, but it doesn't mean he was very active. Most likely, he was KGB on paper, but not in practice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.167.31 ( talk) 03:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
It's totally unremarkable that Alexy held to the doctrines of his church; there's no reason to make a point of this with respect to homosexuality. I've removed the whole passage. Mangoe ( talk) 14:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey Mangoe, I agree with you, but until it is established as undue weight, it's important to demonstrate according to Wikipedia rules that it IS unremarkable; thus, the sourced evidence that it IS and always has been a teaching of the Church and that its basis is not hatred or fear, but on understandings that differ with the ones presented in modern culture today. Misunderstandings can only be corrected by providing true and verifiable information. Failing to do so just leads to the false idea that one can be a member of the Orthodox Church in good standing and disagree with Church dogma (and so some may have tried to incorrectly paint the Patriarch as a fearful, hateful and unreasonable bigot and his view as a merely personal one, which is simply not the case). Rusmeister ( talk) 18:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Mangoe is right. As I indicated in the creating controversy section, you cannot have a leader of an organization who opposes the fundamental principles of his organization. Attempts to accent them here are decidely POV attempts by people who object to the beliefs of the Orthodox Church and cast them as merely a personal stand. Discussion of all of those things really belongs, if anywhere, in the entry on the Orthodox Church. Next we'll have to duplicate all of these stands under every single major Orthodox figure: Patriarch Tikhon condemned homosexual behavior. Patriarch Nikon condemned homosexual behavior. Tsar Nicholas II condemned homosexual behavior. Etc. And the point that the Church condemns the act but NOT the person is deliberately whitewashed as part of a propaganda war. In the meantime, (until the undue weight is confirmed) the only way to stop that is to provide NPOV info on the stand of the Orthodox Church, revealing both that it is not a matter of personal opinion and that the act is clearly distinguished from the person. And the same principle applies to everything else that is not personal opinion on the part of the Patriarch (stand on the Catholic Church, religious oppression, etc). But that whole section should ultimately be removed. Rusmeister ( talk) 01:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Rest in Peace Man. Respect. -- Whatayunoe ( talk) 03:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
My problem with this isn't so much that it is mentioned at all, but that it is is being made out as a major controversy about Alexy. Perhaps the best solution is a much more abbreviated mention of his opposition under " Career". Mangoe ( talk) 16:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Also, the entire section is essentially one long quote, perhaps we should have a quote from a gay-rights activist, or at least anyone with a different view than him on the matter. It's not very balanced right now. 205.155.5.168 ( talk) 19:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
It's a lot better now, thank you 205.155.5.63 ( talk) 19:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to say every single english spelling of the man's name? If we're calling him Alexy then why is it at all relevant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.155.5.168 ( talk) 19:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree, but is it really neccesary for them to be in the first paragraph? No. 205.155.5.63 ( talk) 19:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I noted the date format inconsistency here.
Some of it uses:
MM DD, YYYY
DDth MM YYYY
DD MM YYYY
I don't know the date format that is being used in Russia, so I leave this for russians to decide.
w_tanoto (
talk)
16:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
This article is about Patriarch Alexei, not about Metropolitan Kyrill. Frjohnwhiteford ( talk) 01:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Another objectionable example of POV pushing is the following:
"The Moscow Patriarchate is known to have at least once officially and explicitly denied that Patriarch Alexy was a recruited KGB agent[48], to which Keston Institute responded: "Keston News Service has reviewed all the available documentary evidence from the various archives of the KGB, and concluded that long- standing allegations that the Patriarch and other senior bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church collaborated with the KGB are based on fact."
This follows a section in which all the accusations were given full vent, and this began the section that had bee providing the other side of the story, and yet now we have Muscovite99 coopting this section too. Keston's opinions were already noted. By inserting this reply, and changing the introductory statement to erroneously suggest that the MP had only denied the accusations once, when three citations are noted is POV pushing. Frjohnwhiteford ( talk) 02:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
There are thousands of comments in the press in the wake of Patriarch Alexei's repose. There is no reason why this particular quote from the BBC should be put in the article summary, other than that it suits the POV of the editor who inserted it:
This quote adds no new information that was not already in the article, and including in the summary gives it undue weight, thus violating WP:UNDUE. This BBC article offers no documentation to substantiate its assertions, and in fact lifted a quote from this article on Wikipedia. Frjohnwhiteford ( talk) 02:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the entire section as follows:
On the day of his death the BBC said: "Patriarch Alexiy II had an extraordinary career, in which he switched from suppressing the Russian Orthodox Church to being its champion. A favourite of the KGB, he was promoted rapidly through the Church hierarchy, doing the Kremlin's bidding at a time when dissident priests were thrown into jail. As the Church's effective foreign minister, he helped cover up the repression of Russian Christians, defending the Soviet system to the outside world. He rose quickly through the ranks, being elected head of the Russian Orthodox Church at a crucial time, in 1990, with the Soviet Union on the path to collapse. Surprisingly, perhaps, he seized the moment, and went on to oversee the revival and flowering of the Church." [8]
People need to read WP:LEAD before getting involved in articles. The lead is supposed to give a very brief overview of the article, it isn't supposed to paint a certain POV. Apart from being a rip-off of BBC materials, simply pasting quotes of this and that is NOT how an encyclopaedia works. The lack of ability to write coherrent prose is not an excuse plastering quotes all over the place, particularly when they are POV quotes right in the lead of the article. -- Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 11:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I think the easiest path is to stick to facts and avoid judgements and opinions in the article. Dpktnyfzgjkjcf ( talk) 22:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I have moved the following quote from the article lead to here, as it does not belong in the lead to the article.
Russia's Prime-minister Vladimir Putin said Patriarch Alexy II had been a prominent figure in the history of the Russian Orthodox Church, as well as a great statesman. [9]
They may belong in the article, but they most certainly do not belong in the lead. -- Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 19:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)